The Framework Hypothesis

[joelkaki]

I have heard the term "Framework Hypothesis" used, and know several pastors who have adopted this view, but I really know very little about it. In my Presbyterian circles, it seems to come alot from Meredith Kline at Westminster West. Would someon care to explain to me what it is, what it teaches etc?

Joel

[dizzle]

I do not know too much about it, and I am not sure who here holds it. I got an email a whiles back explaining it pretty well, but I am having a Senior Moment at the moment. I know it has a framework with the divisions of Kingdoms and sees parallelism in the creation account.

[Pilgrim]

Hey there,

The Framework Hypothesis is a literary understanding of the 6 days of creation.

I learned it from Meredith Kline while @GCTS and from the OT department there as well.

It underscores the poetic nature of the writing and even defines it as a form of Hebraic poetery that highlights the nature and character of God in creation.

In the framework there are days of creating and days of filling. Day one goest with day 4, day 2 with day 5, day 3 with day 6. And all is balanced out.

It shows that Good is not only creatively spontaneous but also does things with order.

It asserts that the creation narrative is not a scientific explanation but a literary one that has more to do with the nature of God than with giving a historic account of creation.

[johnransom]

Socrates and I had a never-completed debate on this a while ago. If you want a quick review of the FH, read my posts in the debate which can be found here (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1892)

[Blake Reas]

The great thing about the FH is that it can be used for either young or Old Earth interpretation. I lean young earth because I think that it goes along in a biblical theological sense with the rest of scripture(Sin,Fall, Death etc).

Blake:hi:

[dizzle]

The poster (BrianB) who had previously sent me that article was gracious enough to remind me and sent it to me again at my request. It is very well written, and will be our featured member article soon. Remember you guys if you have articles, please submit them. And check out this one if you are interested in this subject, for I was impressed with the ease of presentation.

[Warcraft3]

Dee Dee:

You mentioned possibly featuring Brians article somewhere on the site. I was just wondering where I could find it at?


Russ

[dizzle]

Russ, it will be a featured article not this time (the next featured article is on the house church movement) but the next one. The projected date it will go up is Oct 30 or so. It is in the hands of our editor right now for formating. It is a very good article.

[rmwilliamsjr]

several online references:
http://www.twoagepress.org/books.htm
.......Kingdom Prologue
.......Glory in Our Midst

http://capo.org/cpc/pipa.htm
.......From Chaos to Cosmos:
A Critique of the Framework Hypothesis

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/3ZE0FKR8GRX8/ref=cm_aya_av.lm_more/002-8895608-3182429
my amazon listmania of framework interpretation books i've read.

http://www.upper-register.com/framework/framework_interpretation.html

http://www.pcanet.org/history/creation/report.html#d3
PCA creation report framework interpretation section

i'd appreciate any more that people have for my listings. tia.

Hello rmwilliamsjr, welcome to TWeb.
In the future, rather than simply posting links to websites our Decorum rules ask that you summarize what the sites say. That way discussion is furthered. Links are acceptable, but only when coupled with a summary of the position being debated or discussed.
Thanks.

Updated 11/3/03. Since in a more recent thread you acknowledged that you don't fit the profile for the posters in this section I'm editing this post. If you'd like the list of links so that you can post them in another section just let me know.

[Socratism]

After reading some of the analyses given in the links, a phrase came to mind from my past experience in a field known as Systems Analysis (not be confused with the same term used in Computer Systems Analysis):

Paralysis by Analysis.


Seriously, I was surprised by the constant reference to Moses in the various analyses of Genesis. If the theory that Moses merely compiled eyewitness accounts into the book of Genesis is correct then all of the speculation about Moses and his motives and reasoning in writing the accounts are moot. I never did place much faith in the tradition that Genesis was "dictated" to Moses by God. It makes much more sense to me to believe that his contribution was to compile earlier written documents into one book. This also explains the similarity with other ancient Flood accounts, because they were derived from the same source: survivors of the Flood.

It may be that the Moses thing is a carryover from the now discredited theory that "Moses couldn't have written the Bible since writing hadn't been invented yet". And we certainly do continue to hear the myth that the Torah was derived from stories passed on "around the campfire".

Myths like that die hard it seems.

