Talk:Framework interpretation

Kudos

Good work on starting this page! It's been on my to-do list for a while, but I'm glad to see that it has now been done and been done well. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Double-plus Kudos on the work so far here! I was really surprised to find the Framework Interpretation on Wikipedia, and I'm furthermore impressed at the depth to which the writers of this article have been able to maintain, whilst keeping (of course) true encyclopedic style! Yay! Sir Ian (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

First para and some suggestions

I expannded the first para, trying to make it more complete. More importantly, I edited out the somewhat cumbersome references to "some scholars feel" etc etc: it's sufficient just to set out the idea. BUT, there need to be references to sources so that readers can check for further details: at the moemnt the article is very light on names (Ms Kline is about it). I'd suggest some work on this aspect using Wenham or someone like that. PiCo 12:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, PiCO. I agree that this article still could do with a fair bit of work, and more thorough referencing. I'll try to work on it when I get more time. I think that attention needs to be given to Blocher's work (In the Beginning) as it seems to be a major reference point. Oh, and by the way, I believe that Kline is actually a male (despite the first name)! Tonicthebrown 14:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Meredith G. Kline was indeed a man. It's one of those names that crossed over. Lesslie Newbigin has the same problem. :-) --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced material removed from article

Exegetical

God's rest

Many theologians prefer the non-literal interpretation of the seventh day because it explains the apparent contradiction between the literal interpretation of the events of the seventh day and God's nature. Exodus 31:17 states God "rested, and was refreshed" on the seventh day. This seems to contradict Isaiah 40:28 which says God "does not become weary or tired."

Most creation literalists argue for a literal interpretation of the days in Genesis as the only view which is logically compatible with the fourth commandment:

“

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Exodus, 20: 8–11

”

They claim the author of the commandment speaks of it in a literal sense and therefore it must be interpreted literally.

Framework advocates respond to the to the claim that the Sabbath command of Exodus 20 demands a literal interpretation of the days of creation by pointing out that the author of the epistle to the Hebrews in Hebrews 4:1ff regards the seventh day mentioned in Genesis 1 not as a literal 24 hour day, but as an eternal day of rest which believers are exhorted to enter into through the completed work of Jesus Christ. The Framework advocates go on to point out that if indeed the author of Hebrews interprets the seventh day of creation as an unending day, then the correspondence found between the seventh day of Exodus 20 and Genesis 1 must be one of analogy rather than that of literal equivalence.

Heaven's Firmament

[[Image:FlammarionWoodcut.jpg|thumb|200px|The [[Flammarion woodcut]] portrays the cosmos as it is described in Genesis chapter 1.]] It is noted that the seven-day creation account (Genesis 1) has a formulaic structure with repetition and other poetic elements. Furthermore, it is based on an ancient cosmology with the firmament of heaven acting as a solid ceiling which holds up the waters of heaven, and within which the sun, moon and stars are embedded. These considerations are used to further argue the case that the Genesis creation accounts were not written as a scientifically accurate report, but rather as a religious text.

[End of unsourced material removed from article Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC) ]

Reference as requested

New Bible Dictionary (3rd ed.) article "Creation" pp239-241

"But how far does Genesis intend us to read its opening chapters as history? Would they, as many maintain, be better termed myth? ... "1:1-2:3 is full of repetitive formulae and quasi-poetic language. It is not quite poetry, but rather high-flown prose. The division of the account into seven days is the most obvious repetition, but repeated commands, fulfilments, naming, blessing and appreciation fomulae, mostly in multiples of seven, show that is a very carefully crafted opening to the book. "Furthermore there is an interesting pattern in the arrangement of the creative acts by days. The first three days match the next three. ... "If 'myth' is defined as stories about God's action in the past which affect the present, it is clear that Genesis' accounts of the creation and the fall fit this definition. But as Jacobsen pointed out, in Genesis and many Near Eastern accounts there is a strong interest in cause and effect, the linkage of events over time, which give the narratives a historical cast. So he called them mytho-historical. If myth could be purged of its negative overtones of error and falsity, this might be acceptable. It is preferable to describe these chapters as proto-historical or theological history. ... "Interpreted along these lines Gn 1-2 conflicts with modern scientific discovery less than is often supposed. In its original BC context it was challenging the theologyh and ethics of ancient orientals... Gn. 1 is not so much scientific and historical explanation of how the world came to be, but a theological hymn of praise to the creator for his bounty bestowed on man." Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Analogical day view

This view is not obscure. Sources for other scholars can be found and added. Removal was unwarranted. Simple search shows this:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Even though an article on this subject does not exist, adding stuby content to an aritcle is just the way wikipedia works.

