Creation--contradiction?

[kevin.carroll]

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!

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

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!

All FI says is to read the Text in the most plain and natural way possible. The original readers would have no problems as we do today -- we're so set on knowing more than God and trying to figure out HOW He did things. Yes...Genesis is not written to prove the length of days or God's existence, but that He is Creator and imposes Covenant on His human creatures.

r.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by JohnV
But the normal reading of the Bible is to be preferred in any cases So my own personal view is that it doesn't really matter what the arguments for the FH are, it's just theoretical. It's a topic for discussion, for interest, but not one for aquiring followers.
... I remain unmoved unless they can show me that God makes of it a Framework interpretation in Scripture just as He makes of it a six-day interpretation of it in Scripture.
But, that's just my

John. However, this is different:

The same goes for the ..... the Theistic Evolution theory

If we get rid of a historical Adam - Redemptive history is toast. No Fall, no Salvation, no reason for Jesus, Etc. Theistic Evolution is the view that is truly dangerous.



Meanwhile, John, do read my former link, as it does address the question of Framework countering the confessions and Scripture.

In edification

Robin

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Robin
However, this is different:

The same goes for the ..... the Theistic Evolution theory

If we get rid of a historical Adam - Redemptive history is toast. No Fall, no Salvation, no reason for Jesus, Etc. Theistic Evolution is the view that is truly dangerous.

We lose a lot more than that, but yes, that's enough already.

To wit: In High School I defended against those who believed that since the Bible contained errors pertaining to history and science, the objective, verifiable dicsiplines, it could have no bearing on the subjective discipline of religion. But I was able to show them that losing the historical aspect of the Bible does a whole lot more than that, since they too lose objectivity and confidence in their history and science. In other words, it made a completely subjective religion out of their positivistic optimism in science and history.

So, what we lose is all meaning altogether. If the Bible is only religiously true, as the Theistic Evolutionists hold, then there is no difference to it not being religiously true, for there is no content to that religious aspect. So in religion, A = non-A in their frame of reference. And if this is so, it is also so for all subsidiary subjects emanating from it, namely the disciplines of science and history. I really don't know if I am typing this or not, I just believe that I am.

Meanwhile, John, do read my former link, as it does address the question of Framework countering the confessions and Scripture.

Robin

How far do I have to read it, Robin? I've read a few pages, and it is already something that I don't have to read. For one, his allusion to the Platonic philosophers and their relation to the early church fathers is far afield already. I would suggest a careful reading of Augustine, especially The City of God, chapters 8 and 9.

The Confessions refer to a six-day creation, and reference the Decalogue directly. What I am saying is that this is immovable: God has put the two together in one sentence, in reference to each other. We may not overthrow that.

What I am referring to, though, is that the FH makes even the plain observation of the correlation between Ex. 20 and Gen. 1 in the Confessions a subjective one. That is an assertion, a bold one, and one that is unwarranted, Dr. Ward notwithstanding. There is nothing compelling us to think that this correlation is a contradiction with any revelation either of God's creation and providence, or of His Scripture.

I scanned through the article. I read some first, middle, and last sentences of paragraphs, enough to know that he was suggesting on bold assertions, not concluding from solid premises. I'll read it more carefully later, but my point here is that it does not bear on my reservations about FH at all.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Robin
. A helpful hint, when studying this, remember the entire Bible has eschatalogical language throughout it. That is key. Ultimately, one's eschat sensibilities will color theological understanding.



:bigsmile:

r.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Robin]

How does this help the framework case? Because I affirm that the Bible's plotline is eschatological and also hold to 6 day creation, yet I see no tension between my two beliefs.

 

[crhoades]

Point of clarification if anyone would indulge me...

Does the FH deny a six day creation or do they just arrive at it/interpret the first 2 chapters differently?

Can a FH support both young and old earth or is it relegated to believing one or the other?

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by crhoades
Point of clarification if anyone would indulge me...

