Validity of the Framework Interpretation

[Mark F]

Hello everyone (my first post here)...

I would be very interested to hear arguments both for and against the framework hypothesis. (It's the theory which claims that the Genesis creation account of six days is not to be understood as straightforwardly chronological but as an easily memorable literary device that is used by the author to convey the essentials of the creation as well as shabbat theology. According to this view, the creation account rests upon three day-pairs that exhibit noteworthy analogies: days 1 & 4, 2 & 5, 3 & 6.) More in-depth study can be found here (this link appears to have already been posted on this forum): http://home.comcast.net/~babucher/f...rpretation.html

Personally, I find the framework theory fascinating and more trustworthy than the standard day-age interpretation of many OEC'ists, because the latter seems to be primarily based on the re-evaluation demands by modern science as imposed on the text, whereas the framework interpretation is based on the text itself. Therefore it appears to have a justification as an exegetical theory, even if we are not ready to accept its conclusions. It would also allow room for billions of years that widely accepted geological and astronomical data seem to confirm. (Unless one supposes that God purposefully made the universe and earth to appear ancient to test our faith.)

One point that seems to support the framework interpretation is Gen 2:5, which claims that plants had not grown yet on the ground, because there was no rain and no man to work on the land. Therefore, normal laws of physics and biology seem to be expected during the creation week; and those laws demand a considerably longer time for growing plants than a few days. Hence, the "days" could not have meant normal 24h solar episodes.

Another point is that according to a widely held interpretation, the seventh day of creation (God's rest) is still continuing, since we are still called to enter that rest (Heb 4:1). So at least the seventh day would not be 24 hours long, if this interpretation is valid.

What do you think? Is this a compromising heresy, or the missing link that reconciles sound Biblical doctrine with undeniable facts of science?

[shunyadragon]

Hello everyone (my first post here)...

I would be very interested to hear arguments both for and against the framework hypothesis. (It's the theory which claims that the Genesis creation account of six days is not to be understood as straightforwardly chronological but as an easily memorable literary device that is used by the author to convey the essentials of the creation as well as shabbat theology. According to this view, the creation account rests upon three day-pairs that exhibit noteworthy analogies: days 1 & 4, 2 & 5, 3 & 6.) More in-depth study can be found here (this link appears to have already been posted on this forum): http://home.comcast.net/~babucher/f...rpretation.html

Personally, I find the framework theory fascinating and more trustworthy than the standard day-age interpretation of many OEC'ists, because the latter seems to be primarily based on the re-evaluation demands by modern science as imposed on the text, whereas the framework interpretation is based on the text itself. Therefore it appears to have a justification as an exegetical theory, even if we are not ready to accept its conclusions. It would also allow room for billions of years that widely accepted geological and astronomical data seem to confirm. (Unless one supposes that God purposefully made the universe and earth to appear ancient to test our faith.)

One point that seems to support the framework interpretation is Gen 2:5, which claims that plants had not grown yet on the ground, because there was no rain and no man to work on the land. Therefore, normal laws of physics and biology seem to be expected during the creation week; and those laws demand a considerably longer time for growing plants than a few days. Hence, the "days" could not have meant normal 24h solar episodes.

Another point is that according to a widely held interpretation, the seventh day of creation (God's rest) is still continuing, since we are still called to enter that rest (Heb 4:1). So at least the seventh day would not be 24 hours long, if this interpretation is valid.

What do you think? Is this a compromising heresy, or the missing link that reconciles sound Biblical doctrine with undeniable facts of science?

Hi Mark! Good start with an interesting subject. This one gottcha some pearls!

I am a fan of the framework interpretation, puting the OT more into the Hebrew tradional meanings.

Shoehorning science into the picture does not help much with Genesis Creation or the Flood.

[reyvin]

Good post. Found this file a while back and it is helpful. Also, be on the lookout for Jack Collins (hebrew scholar at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis) upcoming commentary on Genesis 1-4. He holds to the analogical day position, which seems to be a combination of day/age and framework considerations. The guy knows the text as well as anyone and should be considered.

This file seems to lean that way also.

