# Kline's framework hypothesis?



## jwright82 (Oct 1, 2017)

I've been studying this lately and it seems attractive, y'alls thoughts?


----------



## Guido's Brother (Oct 1, 2017)

If you find it attractive, do yourself a favour and read Paulin Bedard's book, In Six Days God Created. It's a good critique. You might also want to read his excellent article, Was Adam Created at the End of the World?


----------



## timfost (Oct 2, 2017)

I'd love to write more, but I don't have time now. Some considerations:

1. Kline offers no actual interpretation as to a time frame, he only offers doubt to the young earth one.

2. He makes confuses the days severely in Genesis 2.

3. He opens the door to deny our first parents and original sin.

I can write a more detailed critique when I have more time if you'd like, but these should get you started.

https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/whats-wrong-with-the-framework-hypothesis/

Also some helpful resources here:

https://reformedbooksonline.com/topics/topics-by-subject/creation/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Justified (Oct 2, 2017)

Of course, the framework theory is true as far as it goes, but when it _infers _from the fact that there is a literary structure in Genesis 1 that the whole account is not historical, literal, or what have you, it goes off the deep end. It's potentially a slippery slope for interpreting the rest of the Bible if one is consistent. Is the Gospel John not history? It has a very detailed literary structure.

All of this to say, if you find Kline or whoever thoroughly convincing you of the literary structure of Genesis 1-- which, spoiler alert, is there-- don't buy into the fact that it follows that it is not history. It's such a bad argument.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 2, 2017)

Thanks for the replies.


----------



## Douglas P. (Oct 2, 2017)

I really like Kline's insights on Genesis. I think it gets much closer to an ANE understanding of the text, or maybe better put, what an ANE reader/hearer of the text would have understood the text to mean. Much more focused on purpose and function of the creation as opposed to material creation, the ladder being a more foreign concept to an ANE audience.

Ultimately, if you're like me, and God's general revelation is clear that the cosmos were not created in 6 literal 24 hours days some 6,000 years ago, and instead the evidence points to a creation billions of year ago, then having an interpretation of special revelation contradict that of general revelation is problematic.

You might also be interested in guys like
John Walton




and
Michael Heiser




for their insights into the ANE world and cosmology. Not giving a wholesale endorsement of all their ideas, but I think the information they bring to the table is valuable.

Reactions: Sad 4


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 2, 2017)

Douglas Padgett said:


> I really like Kline's insights on Genesis. I think it gets much closer to an ANE understanding of the text, or maybe better put, what an ANE reader/hearer of the text would have understood the text to mean. Much more focused on purpose and function of the creation as opposed to material creation, the ladder being a more foreign concept to an ANE audience.
> 
> Ultimately, if you're like me, and God's general revelation is clear that the cosmos were not created in 6 literal 24 hours days some 6,000 years ago, and instead the evidence points to a creation billions of year ago, then having an interpretation of special revelation contradict that of general revelation is problematic.
> 
> ...


I would highly recommend a reading of Noel Weeks on the issue of Walton, or even Heidel who wrote on these issues 50 years ago. Weeks takes him to task and destroys his thesis. He is dare I say, a _real ANE and OT scholar unlike how Walton has seemed to fancy himself. I hope that is not slander but Weeks makes you wonder in his essay. Walton has come out with a new book, that, while not questioning the conquest basically says they did not kill the inhabitants of the cities they took even though the text says so due his overriding view that there was a monolithic ANE hive mind.
As for the framework hypothesis EJ Young blows it out of the water here.
_

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 2, 2017)

V. Philips Long's _Art of Biblical History_ is useful for showing how artistry does not entail ahistoricity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 2, 2017)

jwright82 said:


> I've been studying this lately and it seems attractive, y'alls thoughts?


He denies the literal 6 days, the young age of creation, and that Adam and Ever were special creations of God, so what is so attarctive to you about his views?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 2, 2017)

Douglas Padgett said:


> I really like Kline's insights on Genesis. I think it gets much closer to an ANE understanding of the text, or maybe better put, what an ANE reader/hearer of the text would have understood the text to mean. Much more focused on purpose and function of the creation as opposed to material creation, the ladder being a more foreign concept to an ANE audience.
> 
> Ultimately, if you're like me, and God's general revelation is clear that the cosmos were not created in 6 literal 24 hours days some 6,000 years ago, and instead the evidence points to a creation billions of year ago, then having an interpretation of special revelation contradict that of general revelation is problematic.
> 
> ...


To get to those conclusions though regarding creation and Genesis, one would have to disregard what Jesus and Paul themselves viewed as genesis meaning, and would not want to do that.
Please remember that there are really little scientific facts to support an evolutionary viewpoint of genesis and Creation, as much of that "factual data" has and can be refuted well by those viewing this from viewpoint of a literal aspect to genesis.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 2, 2017)

Justified said:


> Of course, the framework theory is true as far as it goes, but when it _infers _from the fact that there is a literary structure in Genesis 1 that the whole account is not historical, literal, or what have you, it goes off the deep end. It's potentially a slippery slope for interpreting the rest of the Bible if one is consistent. Is the Gospel John not history? It has a very detailed literary structure.
> 
> All of this to say, if you find Kline or whoever thoroughly convincing you of the literary structure of Genesis 1-- which, spoiler alert, is there-- don't buy into the fact that it follows that it is not history. It's such a bad argument.


Jesus Himself saw Genesis as recording factual, real time historical events to us, so would go with Him.


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> He denies the literal 6 days, the young age of creation, and that Adam and Ever were special creations of God, so what is so attarctive to you about his views?


 Well i don't know he would say they were not special creations, i'm not sure about that. Or that they aren't historical. His only point seems to be the structure and literature of genesis.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 2, 2017)

jwright82 said:


> Well i don't know he would say they were not special creations, i'm not sure about that. Or that they aren't historical. His only point seems to be the structure and literature of genesis.