Does the FH deny a six day creation or do they just arrive at it/interpret the first 2 chapters differently?

Can a FH support both young and old earth or is it relegated to believing one or the other?

Chris, these are two different categories, FYI. FH affirms the literal 6 day creation. No problem there. It could be that the days were longer ??? who knows? But I'm not confusing a day with a week/month/year, etc. It isn't important. What IS important is that there are precise things happening in good order when God creates things each day. Significantly, He rests on the seventh, not that He was tired - but that He was FINISHED creating and at that point "sat down to reign". In obedience and honor we observe the Sabbath to attest to His Majesty before a watching world.

The age of the earth is another issue altogether. I hold to the "old" model. Measuring the age of the earth via the genealogies in the Bible is erroneous -- plus, that is NOT why the "begets" are there.
(Plus, I believe in dinosaurs ) To answer your Q, Chris, you probably won't be a young-earther if you understand FI, but you're free to be.

As Patrick noted in another thread, the creation account is not there for speculation on either the length of days; the age of the earth or talking snakes. Likewise, Scriptures' genealogies are not there to trace the age of the earth; when the Flood happened or other self-indulgent, ignorant distractions.

A simple reading of the Genesis points to the order of creation first (Gen. 1-2:3) then a more detailed unfolding of Adam's role in things (Gen 2:4...). The progression of the narrative unfolds deeper detail. Allow the Text to speak and make its point. Forget the verse/chpt divisions!

There is such a thing as literal interpretation without the wooden literal sense. This is common in oral-traditions - (even in ancient music texts: stating first the main motiff -- then restating and parsing finer detail -- which does not disrupt the original statement.)

I'm very upset about the dinosaurs leaving us, btw.



r.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Robin]

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by Robin
. A helpful hint, when studying this, remember the entire Bible has eschatalogical language throughout it. That is key. Ultimately, one's eschat sensibilities will color theological understanding.



:bigsmile:

r.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Robin]

How does this help the framework case? Because I affirm that the Bible's plotline is eschatological and also hold to 6 day creation, yet I see no tension between my two beliefs.

See, Jacob? This proves you're not really a Theonomist! (Sorry, I couldn't resist ) Seriously, though....there IS no tension if one's grounded in knowledge of Covenant -- whereas the Dispie-bent is going to be a staunch "young earther" (most likely) among other problems. I wonder if you can see a pattern here? Ever wonder why the Dispie movement et al don't really care about the OT? There is "no use" for it in their schema. (All this is for another thread???)

All to say, "eschatology drives theology" whether we know it or not.

r.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Robin]

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by Robin

Originally posted by crhoades

Point of clarification if anyone would indulge me...

I'm very upset about the dinosaurs leaving us, btw.



r.

So, FH adherents are a mix between old and young earthers and does not necessitate one or the other views...

Gotcha.

You can have the dinosaurs...Wouldn't want a T-Rex showing up on my back porch anytime soon - ever see Jurassic Park? Sides, I'm sure they leave bigger presents in the parks than dogs do.

For what it's worth, I'm undecided on the issue of creationism. Not the fact that God did it and evolution is impossible - more on the length of the day thing. Got a degree in chemistry and biology and have to overcome a lot of humanistic thinking. Did a ton of study on it after I became a Christian in college and ended up along the Hugh Ross old earth scenario. If I'm not mistaken, he takes a literal reading of the accounts in Genesis and traces out the big bang in them etc. Doesn't revert to FH. I haven't studied the issue since then and haven't really read much of the young earth view. I can squeak by in affirming the WCF and say yes - six days although I know that the intent of the divines was probably literal 24 hour days so that's a cop out. One area of thought to sanctify at a time for me. Thanks for the answer.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by crhoades]

 

[RamistThomist]

I don't have anyproblems with Dinos. I pretend that their the dragon-like creatures spoken of in scripture.

 

[JohnV]

Maybe its time to replay my Craftsman's Theory of the creation days again. It satisfies the length of days problem; at least for me.