[shunyadragon]

Good post. Found this file a while back and it is helpful. Also, be on the lookout for Jack Collins (hebrew scholar at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis) upcoming commentary on Genesis 1-4. He holds to the analogical day position, which seems to be a combination of day/age and framework considerations. The guy knows the text as well as anyone and should be considered.

This file seems to lean that way also.

reyvin,

This is an oldy that I was interested in, but Mark F did not follow through. I will chech out the source yo recommend and get back to ou.

[Touchstone]

Hello everyone (my first post here)...

I would be very interested to hear arguments both for and against the framework hypothesis. (It's the theory which claims that the Genesis creation account of six days is not to be understood as straightforwardly chronological but as an easily memorable literary device that is used by the author to convey the essentials of the creation as well as shabbat theology. According to this view, the creation account rests upon three day-pairs that exhibit noteworthy analogies: days 1 & 4, 2 & 5, 3 & 6.) More in-depth study can be found here (this link appears to have already been posted on this forum): http://home.comcast.net/~babucher/f...rpretation.html

That seems to fit my interpretration fairly closely. For a long time, the creation story was an *oral* tradition, which makes the shabbat/mnemonic theory that much more compelling. As *narrative* the analogical view makes good sense.


Personally, I find the framework theory fascinating and more trustworthy than the standard day-age interpretation of many OEC'ists, because the latter seems to be primarily based on the re-evaluation demands by modern science as imposed on the text, whereas the framework interpretation is based on the text itself. Therefore it appears to have a justification as an exegetical theory, even if we are not ready to accept its conclusions. It would also allow room for billions of years that widely accepted geological and astronomical data seem to confirm. (Unless one supposes that God purposefully made the universe and earth to appear ancient to test our faith.)

This makes it sound as if demands for re-evaluation based on acquired scientific knowledge is a *bad* thing. Incorporation of new scientific knowledge is a *good* thing -- it despels misconceptions and brings us closer to the truth. So to the extent that framework theory consciously *eschews* re-evaluation of the scriptures based on learnings in the physical world, I'd say it is off to a bad start. Nothing wrong with listening intently to what the text is trying to say itself, but ultimately any interpretation has to be harmonized with reality.

In my experience, using phrases like "let the text speak for itself" tends to signal one's intent to be the arbiter of what that text is *really* saying.

For itself, of course. ;-)

Quality exegesis relies on weighing and harmonizing as many reliable frames of reference as can be had.

One point that seems to support the framework interpretation is Gen 2:5, which claims that plants had not grown yet on the ground, because there was no rain and no man to work on the land. Therefore, normal laws of physics and biology seem to be expected during the creation week; and those laws demand a considerably longer time for growing plants than a few days. Hence, the "days" could not have meant normal 24h solar episodes.

Another point is that according to a widely held interpretation, the seventh day of creation (God's rest) is still continuing, since we are still called to enter that rest (Heb 4:1). So at least the seventh day would not be 24 hours long, if this interpretation is valid.

What do you think? Is this a compromising heresy, or the missing link that reconciles sound Biblical doctrine with undeniable facts of science?

This is a highly problematic statement:
Personally, I find the framework theory fascinating and more trustworthy than the standard day-age interpretation of many OEC'ists, because the latter seems to be primarily based on the re-evaluation demands by modern science as imposed on the text, whereas the framework interpretation is based on the text itself.

I don't see *any* reason for thinking that re-evaluating the Scriptures based on the demands of scientific knowledge make a theory *less* trustworthy. In fact it should make it *more* trustworthy. The whole problem with YEC interpretation is that it contradicts overwhelming scientific knowledge that refutes it as a theory. To the extent that your framework theory takes a hostile position towards science, I'd say it's just begging to be wrong along the same lines as YECs.

From what you've outlined as points of assertion, though, it seems perfectly compatible with OEC views. Aside from additional frowning in the general direction of science, where does framework theory depart from OEC or TE thinking?

Cordially,

-Touchstone

OnEdit: Should have said up front: Welcome, Mark!

It's good to have you here.

[Mark F]

That seems to fit my interpretration fairly closely. For a long time, the creation story was an *oral* tradition, which makes the shabbat/mnemonic theory that much more compelling. As *narrative* the analogical view makes good sense.