True, but he then uses that viewpoint to lay some serious doubt as to us being able to take anything as being historical true in genesis.


----------



## Justified (Oct 2, 2017)

What motivates the thinking of "literary, therefore not historical" is non-Christian thinking. It assumes a secular presupposition that history is necessarily without purpose, structure, or meaning.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2017)

I never saw the problem with seeing literary patterns but also seeing it happen historically.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 2, 2017)

From what i understand he only applies it to Genesis 1 and 2. If he does apply that to all of Genesis than i would disagree with. If he does that than someone refer me so I can learn. I also do question the mindset of literal vs mythical or fictional. I don't think that gets to the heart of what he meant but I'm no expert on him. I was just curious what people thought.


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> True, but he then uses that viewpoint to lay some serious doubt as to us being able to take anything as being historical true in genesis.


To be fair to Kline he affirmed a literal Adam and Eve who did not evolve. He just pointed out what he saw as some form of parallelism between the days in Genesis one and took that first chapter as not being literal straightforward days.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Douglas P. (Oct 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> and that Adam and Ever were special creations of God



To be fair to Kline, he adamantly denies this in his lecture series here (http://www.amoskeagchurch.org/sermons/?preacher=12&series=23) He does so in the context of evolution where he plainly states that Adam and Eve were special creations of God.


----------



## Douglas P. (Oct 2, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> I would highly recommend a reading of Noel Weeks on the issue of Walton, or even Heidel who wrote on these issues 50 years ago. Weeks takes him to task and destroys his thesis. He is dare I say, a _real ANE and OT scholar unlike how Walton has seemed to fancy himself. I hope that is not slander but Weeks makes you wonder in his essay. Walton has come out with a new book, that, while not questioning the conquest basically says they did not kill the inhabitants of the cities they took even though the text says so due his overriding view that there was a monolithic ANE hive mind.
> As for the framework hypothesis EJ Young blows it out of the water here._



Thanks for these, I'll peruse them and see if anything sticks out. When I read Walton I found him more novel and interesting than anything. I was much more persuaded by Heiser's approach, in the sense of, if you're going to take biblical cosmology literally than you have to take it all literally, (and for that mater biblical biology, physiology etc)


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 2, 2017)

Douglas Padgett said:


> To be fair to Kline, he adamantly denies this in his lecture series here (http://www.amoskeagchurch.org/sermons/?preacher=12&series=23) He does so in the context of evolution where he plainly states that Adam and Eve were special creations of God.


Does he still though uphold an evolutionary viewpoint regarding Genesis overall?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 2, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> To be fair to Kline he affirmed a literal Adam and Eve who did not evolve. He just pointed out what he saw as some form of parallelism between the days in Genesis one and took that first chapter as not being literal straightforward days.


How does he view creation of the universe and life directly by God though?


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> How does he view creation of the universe and life directly by God though?


That God created it? I am not sure what you are asking. I am merely stating he didn't believe that the order in Genesis 1 was strictly sequential due to what he saw as literary conventions that he felt made it unlikely.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 2, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> That God created it? I am not sure what you are asking. I am merely stating he didn't believe that the order in Genesis 1 was strictly sequential due to what he saw as literary conventions that he felt made it unlikely.


He seems to be viewing Genesis almost like wgat some called a Myth, which is not really historical true, but a way of saying things to make sense to us?


----------



## Jack K (Oct 2, 2017)

I'm always glad to see any scholar affirm the truth of Scripture and still take scientific study seriously. The church could use more of that.

I spent last week substitute teaching in our local Christian school, where I had an eighth grader tell me she refuses to be a Christian because Christians reject science. In response, I began by telling her that, sadly, some Christians do reject science. But that's not what Christians _should_ do.

I told her Christians believe God has spoken truthfully in the Bible, and we _also_ believe he has created a world we can learn from and understand (call this science, or general revelation). A good Christian scholar understands that because these both come from God, they both must agree. So when we read the Bible and it seems to be saying one thing, and then we look at the world and it seems to be saying something very different, we know we must be doing either our Bible reading or our science wrongly. So we look again at both. We reexamine our Bible reading. We reexamine our science. Then we reexamine our reexaminations. We keep looking for a way to reconcile what we're learning, because we know our study often is faulty but our God always is true. 

In the end, I told her, Christians should give the deciding weight to what we read in the Bible. But properly done, science is a helpful discipline that causes us to ask good questions about our Bible reading. My student seemed to appreciate that. I don't think she'd heard it from many of the believers in her circle.

The idea that science and the Bible are at odds is an unbiblical idea! For this reason, I tend to appreciate any scholar who's willing to examine a text more thoroughly and suggest things it might be saying even though his suggestions may be condemned for appearing to side with science.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> He seems to be viewing Genesis almost like wgat some called a Myth, which is not really historical true, but a way of saying things to make sense to us?



That is not what Kline is saying. I disagree with Kline on some really big areas, but he is not saying Genesis is myth.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 2, 2017)

Science studies normal/ordinary providence. Things that can be tested again and again coming to the same results. The creation account and Genesis 1 is not normal/ordinary providence. It is extra-ordinary providence. It is miracle. Can science study or determine or in any way figure out creation? No. There’s only one source that helps us understand creation and that is God’s word. Specifically, Genesis 1. Now while there are some common looking literary themes in Genesis 1. It is historical, fact by fact sequential writing. There is no other way to read/interpret it unless one denies the wording of the passage and the rest of the Scripture that supports it.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## jwithnell (Oct 2, 2017)

An understanding of an older date for the earth by no means equals acceptance of macro evolution.

Jack, thank you for your thoughtful response to that student!