A craftsman does a layout before he begins his work. Every detail is in the plan before he starts. The more experienced the craftsman, the less likely a surprise will come up in the project he is undertaking. I am such a craftsman: a cabinetmaker making a large complex of kitchen and bathroom cabinets. But God is the ultimate craftsman. He knows everything before it is, because it is impossible for His knowledge to be subject to change. You could say that for Him it is possible for A to equal non-A because He knows it before it is, and still knows it even if is no more, both the same as if it is because His knowledge is unchangeable. Indeed, it could not be unless He knew it first. And creation is not a new thing with Him, though it is new with the things created. So it follows that God, the Creator of heaven and earth had a plan, a layout according to which He made all things, so that it was very good.

With this view, it is not at all a problem that the sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day. It does not obviate the day scenario for the days preceding that day, since the length of the day does not depend on the existence of the sun but rather the sun's existence depending on the plan that was there before the first day. So every day could be a regular or sidereal day regardless of the day the luminaries were made, since the plan for the final outcome of the creation was already determined from the start.

It is quite similar to the doors fitting the openings in a complex of cabinets, even though the doors were ordered to size to the sixteenth of an inch weeks before the first two pieces of panel were even cut to make the cabinets, onto which they were meant to fit.

So there is no problem with days being counted, even though the sun, by which we measure days, was not created until the fourth day. The sun was not the way God measured days, but rather the sun and earth were placed according to God's pre-determination of the length of the day.


Alas, this is but another theory. I can find reference to it in Augustine, but not a direct reference in Scripture like I do with the six-day interpretation that God gave it. Actually I did find one, but the correlation is not as clear as in the Decalogue. But my view is not at odds at all with the regular six-day view. It is, instead, a defence of it.



[Edited on 7-2-2005 by JohnV]

 

[cornelius vantil]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Prefaced Remarks:
It is evident that part of our problem is communicative. A number of assumptions have been made by both sides in this debate. It seems clear that Mr Hernandez is not arguing for a typical evangelical "framework" view, at least not that as offered by its leading Reformed proponents (Kline, Futato, Irons, et al.). This should have been obvious to us from the outset. And anyway, we should have asked. I apologize. (Mr Williams, at least, seems to have seen this better than either Patrick or myself.) There are a couple of clues in the exchanges that seem to indicate MrHernandez is more of a strict source-theory advocate. Of course this labeling is also of limited value, as Mr Hernandez may not subscribe wholeheartedly to the views of that "school", nor define himself in those terms. While assuming is wrong, sometimes guesswork (with appropriate charity) is both desireable and necessary, because our thoughts are not atomized but connected. In debate, I recognize that a total assault involves not merely confronting presentations, but also undermining foundations.

ok well let me respond

1. there is little in kline, irons, bolcher, or futato i would disagree with. as far as FH is conserned. if people on this thread do see a disagreement please show me.

2. i do not hold to the JEDP theory of the wellhausen school of higher-criticism. yet it is true i do not hold to mosiac authorship of the pentateuch...where does that place me.... i do not know..i am still thinking through those issues.

3. how i believe we got genesis does not conflict with my understanding of the creation week. yes i do believe there are 2 accounts of creation, yet God by his providence placed them in the scriptures.

4. i do belive in the historicity of the creation, Adam, and the fall. how i believe these account are preserved for us either through the pen of moses or some exilic collector does not change that.

if someone wants to know what i think they can simply ask speculate on the board.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Excerpts from my next book, The Framework of the Resurrection

On a straightforward reading of the resurrection passages, it is clear that the record, if it were interpreted literally, would conflict with Jesus' own prediction--found most plainly expressed in Matt. 12:40, "...so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Then there is the ambiguity John introduces about which day Jesus was actually crucified on (was it Thursday? or Friday?). Mark keaves everybody hanging (and then there's that oddly appended codicil at the end!) Did Mary Magdalene see the angels before the disciples (Lk. 24:10) or afterward (John 20:13)?