Indeed. We should remember - and I wished all modern skeptics would reckon this - that the Old Testament was written primarily for a bronze age people who lived in a primitive, destitute environment and whose language couldn't meet the need of modern scientific expressions. And that the Torah was not meant to be a book on natural science in the first place, but rather the medium of a divine message.

This is not to say that the inspired Word was subject to actual fallacies in matters of physics, cosmology etc. But we have to ask: For whom was the text written in the first place? What is the purpose of the text - scientific, narrative, legal, spiritual, etc.? How were the primary readers supposed to understand the words?

This makes it sound as if demands for re-evaluation based on acquired scientific knowledge is a *bad* thing. Incorporation of new scientific knowledge is a *good* thing -- it despels misconceptions and brings us closer to the truth. So to the extent that framework theory consciously *eschews* re-evaluation of the scriptures based on learnings in the physical world, I'd say it is off to a bad start. Nothing wrong with listening intently to what the text is trying to say itself, but ultimately any interpretation has to be harmonized with reality.

I can see your point, but before continuing further we should confirm the basis of our theology: what is the ultimate authority in scriptural matters? If science appears to contradict the Bible at some point, which do we assume is wrong?

And if there is a way to make some kind of harmonization between the two, can we do it even if it means a drastic semantic revision in the Scripture?

That's why I find the old earth creationists' standard interpretation "day = a few hundred million years, in this case" a bit problematic. If we are to interpret some part of the Bible in a completely novel way (I doubt anyone thought that before the discoveries of modern geology), shouldn't there be at least some kind of a hint of justification for it in the text?

In my experience, using phrases like "let the text speak for itself" tends to signal one's intent to be the arbiter of what that text is *really* saying.

Yeah, that's typical rhetoric in a debate, often used as means to assert one's own view as objective, but I think the basic idea behind the phrase is still correct. There is always a meaning that has to be deduced from the text, although finding it out may be difficult.

To the extent that your framework theory takes a hostile position towards science, I'd say it's just begging to be wrong along the same lines as YECs.

"My" view is not about hostility towards anything, it's about ultimate authority.

I definitely wouldn't condone falsifying scientific evidence to make it fit a YE doctrine, but I wouldn't accept twisting Bible passages beyond recognition to fit latest scientific consensus, either. (Please note that I'm not claiming that OEC's have necessarily done this - I'm basically open to their views too, as long as they're compatible with what I've come to respect as God's word).

What I'm saying is that we should remain honest in face of both scientifically confirmed natural data and exegetically confirmed Biblical message. There's no reason to assume that they couldn't co-exist (which is why I lean towards the FI). But should a seemingly unsolvable discrepancy arise between the two, it's up to each believer to decide what he or she trusts the most; the wisdom of man or the word of God (which is why I'm not ruling out a fideistic position, either).

From what you've outlined as points of assertion, though, it seems perfectly compatible with OEC views. Aside from additional frowning in the general direction of science, where does framework theory depart from OEC or TE thinking?

Umm, what is TE? [Edit: Uh, silly me. That must be theistic evolution.]

If I understand correctly, most OEC'ists, like Hugh Ross, regard the Genesis story as a straightforward narrative that basically relates the major events of creation during billions of years, one after another. In this theory, yom can mean any period of time.

The framework interpretation agrees that yom doesn't necessarily mean a 24 hour period, either, but that it can be used metaphorically. However, a crucial difference is that the FI doesn't see the narrative as necessarily chronological, but as arranged by topic. (I think even St. Augustine assumed this in the 4th century, without pressure from old earth geological evidence.) Hence the day-pairs of 1 - 4 (light), 2 - 5 (sky, seas) and 3 - 6 (land, animals, man). The odd seventh day is given a special position as a precursor of the sabbath (and of the heavenly "eternal rest"). Among other things, this would relieve the reader from the awkward idea of vegetation created before the sun.

The non-sequential aspect has indirect support from the fact that sometimes, the gospel writers (most often Matthew) rearranged events of Jesus' life into a non-choronological order, probably to reinforce a thematic point.

For more information, see here: http://home.comcast.net/~babucher/framework_interpretation.html .