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Oct 2, 2017)

My question to Old earth adherents pertains to the idea/role of death. If death occurred prior to Adam and Eve then what would be the big deal in the threat that "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die"? It would be business as usual. Yet throughout the Bible death is looked at as something bad, and even treated as unnatural. Its tragic! Death is a result of the Fall, it is judgment for Adam's and our sin. "Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, *and thus death spread to all men*, because all sinned".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Justified (Oct 2, 2017)

"Science" is not identical with the scientific establishment or the establishment's current view on something.


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 3, 2017)

I don't know i go with my denomination's take on it. I'm a macro guy when it comes to the beginning and end of the bible, what's the big picture 
1. God created Adam and Eve specially and without evolution
2. God and Christ will return to judge the living and the dead
The details don't bother me. I do appreciate the comments though, I just wanted see what people thought.


----------



## timfost (Oct 3, 2017)

James,

Here are some thoughts on the FH.

Kline says:

“To rebut the literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation week propounded by the young-earth theorists is a central concern of this article. At the same time, the exegetical evidence adduced also refutes the harmonistic day-age view. The conclusion is that as far as the time frame is concerned, with respect to both the duration and sequence of events, *the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins*.” (_Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmology_)

The most immediate problem is that Kline sought to lift science from the "constraints" of the bible. If we truly "walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7), it is God's word _should_ constrain our science. 

Science? Science is based in observation. The divine voice has said to man in history "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell _Me,_ if you have understanding" (Job 38:4). The fact of the matter is that scientists cannot observe the beginning. If scientists build off of observations of earlier scientists, why not build our science off of the only One who actually observed creation? Scientific theory is not observable, and can only guess based on unknown variables what _may_ have occured. 

There is absolutely a correlation between days one and four, two and five, three and six. After God created the world, He inhabited the world he created. This sequence is something you would expect in a chronological history. Try rearranging the days, and you end up with impossibilities. Kline's triad is a creative attempt to deny what is plain about the text.

We should also look at Genesis 2:4:

_"This is_ the *history* of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens..." (NKJV)

This Hebrew word for "history" (תּוֹלְדוֹת) is translated in the NKJV as genealogy(ies), generations, history, birth or records. Genealogies are by necessity chronologial. תּוֹלְדוֹת is also used in Gen. 37:2 to describe the chronology of events that lead Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery. Any way we cut it, תּוֹלְדוֹת is used for literal and chronological events.

Kline argues that natural processes were taking place prior to the end of creation. He argues extensively from Gen. 2:5 about this. If my memory serves me correctly, he uses this passage to prove that day three (?) is not a literal day but an extended period of time. From an honest reading, though, Gen. 2 is a description of day 6-- the creation of man. But all that aside, if Gen. 1 is not literal, and Gen. 2's description of man's creation is non-literal, what basis do we have to argue that Adam and Eve are in fact literal?

If this is not enough, is it enough that the inspired writers understood these events as literal? (See Ex. 20:11, Psalm 33:8-9, Matt. 19:4-5, Rom. 5:12-21, 1 Cor. 11:9, 15:45-49, 2 Cor. 4:6a, 2 Pet. 3:4-6.) Even if Kline understood Adam and Eve to be literal, such influence has permeated many churches, casting doubts over many doctrinally vital truths. The late Edwin Walhout of the CRC said: 

“Traditionally we’ve been taught that Adam and Eve were the first human pair, Adam made out of dust and Eve from one of Adam’s ribs. But sustaining this doctrine is extremely difficult when we take seriously the human race as we know it today sharing ancestry with other primates such as chimpanzees. Where in the slow evolution of homo erectus and homo habilis and homo sapiens do Adam and Eve fit? We will have to find a better way of understanding what Genesis tells us about Adam and Eve, one that does justice to Genesis and also to what the Bible teaches about their connection to Jesus.”

Further:

“Original Sin- According to this doctrine, the fall of Adam and Eve is an actual historical event that plunged the entire human race into sin. Ever since, both the guilt of sin and the pollution of sin, theologically speaking, have been passed on from parent to child in such a way that we all come into the world tainted by them. We say that our children are conceived and born in sin. But if Adam and Eve are not understood as real historical people, then there can hardly be an inheritance of sinfulness from parent to child all the way back to Adam—in which case the entire doctrine of original sin falls by the wayside. We will have to find a better way of understanding not only what sin is but its effect on the population in general—a way that does justice both to the Bible and to science and that helps us understand how sin works in our own lives under God.”

It seems that it's only a matter of time before Christianity becomes consistent with this position and adopts the views of Rev. Walhout if we adopt Kline's framework with its implications.

G. I. Williamson puts it well:

“When I was a seminary student I became concerned to understand what well-known neo-orthodox theologians were saying. So I requested a special class for this since none was being offered at that time. Professor Addison Leitch agreed to provide this by assigning me reading in theologians such as Emil Brunner and Karl Barth. Well, I did my assigned reading faithfully, and then reported to Dr. Leitch. I told him it gave me a headache because these men didn’t make sense in what they were saying. They talked about things being supra-historical, and about people being both elect and non-elect. And then I would read the straight-forward teaching of Calvin (and other great Reformers). I could understand them. They did make sense."

Instead of getting wrapped all up in the complicated arguments of Kline and others, why not simply believe the simple narrative God gave us?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 3, 2017)

timfost said:


> James,
> 
> Here are some thoughts on the FH.
> 
> ...


Good points, thank you. I think i would have to understand what you mean by literally, if it means evolution or Adam and Eve and didn't historicaly exist than no! But can't he mean something else?


----------



## bookslover (Oct 3, 2017)

An OPC minister found himself being shown the door by his presbytery because he's a Kline adherent. He's a ruling elder in the PCA now.


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 3, 2017)

bookslover said:


> An OPC minister found himself being shown the door by his presbytery because he's a Kline adherent. He's a ruling elder in the PCA now.