Clearly this "event" is to be taken theologically, not as an expression of how the whole came together, or what day (if it can even be called a "day" in eternal perception--which is surely the realm in which the resurrection took place). That's not even important. No one who was actually there when the "event" took place has left us a record of what took place, except God (just like the creation "story"), and we all know that he doesn't express himself in "space-time" language unless its meant to convey something quite beyond what mere words can express.


And place your pre-pub orders now for the forthcoming Framing-Up the House of God: the A-historic Nature of the Theocratic Kingdom, and the autobiography of the author, "I've Been Framed! How the Conservatives Twisted My Theology Into Irreverence.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
And place your pre-pub orders now for the forthcoming Framing-Up the House of God: the A-historic Nature of the Theocratic Kingdom, and the autobiography of the author, "I've Been Framed! How the Conservatives Twisted My Theology Into Irreverence.

...will you autograph a copy for me, Bruce?

R.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Suuuure. No Problem.
Just submit 59.95 for one, or 89.95 (special discount!) for both.
Plus 20.00 postage and handling.
Pre-paid, of course. Send the money straight to my off-shore retirement account.
Take up all shipping issues with the printer.

I know it's steep, but when you are getting published by the prestedigitous Oxfurd Univarsity Press, the books don't come cheep.



woo. hoo.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Didn't mean to resurrect another thread but I had some questions, and I suppose, following Bruce, that it's not important when the thread is resurrected so long it is, eh?

Originally posted by Robin

Originally posted by crhoades
Point of clarification if anyone would indulge me...

Does the FH deny a six day creation or do they just arrive at it/interpret the first 2 chapters differently?

Can a FH support both young and old earth or is it relegated to believing one or the other?

Chris, these are two different categories, FYI. FH affirms the literal 6 day creation. No problem there. It could be that the days were longer ??? who knows? But I'm not confusing a day with a week/month/year, etc. It isn't important. What IS important is that there are precise things happening in good order when God creates things each day. Significantly, He rests on the seventh, not that He was tired - but that He was FINISHED creating and at that point "sat down to reign". In obedience and honor we observe the Sabbath to attest to His Majesty before a watching world.

How are these important things lost in the traditional view? I see how they are in fact lost in the logical consequences of the Framework view (i.e. rejecting the Sabbath, allowing for evolution, etc.).

The age of the earth is another issue altogether. I hold to the "old" model. Measuring the age of the earth via the genealogies in the Bible is erroneous -- plus, that is NOT why the "begets" are there.
(Plus, I believe in dinosaurs ) To answer your Q, Chris, you probably won't be a young-earther if you understand FI, but you're free to be.

How is measuring by the listed ages erroneous? Just curious. Why is geneological line the important but the speicific ages and numbers not important? If ages were not important then why was such great detail used in writing them down? Are the numbers just symbolic? Poetic? Erroneous? Why would God preserve them for so long in His inspired Word?

Kline specifically states, as I quoted in a post above, that He is an old earther and adamantly rejects the young earth view, and that his theory could allow for the theory of evolution even though he personally rejects it. On what hermenuetical grounds he rejects it, I'm not sure.

As Patrick noted in another thread, the creation account is not there for speculation on either the length of days; the age of the earth or talking snakes. Likewise, Scriptures' genealogies are not there to trace the age of the earth; when the Flood happened or other self-indulgent, ignorant distractions.

I'm not sure which quote of mine you are refering too. I in fact do believe the creation accounts do teach us all these things, along with all the escatological stuff you have been mentioning. I see no conflict between the traditional view and the redemptive historical motifs that follow from Genesis. In fact, I believe the redemptive historical themes eventually fall apart when the FH is assimilated, as Bruce has so well illustrated with the example of the resurrection. The exegesis is flawed, and eventually will end up with liberal interpretations of the whole Bible when followed consistently. History isn't important. It's the common theology of the events that is important. It's only the Christ of faith that matters not the historical details. And so on...

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by puritansailor]