Regards,

Mark

[dizzle]

I find a lot of merit in the framework interpretation and hope to study it out some more some day. In the bits and pieces I have been able to done, and the reflection on it I have done, I find it more and more to have merit. I was listening to Greg Koukl today, and though he is not framework, he is OEC, and he said some points that I found worthy of consideration.

[Omega Red]

I would be very interested to hear arguments both for and against the framework hypothesis.

Hi Mark

There was a debate on TWeb a while ago between johnransom and Socrates (whatever happened to him?) here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?postid=33002). Didn't last long, but some good stuff.

As I saw it, the framework hypothesis is atemporal and agnostic with respect to "scientific evidence" so could therefore be true for an old or young universe. I'm not sure I agree to wait on the fence for the age of the universe to be agreed by all. However, it has been a long time since I last thought about framework hypothesis.

[dizzle]

From what I understand the FH can accomodate both a YEC and OEC view.

[Touchstone]

Indeed. We should remember - and I wished all modern skeptics would reckon this - that the Old Testament was written primarily for a bronze age people who lived in a primitive, destitute environment and whose language couldn't meet the need of modern scientific expressions. And that the Torah was not meant to be a book on natural science in the first place, but rather the medium of a divine message.

This is not to say that the inspired Word was subject to actual fallacies in matters of physics, cosmology etc. But we have to ask: For whom was the text written in the first place? What is the purpose of the text - scientific, narrative, legal, spiritual, etc.? How were the primary readers supposed to understand the words?

Hi Mark, sorry I didn't can't back to you earlier in reply...

So far so good.

I can see your point, but before continuing further we should confirm the basis of our theology: what is the ultimate authority in scriptural matters? If science appears to contradict the Bible at some point, which do we assume is wrong?

That's the underlying axiom, I suppose. Or should I call it a meta-meta-physic? :-)

I think it should b approached in much the same way physicists have been approach the paradoxes that arise between Einsteinian relativity and Feymanian quantum physics. Both are remarkably useful in their own realm, but they can't (as yet) be harmonized. The predictions one makes about the other's sphere preduces ridiculous answers.

Clearly, there's a problem. Unless we suppose that things don't *have* to make sense, there's some work to do yet in either macro or quantum physics or both to reach *harmonization*. If you follow physics at all, there are interesting things hapening in superstring theory that suggest such a grand unification may be emerging. Either way though, there's a sense of obligation to *harmonize* our knowledge with respect to physics above and below the Planck length.

If pressed, I'd say at no point do we reject science over the Bible. But science is by definition *tentative* and therefore, rejection isn't a problem. Science *thinks* the earth is billions of years old, but it must equivocate. If we are told *unequivocally* in the Bible that the earth is 6,000 years old, there's no problem -- indeed an obligation -- to reject the current leading scientific theory.

This all turns on the epistemic confidence of science, then. In the case of astronomy, the matter of whether the earth is bound to the sun gravitationally (heliocentrism) or vice versa (geocentrism) is *settled* with such confidence now by science that we can comfortably say that Galileo's critics simply had a faulty interpretation of Scripture.

Our levels of confidence must be weighed. Where the science is confidently clear, and the Bible interpretation equivocal, deference should be given to science. When the science is equivocal and the Scriptures confidently clear, deference is properly given to that interpretation of Scripture. And I emphasize *interpretation* here, as Scripture is axiomatically authoritative in my view. It's just our feeble interpretive skills that get in the way.

And if there is a way to make some kind of harmonization between the two, can we do it even if it means a drastic semantic revision in the Scripture?

Yes. And as soon as we can with confidence, in order to emerge from error.

That's why I find the old earth creationists' standard interpretation "day = a few hundred million years, in this case" a bit problematic. If we are to interpret some part of the Bible in a completely novel way (I doubt anyone thought that before the discoveries of modern geology), shouldn't there be at least some kind of a hint of justification for it in the text?

No more than saying there are hints in the text in Isaiah 55 indicating that "clapping trees" are figurative expressions, not innovations in plant anatomy. It may be *new*, but if it comports with *reality*, I said that accomodation overcomes *any* concerns about novelty or maintaining traditions.

Yeah, that's typical rhetoric in a debate, often used as means to assert one's own view as objective, but I think the basic idea behind the phrase is still correct. There is always a meaning that has to be deduced from the text, although finding it out may be difficult.