Wow! They just did a study report on some of Kline's thinking.


----------



## Jack K (Oct 3, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> Science studies normal/ordinary providence. Things that can be tested again and again coming to the same results. The creation account and Genesis 1 is not normal/ordinary providence. It is extra-ordinary providence. It is miracle. Can science study or determine or in any way figure out creation? No.



But Genesis does show us that creation, even if a one-time and special event, is orderly. There's a pattern to the days, creation "according to its kind," and the making of man in God's image. So it is fair to expect that, even with the creation and our human minds damaged by sin, we might be able to examine the creation and see some order that helps us further understand those first days.

This doesn't mean we should elevate those efforts above our reading of Scripture. On the contrary, it is the witness of Scripture that gives us confidence to undertake our scientific endeavors in the first place. But it may be an overstatement to say science cannot in any way figure out creation, the way we would say science cannot figure out the gospel.

I think it's difficult to maintain that Scripture is infallible and still argue for an old earth, so I favor a young earth view. But surely there are still _some ways_ in which our understanding also can be furthered by examining the world God has made, if indeed he made it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 3, 2017)

Jack K said:


> But Genesis does show us that creation, even if a one-time and special event, is orderly. There's a pattern to the days, creation "according to its kind," and the making of man in God's image. So it is fair to expect that, even with the creation and our human minds damaged by sin, we might be able to examine the creation and see some order that helps us further understand those first days.
> 
> This doesn't mean we should elevate those efforts above our reading of Scripture. On the contrary, it is the witness of Scripture that gives us confidence to undertake our scientific endeavors in the first place. But it may be an overstatement to say science cannot in any way figure out creation, the way we would say science cannot figure out the gospel.
> 
> I think it's difficult to maintain that Scripture is infallible and still argue for an old earth, so I favor a young earth view. But surely there are still _some ways_ in which our understanding also can be furthered by examining the world God has made, if indeed he made it.


Thats good. Like I said, I don't have a dog in this race. I just wanted to see what people thought. I lean towards Kline but don't really care because I like the big picture.


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 3, 2017)

Jack K said:


> So it is fair to expect that, even with the creation and our human minds damaged by sin, we might be able to examine the creation and see some order that helps us further understand those first days.


From an epistemological perspective, I don't see how this can be true (perhaps you can give an example of what you have in mind?). It is not a matter of being fallen, but of being finite. Science is too limited, and the information we have been given in Genesis is too limited to apply present knowledge of science to parts of the creation account with any confidence. When it comes to miracles, we simply cannot know what things are or are not the case, so applying scientific knowledge to the account can never give an answer anywhere near certainty or high probability.

As an example, take the creation of the stars on Day 4. Were they instantaneously made in a mature state? If they were, were the laws of physics the exact same then as they are now? How did the light from the stars reach the earth, and what information did it contain? Were the stars created in a rapidly mature manner? What was the distribution of the stars and galaxies at that time? Was space expanding, and if so, was it uniform, and what was its rate? Did the laws of gravity operate yet, or were they later; certainly, the creation of the sun would naturally change the gravitational pattern in the vicinity of the earth, but was there something miraculous going on to delay that, or was there a miraculous gravity occuring before the creation so that its creation had no gravitational effect? Did supernovae and black holes exist yet, or were they "stricken" as a result of the Fall? What was earth's rotation speed, and what were its conditions on Day 4 (temperature, weather, climate, etc.)?

There is too little data. The best that science can offer is an apologetic, e.g., those who claim light cannot exist without the sun can be shown that our current science says it can; but was the light on Day 1 created by E&M excitations? Or was it a miraculous light temporarily put in place until the stars were made to govern it? Or was it the glory of the Lord? Again, too many unanswered questions to say anything definite.



jwright82 said:


> Thats good. Like I said, I don't have a dog in this race. I just wanted to see what people thought. I lean towards Kline but don't really care because I like the big picture.


The details are in fact important, at the very least because God willed for us to know them. Indeed, the NT authors take the details seriously and historically, e.g., Peter on calling light out of darkness. I wish I had time to try and show how denial of various details led to larger than expected theological problems, but I will have to leave it there (especially seeing how this is not the thread's purpose).

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 3, 2017)

Jack K said:


> we might be able to examine the creation and see some order that helps us further understand those first days.



What do you mean by "see some *order *that helps us further *understand those first days*."?


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 3, 2017)

Afterthought said:


> From an epistemological perspective, I don't see how this can be true (perhaps you can give an example of what you have in mind). It is not a matter of being fallen, but of being finite. Science is too limited, and the information we have been given in Genesis is too limited to apply present knowledge of science to parts of the creation account with any confidence. When it comes to miracles, we simply cannot know what things are or are not the case, so applying scientific knowledge to the account can never give an answer anywhere near certainty or high probability.
> 
> As an example, take the creation of the stars on Day 4. Were they instantaneously made in a mature state? If they were, were the laws of physics the exact same then as they are now? How did the light from the stars reach the earth, and what information did it contain? Were the stars created in a rapidly mature manner? What was the distribution of the stars and galaxies at that time? Was space expanding, and if so, was it uniform, and what was its rate? Did the laws of gravity operate yet, or were they later; certainly, the creation of the sun would naturally change the gravitational pattern in the vicinity of the earth, but was their something miraculous going on to delay that, or was their a miraculous gravity occuring before the creation so that its creation had no gravitational effect? Did supernovae and black holes exist yet, or were they "stricken" as a result of the Fall? What was earth's rotation speed, and what were its conditions on Day 4 (temperature, weather, climate, etc.)?
> 
> ...





