Kline's framework hypothesis?
- Thread starter jwright82
- Start date
- Status
Guido's Brother
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Senior
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/
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/
Justified
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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.
Douglas P.
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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
Michael Heiser
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
V. Philips Long's Art of Biblical History is useful for showing how artistry does not entail ahistoricity.
Last edited:
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?
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.
Jesus Himself saw Genesis as recording factual, real time historical events to us, so would go with Him.
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
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.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I never saw the problem with seeing literary patterns but also seeing it happen historically.
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
Douglas P.
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
Puritan Board Freshman
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)
Does he still though uphold an evolutionary viewpoint regarding Genesis overall?
How does he view creation of the universe and life directly by God though?
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
That is not what Kline is saying. I disagree with Kline on some really big areas, but he is not saying Genesis is myth.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
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.
Last edited:
Goodcheer68
Puritan Board Sophomore
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".
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
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.
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.
- Status