Concur.

"My" view is not about hostility towards anything, it's about ultimate authority.

I definitely wouldn't condone falsifying scientific evidence to make it fit a YE doctrine, but I wouldn't accept twisting Bible passages beyond recognition to fit latest scientific consensus, either. (Please note that I'm not claiming that OEC's have necessarily done this - I'm basically open to their views too, as long as they're compatible with what I've come to respect as God's word).

I'm sure it looked like "twisting beyond recognition" when Copernican astronomy suggested the earth wasn't the center of the universe. And while precedent and tradition provide needed brakepads against wild fluctuations in interpretation and doctrine as the result of flux in the available science, the way you used "twist" here I identify as prejudicial. I might as easily say that YECs have been twisting the Scriptures for all this time, and point to all the scientific evidence that abounds to prove it. From an OEC PoV, then, YEC exegesis is "twisted beyond recognition".

Hope that makes sense...

What I'm saying is that we should remain honest in face of both scientifically confirmed natural data and exegetically confirmed Biblical message. There's no reason to assume that they couldn't co-exist (which is why I lean towards the FI). But should a seemingly unsolvable discrepancy arise between the two, it's up to each believer to decide what he or she trusts the most; the wisdom of man or the word of God (which is why I'm not ruling out a fideistic position, either).

We generally agree in this post. But I'll object right here, as you're falling into the trap you identified yourself just a few paragraphs up. You're "assert one's own view as objective". In other words, you've set up a false dichotomy with the formulation "wisdom of man or word of God". The wording in that formulation begs the question; it assumes an objective view of the word of God. We have no such thing available to us.

All understanding of the word of God comes to us through the interpretation of the Word, as mediated by the Holy Spirit. All of it. So the competition is really something more like this:

man's understanding of the natural world vs man's understanding of scripture

Cast this way, were aren't (as) prejudiced toward scripture, since the wording implicates our own human fallibility in understand what God is trying to say to us in scripture. The way you have, it, the question comes across as *rhetorical*. It's not a rhetorical question at all.

Umm, what is TE? [I][Edit: Uh, silly me. That must be theistic evolution.]

If I understand correctly, most OEC'ists, like Hugh Ross, regard the Genesis story as a straightforward narrative that basically relates the major events of creation during billions of years, one after another. In this theory, yom can mean any period of time.

The framework interpretation agrees that yom doesn't necessarily mean a 24 hour period, either, but that it can be used metaphorically. However, a crucial difference is that the FI doesn't see the narrative as necessarily chronological, but as arranged by topic. (I think even St. Augustine assumed this in the 4th century, without pressure from old earth geological evidence.) Hence the day-pairs of 1 - 4 (light), 2 - 5 (sky, seas) and 3 - 6 (land, animals, man). The odd seventh day is given a special position as a precursor of the sabbath (and of the heavenly "eternal rest"). Among other things, this would relieve the reader from the awkward idea of vegetation created before the sun.

This matches my interpretation of Genesis quite nicely. Maybe I'm a proponent of this theory and don't know it, yet. :-)

The non-sequential aspect has indirect support from the fact that sometimes, the gospel writers (most often Matthew) rearranged events of Jesus' life into a non-choronological order, probably to reinforce a thematic point.

For more information, see here: http://home.comcast.net/~babucher/framework_interpretation.html .

Regards,

Mark

Right. Wide latitude is to be given to the Author of scripture. Who are we to mandate formalisms about scientific rigor or chronological fidelity? That's an exercise in missing the point. The Bible is a love story running through the history of a people. When viewed this way, it's easy to see why figurative speech and mythopoeic constructs could be easily misconstrued if read as a science textbook, or a stale biography.

Thanks for the response. Your comments are thoughtful and appreciated.

-Touchstone

[kuboes1831]

From what I understand the FH can accomodate both a YEC and OEC view.

That I doubt as FH completely undermines the usual YEC scenario of a sequence of events in 6 24 hour days. It essentially removes Genesis one as a historical account and any sense of time.