Afterthought said:


> From an epistemological perspective, I don't see how this can be true (perhaps you can give an example of what you have in mind). It is not a matter of being fallen, but of being finite. Science is too limited, and the information we have been given in Genesis is too limited to apply present knowledge of science to parts of the creation account with any confidence. When it comes to miracles, we simply cannot know what things are or are not the case, so applying scientific knowledge to the account can never give an answer anywhere near certainty or high probability.
> 
> As an example, take the creation of the stars on Day 4. Were they instantaneously made in a mature state? If they were, were the laws of physics the exact same then as they are now? How did the light from the stars reach the earth, and what information did it contain? Were the stars created in a rapidly mature manner? What was the distribution of the stars and galaxies at that time? Was space expanding, and if so, was it uniform, and what was its rate? Did the laws of gravity operate yet, or were they later; certainly, the creation of the sun would naturally change the gravitational pattern in the vicinity of the earth, but was their something miraculous going on to delay that, or was their a miraculous gravity occuring before the creation so that its creation had no gravitational effect? Did supernovae and black holes exist yet, or were they "stricken" as a result of the Fall? What was earth's rotation speed, and what were its conditions on Day 4 (temperature, weather, climate, etc.)?
> 
> ...


I don't think Kline ever meant they weren't historical, in the big picture, (and neither do I). Its the dichotomy between a "literal", whatever that means, or "mythical or figurative", whatever that means, way of looking at it that I dislike. Kline, it seems to me, offered a third way between them. Again i side with my denomination on this. But thanks.


----------



## jwithnell (Oct 3, 2017)

"Macro" is used in distinction to micro-evolution, which would better be called adaption. There's not a shred of scientific evidence out there that shows one species evolved into another. The best of scientists will at least suggest that "we should find ..." The worst write as though macro-evolution were established fact. 

That individuals within a species adapt to changes can be demonstrated with some certainty. That God could create something that could then change to deal with a shift, say, in food availability is astonishing.


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 3, 2017)

jwithnell said:


> "Macro" is used in distinction to micro-evolution, which would better be called adaption. There's not a shred of scientific evidence out there that shows one species evolved into another. The best of scientists will at least suggest that "we should find ..." The worst write as though macro-evolution were established fact.
> 
> That individuals within a species adapt to changes can be demonstrated with some certainty. That God could create something that could then change to deal with a shift, say, in food availability is astonishing.


Great post, thank you!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 3, 2017)

My main argument here is, which i haven't given (my problem), is maybe the FH has something to teach us?


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 3, 2017)

jwright82 said:


> My main argument here is, which i haven't given (my problem), is maybe the FH has something to teach us?



How then would you define the FH? What do you think it has to teach us?


----------



## timfost (Oct 3, 2017)

jwright82 said:


> My main argument here is, which i haven't given (my problem), is maybe the FH has something to teach us?



As in all things we study, a strong antithesis should help us better understand our thesis. I have found Kline valuable in defending a young earth since he eloquently challenges it.

As for what it has to teach us, I'm not sure how to answer. I feel like the best lesson I learned from Kline is what we _should not _teach concerning Genesis 1-2. I believe Kline's thought is modern-day syncretism with the Christian religion and the religion of Godless science. (Please note I am pro-science, but God and His Word should be at the center of it. I hesitate to call theories of origins contra scripture scientific.)


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 3, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> How then would you define the FH? What do you think it has to teach us?


Basically i would say that Kline gives us third way to look at it. Maybe God decided to reveal himself in this way. As long as we admit that Adam was real and historical. Which Kline affirmed.


----------



## timfost (Oct 3, 2017)

jwright82 said:


> Basically i would say that Kline gives us third way to look at it. Maybe God decided to reveal himself in this way. As long as we admit that Adam was real and historical. Which Kline affirmed.



Kline created a... framework... for denying Adam and Eve.


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 3, 2017)

timfost said:


> As in all things we study, a strong antithesis should help us better understand our thesis. I have found Kline valuable in defending a young earth since he eloquently challenges it.
> 
> As for what it has to teach us, I'm not sure how to answer. I feel like the best lesson I learned from Kline is what we _should not _teach concerning Genesis 1-2. I believe Kline's thought is modern-day syncretism with the Christian religion and the religion of Godless science. (Please note I am pro-science, but God and His Word should be at the center of it. I hesitate to call theories of origins contra scripture scientific.)


I'm glad but why not agree with him?


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 3, 2017)

timfost said:


> Kline created a... framework... for denying Adam and Eve.


I don't agree with an either or situation.


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 3, 2017)

jwright82 said:


> I'm glad but why not agree with him?


It makes sense.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 3, 2017)

jwright82 said:


> Basically i would say that Kline gives us third way to look at it. Maybe God decided to reveal himself in this way. As long as we admit that Adam was real and historical. Which Kline affirmed.



James you failed to answer, what is the FH as you understand it?


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 3, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> James you failed to answer, what is the FH as you understand it?


Fair enough. The literary discretions between Gen 1 and 2 imply a literary understanding of those books.


----------



## timfost (Oct 3, 2017)

jwright82 said:


> I'm glad but why not agree with him?



Because it is bad exegesis. Did you read post #31?


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 3, 2017)

jwright82 said:


> The literary discretions between Gen 1 and 2 imply a literary understanding of those books.



What does that mean, specifically "a literary understanding" in the context you are using it? Also, are you suggesting that Genesis 1 and 2 are different books?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 4, 2017)

Jack K said:


> I'm always glad to see any scholar affirm the truth of Scripture and still take scientific study seriously. The church could use more of that.
> 
> I spent last week substitute teaching in our local Christian school, where I had an eighth grader tell me she refuses to be a Christian because Christians reject science. In response, I began by telling her that, sadly, some Christians do reject science. But that's not what Christians _should_ do.
> 
> ...