--Firefly322 (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It generates only 5 Google Book & 6 Google Scholar hits, so yes it is "obscure" (as well as being tangential to the topic of this article). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Firefly322 is doggedly attempting to insert the following passage:

Comparison to analogical day view interpretations

Other conservative Christian scholars such as C. John Collins and R. Kent Hughes[11] and Vern Poythress[12] disagree with the Framework interpretation (specifically, with Meredith Kline's views) and hold to what is called an analogical day view, which is also distinct from the day-age view. Collins, however, states that he at least agrees with Kline on the point that the book of Genesis can be taken as a reliable historical account without requiring that its verses on days be an exact narrative sequence.[13] President of Westminster Seminary California W. Robert Godfrey has advocated the Framework interpretation, but has sympathies for the analogical day view.[12]

I would like to point out that:

1. As this article is about the framework interpretation, the 'analogical day view interpretations' are at best tangential.
2. As none of the named advocates of this viewpoint are particularly prominent, it is WP:UNDUE to mention them here (particularly given the tangentiality)
3. The material fails to explicate the topic as:
   1. It fails to explain what the 'analogical day view interpretations' are; and
   2. Fails to make any meaningful comparison between 'analogical day view interpretations' & the 'framework interpretation'

For these reasons I have reverted this edit, again.

I would also point out that Firefly322's edit summary "Undid revision 314993178 by Hrafn (talk) per WP:STALKING and WP:OWNERSHIP. Bad faith, Point of view removal of content" is WP:Complete bollocks. I have in fact been a regular on here for 9 months, so am not WP:STALKING here. Removal of bad writing that fails to explicate its stated (though heavily tangential) topic is not WP:OWNERSHIP. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of Creationism

I've deleted three large sections all of which attempt to discuss the framework interpretation of Gen.1 in terms of Creationism. The framework interpretation, unlike Creationism, is a respectable scholarly field of study. The attempts to link it to Creationism, even in contrast, were contrived and shallow. Better to simply delete. PiCo (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think some of that material was in fact highly relevant. I have restored it with some qualitative improvements. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tonic, as you might guess I don't entirely approve of what you're doing, but given that you're doing it, I have a query with this line from your supporters/critics section: Despite enjoying the support of many biblical scholars, the framework interpretation is rejected by several widely read systematic theologians, including Wayne Grudem and Millard Erickson, who deem it an unsuitable reading of the Genesis text. This piques my curiosity without satisfying it: what exactly do Grudem and Erickson see to complain about? PiCo (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Pico, I apologise for not explaining myself more thoroughly before. The reason why I think creationism rates a mention on this article is that every piece of modern literature I have read about the interpretation of Genesis, whether commentary, article, systematic theology, etc. mentions interpretations such as framework view in conjunction with discussions about science and the creation-evolution debate. Basically you cannot discuss Genesis 1 without getting into these matters. One could justifiably argue that the framework view came into being because of modern science. If it isn't addressed (at least briefly) it will be an elephant in the room.

I can't remember exactly what Erickson argues, but he ends up supporting the Day-age view. Grudem believes that the days of Genesis 1 are in chronological order and therefore rejects the framework view. Berkhof takes a strongly creationist position. Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sonny Craig, sonnc@inbox.com, I just wanted to point out that Kline referred to his theory as a Two-Register Theory, rather than "Framework Hypothesis" if I'm not mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonnyCraig (talk • contribs) 03:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sonny Craig, sonnc@inbox.com, I just wanted to point out that Kline referred to his theory as a Two-Register Theory, rather than "Framework Hypothesis" if I'm not mistaken. I have more of that history, I'll note it later.based in And Kline's proposing the Two-Register model was for a particular purpose other than textual or theologically compelling, he clearly said he wanted to set science and theology free to produce models that would allow a free exploration of old universe Big Bang type cosmology.

"Kline’s motivation for supporting the Two-Register theory was admittedly not on textual grounds, but to provide the scientist with theological grounds with which “to break free of any biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins.” as quoted by D.E. "Sonny" Craig, Supporting a Six-Day Doctrine: Presuppositional Creationism, by D.E. "Sonny" Craig © 2000 (Presuppositional Creationism, 1997. The Church of America Publishing Company, Apache Junction, Az. Original reference lost, but I probably got it from either Gary North or R.J. Rushdoony. Can't recall specifically, I can't believe I lost that footnote. I probably have it in my larger PC manuscripts, I'll look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonnyCraig (talk • contribs) 04:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)