[rmwilliamsjr]

From what I understand the FH can accomodate both a YEC and OEC view.

nonetheless YEC has as a major principle the idea that the days of creation are in scientifically and historically accessible order. light was first then sun. grass before the things that move in the sea for example. FI has as a major principle that the age of the earth and universe is indeterminate from Scripture and that the order of the days in the creation week is literary, with a purpose not accessible in a scientific or historical manner. so yes YEC and OEC views can be accommodated by FI but why would a YEC do so, and deny their principles that the days of creation are in scientific order with the geneologies bounding the age of the earth?

[shunyadragon]

From what I understand the FH can accomodate both a YEC and OEC view.

In a review of the literature on the net I found that some YEC and OEC theologians do use what they call a 'Framework Interpretation' to support their epistemology, but I prefer rmwilliamsjr explanation and understanding of 'Framework Interpretation'. YEC and OEC worldviews would still hold to a fairly strict historical interpretation of Genesis, which I do not believe that the 'Framework Interpretation' was intended to do.

[dizzle]

nonetheless YEC has as a major principle the idea that the days of creation are in scientifically and historically accessible order. light was first then sun. grass before the things that move in the sea for example. FI has as a major principle that the age of the earth and universe is indeterminate from Scripture and that the order of the days in the creation week is literary, with a purpose not accessible in a scientific or historical manner. so yes YEC and OEC views can be accommodated by FI but why would a YEC do so, and deny their principles that the days of creation are in scientific order with the geneologies bounding the age of the earth?

This is isn't a difficult question. Because it explains why God chose to create as He did, to use the vehicle of the literal creation event to teach something greater. That is typical throughout the Gospels - I am honestly surprised this didn't occur to you.

[dizzle]

In a review of the literature on the net I found that some YEC and OEC theologians do use what they call a 'Framework Interpretation' to support their epistemology, but I prefer rmwilliamsjr explanation and understanding of 'Framework Interpretation'. YEC and OEC worldviews would still hold to a fairly strict historical interpretation of Genesis, which I do not believe that the 'Framework Interpretation' was intended to do.

I care more about what God intended to do. So right now I don't have an issue with being both YEC and fairly convinced that the FI is onto something.

[rmwilliamsjr]

This is isn't a difficult question. Because it explains why God chose to create as He did, to use the vehicle of the literal creation event to teach something greater. That is typical throughout the Gospels - I am honestly surprised this didn't occur to you.

i'm not positive i understand what you mean.
i find the whole issue very difficult and frought with problems.
the fact remains that science has fully falsified the YECist position, there is no evidence for creation science and immense weight of evidence against it. What doesn't occur to me is that YECism is true. I try as a matter of principle to read both books of God together, the book of Words and the book of Works. the fact that the book of Works makes a YECist hermeneutic and interpretation of Gen 1-5 impossible means that God intends for us to interpret it differently. FI, imho, leads the way into this proper interpretation.

i wrote this earlier today in another place
but it is to this point as well.


Your posting is a form of Decartes demon, or better yet because of the topic: Morton's demon.
The answer is in the intersubjectivity of science and in the principles of scientific critical realism.
1. there is a real world out there.
2. it is not just a reflection of our inner world
3. we share this experience of the real world with others.
4. it is an ethical good to investigate this real world and understand it
5. at this point, reasoning to the best explanation the TofE is the best theory we have for living things in this real world
6. human beings are part of the living things in this real world.
7. YECists has no scientific evidence to support it, OTOH the TofE is as well supported as any other scientific theory
9. these ideas are to a scale of beyond reasonable doubt they are not certain or 100% true.
10. utility, usefulness, productivity, fruitfulness, simplicity, goodness of fit, consilence etc are all metaphysical criteria of scientific theories, in all cases the TofE is as adequate as any other scientific theories in these regards.

does all of this prove that Decartes demon does not exist? nope. just that you are reasonable and well justified in believing as you do and can honestly remain untroubled by the problems of Decartes demon, or "brains in the vat", or last thursdayism.


it was in response to the question of if the TofE could be false and YECism true despite all the evidence.

[dizzle]

I am not in this thread to argue for the validty of YEC. You asked a question regarding my position as YEC concerning the FI, and my favourable disposition towards it.