The scriptures are the inspired revelation from God to us, so any so called scientific fact has to be in agreement with the scriptures, and the literal 6 days of Genesis, Adam and Eve a special creation of God, that he created all life and did not need to use any evolutionary process, and that there was a real fall event would have to be included in any scientific facts.
What happened was that some saw evolution as being proven true, and so had to accommodate the Bible to fit that view, and not having science forced to agree with the scriptures themselves.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 4, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That is not what Kline is saying. I disagree with Kline on some really big areas, but he is not saying Genesis is myth.


he would affirm than that Genesis recorded down to us true historical facts?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 4, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> Science studies normal/ordinary providence. Things that can be tested again and again coming to the same results. The creation account and Genesis 1 is not normal/ordinary providence. It is extra-ordinary providence. It is miracle. Can science study or determine or in any way figure out creation? No. There’s only one source that helps us understand creation and that is God’s word. Specifically, Genesis 1. Now while there are some common looking literary themes in Genesis 1. It is historical, fact by fact sequential writing. There is no other way to read/interpret it unless one denies the wording of the passage and the rest of the Scripture that supports it.


The Lord Jesus Himself affirmed its historical truth to us.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 4, 2017)

jwithnell said:


> An understanding of an older date for the earth by no means equals acceptance of macro evolution.
> 
> Jack, thank you for your thoughtful response to that student!


There is no evidence/facts to support that macro evolution has ever happened in the fossil records.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 4, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> he would affirm than that Genesis recorded down to us true historical facts?



Yes, though he wouldn't commit to 6/24 hour days.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 4, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Yes, though he wouldn't commit to 6/24 hour days.


Does he hold to a Theistic evolution view?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 4, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Does he hold to a Theistic evolution view?



No


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 4, 2017)

Days 1 and 4 describe the same event, from different perspectives. Day 7 never ends, see Hebrews 4 i believe? Indicating a non literal, again whatever that means, perspectival take in human words on what happened. And no neither Kline nor I affirm theistic evolution. Practicality speaking we don't have to argue with scientists anymore about that, and only that.


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 4, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The Lord Jesus Himself affirmed its historical truth to us.


Ok, where? But more importantly how does FH deny historical truth? My real problem is with a literal, whatever that means, verses a mythological, again whatever that means, hermeneutics? How does not taking Genesis 1 and 2 as a complete picture but containing facts be bad?


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 4, 2017)

For clarification I reject the dichotomy between literal and mythology, like those are our only two choices. Think about any good history book you've read, they are a mixture of fact and perspective, usually in a good literary style. Hopefully.


----------



## Jack K (Oct 4, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The scriptures are the inspired revelation from God to us, so any so called scientific fact has to be in agreement with the scriptures, and the literal 6 days of Genesis, Adam and Eve a special creation of God, that he created all life and did not need to use any evolutionary process, and that there was a real fall event would have to be included in any scientific facts.
> What happened was that some saw evolution as being proven true, and so had to accommodate the Bible to fit that view, and not having science forced to agree with the scriptures themselves.



The whole point of what I'm saying is that, yes, what is learned from science must be in agreement with what is revealed in Scripture. But as is often the case with theology, there is not just one way to err. Those who deny the truth of Scripture in order to embrace the current theories of science surely make a grave error. But it is also an error (though probably not as serious) to overreact and defensively discard any insight whatsoever from scientific study. Christians, precisely because we know God has created an orderly world that declares his glory, should be eager scientists.

We should be careful never to buy into the secular storyline that religion and science are enemies and that the Bible and science disagree. I admit it's easy, when we see people mocking the Bible as worthless in an age of modern science, to respond by turning around and saying science is worthless. But if we do this we are embracing their storyline, not the Bible's. I understand the importance of not giving ground on the truth of Scripture. But in the process we should not forget what the Bible says about general revelation: observed rightly, it _can_ help us understand and appreciate some things about God.

So if I see a scholar trying to take both the Bible and science seriously, I appreciate the effort and applaud his purpose, even if I end up doubting that the solution he reached is the correct solution.

As for the premise that the created world cannot possibly tell us anything about the creation process, I have a difficult time squaring that with Romans 1:19f. That premise feels like an argument designed to discredit the very idea of science, which only feeds the secular storyline.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 4, 2017)

Jack K said:


> The whole point of what I'm saying is that, yes, what is learned from science must be in agreement with what is revealed in Scripture. But as is often the case with theology, there is not just one way to err. Those who deny the truth of Scripture in order to embrace the current theories of science surely make a grave error. But it is also an error (though probably not as serious) to overreact and defensively discard any insight whatsoever from scientific study. Christians, precisely because we know God has created an orderly world that declares his glory, should be eager scientists.
> 
> We should be careful never to buy into the secular storyline that religion and science are enemies and that the Bible and science disagree. I admit it's easy, when we see people mocking the Bible as worthless in an age of modern science, to respond by turning around and saying science is worthless. But if we do this we are embracing their storyline, not the Bible's. I understand the importance of not giving ground on the truth of Scripture. But in the process we should not forget what the Bible says about general revelation: observed rightly, it _can_ help us understand and appreciate some things about God.
> 
> ...


I agree with your premise here, as true science will always agree with the scriptures, and was reacting towards those who would try to have evolution and scriptures co exist together, and those who see Adam as part of an evolutionary process, and not a true literal fall happening.


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 4, 2017)

Jack K said:


> As for the premise that the created world cannot possibly tell us anything about the creation process, I have a difficult time squaring that with Romans 1:19f. That premise feels like an argument designed to discredit the very idea of science, which only feeds the secular storyline.


But the premise doesn't do that. It only explores the natural limitations of empirical scientific methodology that the study of ordinary processes cannot tell us about extraordinary processes; and even if it could, there is not enough data to do anything more than speculate. I gave an example of such limitations with regards to starlight. Perhaps you have a specific example in mind that explains what you mean by scientific methodology being able to tell us about the miraculous creation process (since this in part depends on what one means by "science" and "tell")? Or perhaps you could take the example of water turning into wine; what would science be able to tell us about that extraordinary process, aside from how it must have been before and what it must have been afterwards?


