kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Robin
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Originally posted by cornelius vantil
it will help resolve a lot of issues if you understand the creation week, not as a chronological sequence of events, but as a literary framework. genesis 1 was not meant to be used as a scientific explanation on how the world came into being
I guess I can infer that you are Kline adherent? I think the Framework hypothesis is awful on a number of linguistic fronts and comes dangerously close to denying the Biblical account, in my opinion.
Maybe it's another thread??? But I'd have to counter the assertion...Horton, Riddlebarger, and quite a few more hold to Framework....I don't know what folks think it is, but I don't see it marginalizing the Text at all.
r.
I'm not sure marginalizing is the right word. I fear, however, that it is a huge step towards denying the historicity of the creation account (though FH adherents would deny this, I think) and comes close to being in conflict with the Standards. The problem is, FH is so easily defeated by applying first year Hebrew grammar to the text. I think Kline, et al, just needed to publish or perish. Oh the hazards of academia!