[rmwilliamsjr]

as per moderator's instructions about expanding on links.

the link at:http://upper-register.com/other_studies/framework_interpretation.html
had changed since i built my framework interpretation page. so this is a good time to fix it.

there is a graphic at:
http://blueletterbible.org/faq/framework.gif
part of a larger summary of CED positions at:
http://blueletterbible.org/faq/creation.html

that really summarizes the framework interpretion. position.
which basically is a literary position that sees Gen1 as a parallel set of three days. first the kingdoms: earth, sky, sea, heaven and the things God created to inhabit, to fill those kingdoms.
animals, birds, fish, the lights.

from Lee Irons essay:
"This deliberate two-triad structure, or literary framework, suggests that the several creative works of God have been arranged by Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in their particular order for theological and literary, rather than sequential, reasons. For this reason we believe the days of the creation week are a figurative framework providing the narrative structure for God's historical creative works."

But Kline is not the only major player in the framework interpretation domain.
blocher with _in the beginning_ a study of the first 3 chapters of genesis is excellent.
from my review at amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0877843252/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/002-8895608-3182429?v=glance
The book is literary framework in its approach to Gen1-3, M. Kline being the best example of this in the english speaking world. Anyone familiar with the CED issues would be advised to read the first 2 chapters of this book simply to see a careful analysis of exegesis and the result of allowing Scripture to speak for itself rather than being pushed out of shape by young earth creationists whom would interpret the 7 days too literally. Or by scientific reconcilationists would would try to find modern science confirmed in the light appearing before the sun(ie the big bang).

The first principle he outlines carefully is to allow Scripture to speak to its first listeners, their culture, their history. His exegetical task doesn't end there but extends to teaching what these things mean to us in our place in space and time. But this application, this preaching follows critical-historical interpretation not prior to it as so many would desire.

likewise i would recommend _the meaning of creation_ by hyers.
again from my amazon review
it is quite doubtful that these texts have waited in obscurity through the millennia for their hidden meanings to be revealed by modern science. it is at least a good possibility that the "real meaning" was understood by the authors themselves. pg 3

and in response to henry morris who wrote "the creation account is clear, definite, sequential and matter-of-fact, giving evey appearance of straightforward historical narrative"

---hyers writes on pg 23 "this may indeed be the way things appear to certain modern interpreters at considerable remove from the context in which the texts were written, living in an age so dominated by scientific and historical modes of thought. It may also be the way things appear to those for whom modern science and historiography offer the criteria by which religious statements are to be understood and judged to be true or false. Yet it is by no means obvious that this represents the literary form or religious concern of the Genesis writers"

rmwilliamsjr,
Didn't we conclude that you are a evolutionist? If so, then it is against the rules of this section (Cosmogony) to post here. If I'm mistaken let me know and I'll reinstate this post.

Thanks.

[Socratism]

Why can't people see that Genesis consists of eyewitness accounts compiled by Moses into a single document that subsequently was attributed to him?

Part of the evidence for this is that there are a myriad of Flood legends in all cultures around the world, that logically could not have been derived from the later compilation of Moses, but instead from earlier accounts by the eyewitnesses to the Flood.

[jason]

Why can't people see that Genesis consists of eyewitness accounts compiled by Moses into a single document that subsequently was attributed to him?
You do realise this line of evidence can not be used to attack an old earth or any interpretation that keeps a flood that kills everybody ?

As long as the flood kills all human beings the flood will meet the demands of any anthroplogical evidence you want to advance.

Jason

[Socratism]

11-02-2003 @ 07:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=269280#post269280)
jason:
You do realise this line of evidence can not be used to attack an old earth or any interpretation that keeps a flood that kills everybody ?
As long as the flood kills all human beings the flood will meet the demands of any anthroplogical evidence you want to advance.
Jason

Scripture states that all air breathing creatures were destroyed by the Flood, not just human beings.

Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

In the light of this (as well as many more verses), the concept that the Flood was "local" is absurd on the face of it.

[jason]

Today @ 05:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=271293#post271293)
Socratism:

Scripture states that all air breathing creatures were destroyed by the Flood, not just human beings.
Depends on your rendering of ersatz if IIRC.
In the light of this (as well as many more verses), the concept that the Flood was "local" is absurd on the face of it.
What other verses.

Jason