----------



## Jack K (Oct 4, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I agree with your premise here, as true science will always agree with the scriptures, and was reacting towards those who would try to have evolution and scriptures co exist together, and those who see Adam as part of an evolutionary process, and not a true literal fall happening.



That's fair enough. I guess I see a thread where nobody is arguing in favor of what you describe, discussing an eminent Reformed scholar who doesn't advocate for those beliefs either, and still folks jump in as if somebody were taking the man-created-by-evolution side. I understand "slippery slope" worries, but I still would enjoy a thread where they didn't take over. And having recently had a sad interaction with a young person whose honest scientific questions were summarily dismissed by Christians who got alarmed just because those questions were based on science, I'm feeling a need to affirm that Christians can be good scientists. In fact, the best scientists.



Afterthought said:


> But the premise doesn't do that. It only explores the natural limitations of empirical scientific methodology that the study of ordinary processes cannot tell us about extraordinary processes; and even if it could, there is not enough data to do anything more than speculate. I gave an example of such limitations with regards to starlight. Perhaps you have a specific example in mind that explains what you mean by scientific methodology being able to tell us about the miraculous creation process (since this in part depends on what one means by "science" and "tell")?



Oh, clearly general revelation ("science") is limited in the things it can tell us. So is Scripture, by the way. I can't tell you from Scripture how many different species God created. But when my science shows me the number of species, and I couple that with Scripture which tells me God created each one by the power of his word, I gain an appreciation for the magnificence of creation that I could not attain from either the Bible or science alone.

So when my Bible reading suggests the earth is young, and my science suggests the earth is old (to use a current-day conundrum), my instinct is not only to affirm the Bible but also to try to reconcile the two if possible. I realize it's most likely that my science is in error or has failed to consider a number of factors described in Genesis, but it is not wrong to also ask if I am reading Scripture correctly. In the end, it may well be that the answer is as simple as the fact that creation is such an extraordinary, miraculous event that no amount of general-revelation study will ever be able to shed light on the timing of it. But that is an end point, not the beginning. A scholar who honestly examines both his understanding of Scripture and his understanding of general revelation, in the belief that God gave both, should not be maligned for asking good questions in the first place.

In the specific case of the age of the earth, the main reason the issue matters at all is because many secular scientists have pronounced an answer without considering the Bible, and this attacks the trustworthiness of God's Word. As long as Christian scholars give answers that do attempt to honor the trustworthiness of the Bible, the key issue has been addressed and I'm reasonably happy.

The earth's age itself is not the key issue. It is of little concern in Genesis, which doesn't directly say anything one way or another. This matters. It gives us more room to consider the possibility that our initial reading of Scripture may need adjustments. Consider the report in Joshua 10 that the earth stood still. We might say, based on our general revelation knowledge, that we're pretty sure both the earth and sun are constantly in motion and that the passage probably means that the sun stood still _relative to the position and rotation of the earth_. In this example, we didn't just say, "It's a miracle so science can't tell us anything about it." Rather, we made a reasonable adjustment to our reading of the passage based on our scientific study. We might still be wrong. But the fact that the passage in Joshua is not trying to make a statement about planetary orbits, but rather a statement about God's miraculous responsiveness to his people's needs, means that I won't lose much sleep worrying that I might turn out to be wrong about exactly how God did this miracle. The fact that I affirm it is a miracle and a sign of God's help matters much more. In the same way, I'm pretty happy with any scholar who affirms the central things Genesis is concerned with and is convinced the Bible is true. Such a scholar got the main thing right.


----------



## jwithnell (Oct 4, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> There is no evidence/facts to support that macro evolution has ever happened in the fossil records.


 Yup! I said as much elsewhere in the thread.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 5, 2017)

Jack K said:


> That's fair enough. I guess I see a thread where nobody is arguing in favor of what you describe, discussing an eminent Reformed scholar who doesn't advocate for those beliefs either, and still folks jump in as if somebody were taking the man-created-by-evolution side. I understand "slippery slope" worries, but I still would enjoy a thread where they didn't take over. And having recently had a sad interaction with a young person whose honest scientific questions were summarily dismissed by Christians who got alarmed just because those questions were based on science, I'm feeling a need to affirm that Christians can be good scientists. In fact, the best scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Newton would agree with you that one can believe in God and be a true person of science, as many others have been, as I was not suggesting no science, but do not like it when we take as accepted unproven theories as factual, and that those view trump scripture.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 5, 2017)

jwithnell said:


> Yup! I said as much elsewhere in the thread.


Too bad some within the church see otherwise.


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 5, 2017)

Jack, thanks for explaining your view. I don't think the example you have given demonstrates that a study of ordinary providence allows one to understand extraordinary processes. By "process" is literally meant the process. How did the water turn into wine? How did God stop the sun from moving and start it again? How did God make the stars and coalesce the light into them?

In contrast, the example you have given,



Jack K said:


> We might say, based on our general revelation knowledge, that we're pretty sure both the earth and sun are constantly in motion and that the passage probably means that the sun stood still _relative to the position and rotation of the earth_. In this example, we didn't just say, "It's a miracle so science can't tell us anything about it." Rather, we made a reasonable adjustment to our reading of the passage based on our scientific study.


1) This is not understanding extraordinary processes by a study of ordinary processes (which is impossible by definition anyway). At best, this is understanding the objects of the extraordinary process better: understanding _what_ the miracle was better. This corresponds to understanding what water and what wine are better.

2) Strictly speaking, we have not understood the Scripture teaching better by scientific study. The Scriptures say the sun stopped moving. It says nothing about the earth or anything else (well, the moon stopped too). None of that is in the text, so anything that one does further should not be viewed as the teaching of Scripture. The Scriptures teach the sun stopped. One may then try to understand what "the sun stopped" means in terms of a particular scientific model, but this is not understanding the text better: it is taking something from the text and filtering it through a scientific model. It is an abstraction from the text that at best could be used to help connect the world of then to the world of today when explaining the passage or considering the bearing its teaching has on what we know today. Describing this process of abstraction as an "adjustment to our reading of the passage" suggests that scientific study is being used to control the text's teaching and interpretation rather than historical-grammatical exegesis. While Maxwell was only sorry to see a conjectural hypothesis attached to the teaching of Scripture, I think his comments should be heeded more broadly.

With regards to the Creation period, science cannot do anything more than speculate because of the limited data (which I have shown with regards to starlight). Speculation has its uses, but the goal of science is _knowledge_ and it is that which will elude it in this area. But a further consideration is that Creation is known by faith. Consider Wilhelmus a Brakel below.**


The concern you have raised about Christians dismissing science is a valid concern. It is also a valid concern that many Christians think too much of science--some ending up consumed by theistic evolutionary ideas. I don't agree that science is "general revelation" (it is not revealed; God reveals himself through nature, not the facts of science; and it is not generally accessible but if one disagrees on this quality of "general revelation," then at best scientific facts reveal something about God), and I don't think attributing some kind of divine authority to its claims is going to help matters (as some do). I think it would be more helpful if Christians viewed it as it is: a philosophical discipline, therefore having its uses but at the end of the day being but the claims of men. If scientific study was viewed within its proper limitations, I agree that Christians could engage in it to a full extent and attribute truth to it in accordance with its limitations (I quote Turretin below***). I will have to leave things there, since I have other stuff I have to do and this is getting more off topic from the thread (and I sincerely was just curious as to what you meant by science understanding extraordinary processes!).


**"God did not create the world from an infinite air mass, neither from indivisible elements, from an eternally formless mass of matter, nor from anything else, whatever name one would wish to attribute to it. This is a pagan fabrication derived from the fundamental principle: _only nothing can come out of nothing_. This is true in reference to the finite creature and natural forces, but not as far as the infinite and omnipotent God is concerned. He has brought forth everything out of nothing. The determining factor here is this “nothing,” and not the matter from which things were formed.

The apostle demonstrates this in Heb 11:3, where he states, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Natural reason teaches that by virtue of causal relationships one ultimately must come to God as the original cause of all things. Natural reason, however, cannot understand the “how”; that is, how something can come into existence out of nothing, how God with one word and with one single command has caused everything to come into existence. *All this we accept by faith. By faith we also accept the order described by Moses, in which all things were brought forth.*" (_Christian's Reasonable Service_, p. 269-270)


***"VII. For a thing to be denied by philosophy is different from not being taught by it. We do not deny that various theological mysteries are not taught in philosophy, but it does not follow that they are denied by it because the limits of the two sciences must be kept distinct. The physician does not meddle with geometry, nor the lawyer with natural science. So philosophy should be kept within its proper bounds and not be allowed to thrust its pruning hook into a different field. Therefore, because it says nothing about the Trinity and the incarnation, we must not suppose that it denies these doctrines.

XIII. Although theology teaches many things which philosophy knows not, it does not follow that a thing may be false in philosophy which is true in theology because truth is not at variance with truth, nor is light opposed to light. But care must be taken that philosophical truths be not extended beyond their own sphere and the ordinary powers of nature to those things which are of supernatural revelation or power; that the physical be not confounded with the hyper-physical or human with divine things. For example, it is true in philosophy that a virgin cannot bring forth, that a heavy body is carried downwards, that fire burns matter placed in contact with it, that from nothing, nothing can come--the contraries of which theology maintains. But they are not on this account opposed to each other because these things are spoken of in different relations.... In philosophy, they are denied with reference to the laws of nature, but in theology they are affirmed with reference to divine omnipotence and supernaturally." (_Institutes_ First Topic, Thirteenth Question)


----------



## Jack K (Oct 5, 2017)

Well, I'm afraid that was all a bit too deep for me (which is my fault, not yours). I still don't see what's the harm in saying, "The way I read that bit of Scripture doesn't seem to fit with what I see in the world, so one thing I should do is make double sure I'm reading the Scripture rightly." I do that sort of thing all the time. It seems like prudent and reasonable Scripture reading, and it's the only thing I really wish to defend in this thread.

And I don't see how bringing up theistic evolution or _ex nihilo_ creation is helpful, since no one here is arguing against the traditional stances. But, oh well...


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 5, 2017)

My apologies; I guess this shows that I still have to learn how to explain this subject better. Thanks for the discussion!



Jack K said:


> I still don't see what's the harm in saying, "The way I read that bit of Scripture doesn't seem to fit with what I see in the world, so one thing I should do is make double sure I'm reading the Scripture rightly." I do that sort of thing all the time. It seems like prudent and reasonable Scripture reading, and it's the only thing I really wish to defend in this thread.


Yes, I see no harm in that, so long, of course, that the Scriptures are interpreted in the usual exegetical manner (which I'm sure you acknowledge; I'm just explicitly putting the qualifier there). I might disagree on how often one needs to do it when challenged by scientific claims, but I see nothing wrong with doing so.


----------



## Jack K (Oct 5, 2017)

Afterthought said:


> Yes, I see no harm in that, so long, of course, that the Scriptures are interpreted in the usual exegetical manner (which I'm sure you acknowledge; I'm just explicitly putting the qualifier there). I would probably disagree on how often one needs to do it when challenged by scientific claims, but I see nothing wrong with doing so in and of itself.



And depending on the clarity of the passage and how directly it addresses the matter in question, I may allow what I see in the world to give me more or less doubt about whether my initial reading of the passage is correct. But that's all part of "the usual exegetical manner," in my mind.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