[Mercury]

This is isn't a difficult question. Because it explains why God chose to create as He did, to use the vehicle of the literal creation event to teach something greater. That is typical throughout the Gospels - I am honestly surprised this didn't occur to you.
The trouble is that the symmetry present in the framework interpretation of Genesis 1 does not hold up if all of creation is added to the mix. If you try to shoehorn the creation of angels, hell, bacteria, algae, and many other created things into the days of Genesis 1, the two triad structure falls apart. There's also many things that are included that span more than the category they are placed into, such as amphibians or flightless birds.

In other words, the literary structure is based on what the author chose to focus on, and not on the entirety of creation. If the symmetry were due to this being the way God actually created, then one would expect the symmetry to remain even when these other things were present.

[Mark F]

Our levels of confidence must be weighed. Where the science is confidently clear, and the Bible interpretation equivocal, deference should be given to science. When the science is equivocal and the Scriptures confidently clear, deference is properly given to that interpretation of Scripture. And I emphasize *interpretation* here, as Scripture is axiomatically authoritative in my view. It's just our feeble interpretive skills that get in the way.

Can't disagree here. I think that's a good thumb rule.

We generally agree in this post. But I'll object right here, as you're falling into the trap you identified yourself just a few paragraphs up. You're "assert[ing] one's own view as objective". In other words, you've set up a false dichotomy with the formulation "wisdom of man or word of God". The wording in that formulation begs the question; it assumes an objective view of the word of God. We have no such thing available to us.

Again, you are making a point that I understand and can accept in a sense. But the idea that no objective view of the Bible exists, if applied universally (not what you're aiming for, I understand), could push us onto a dangerous, slippery slope of theological relativity.

I would say that there are many biblical passages where no single ultimate, exclusive, "objective" interpretation may ever be available. The creation account could be one, as well as ambiguous, poetic cosmological statements in the OT. But what about the passages expressing God's judgment of sin, virgin birth, death on the cross, the resurrection...? Being a Christian essentially means claiming that there is an objective, exclusive interpretation for these parts of the Bible. Without asserting an objective meaning in these passages, our very faith has no real foundation.

All understanding of the word of God comes to us through the interpretation of the Word, as mediated by the Holy Spirit. All of it.

That's true. But I think that generally, the Bible speaks in words and expressions that are usually understandable on the basis of their ordinary meaning(s).

Thanks for the response. Your comments are thoughtful and appreciated.

Mutual.

[dizzle]

The trouble is that the symmetry present in the framework interpretation of Genesis 1 does not hold up if all of creation is added to the mix. If you try to shoehorn the creation of angels, hell, bacteria, algae, and many other created things into the days of Genesis 1, the two triad structure falls apart. There's also many things that are included that span more than the category they are placed into, such as amphibians or flightless birds.

In other words, the literary structure is based on what the author chose to focus on, and not on the entirety of creation. If the symmetry were due to this being the way God actually created, then one would expect the symmetry to remain even when these other things were present.

Actually no, not at all. The fact that God had created OTHER things in the same periods doesn't destroy it because He directed the author to focus on specific issues. Symbolism and typology does not require all fours.

[Mercury]

Actually no, not at all. The fact that God had created OTHER things in the same periods doesn't destroy it because He directed the author to focus on specific issues. Symbolism and typology does not require all fours.
I was referring to the symmetry, not the symbolism and typology. Let me put it another way. If I listed my nieces and nephews alphabetically, you probably wouldn't expect that this was also the order in which they were born. Since the order already has an explanation, it would be quite a coincidence if the birth order was the same. Similarly, the order of days of Genesis 1 already has an explanation: it is a topical arrangement that creates symmetry between three realms and three groups of characters. As such, there's no need for the order to also be historical. Since we know that there are more realms and more types of characters than Genesis 1 describes, it would be strange if the order were historical.

Dee Dee, since you're a preterist, I'm a bit surprised at your approach to Genesis 1. How do you interpret the seven trumpets in Revelation 8-9? The accounts of the seals, trumpets and bowls of Revelation seems to me to be most similar in Scripture to the format of Genesis 1. While they are written in a different language, they all use a tightly structured framework of seven items, with the seventh being set off as special. They all describe events not witnessed by any human (at least not at the time of writing). Rather than being strictly historical from a human perspective, they allow a glimpse of what is happening behind the scenes, showing how God's actions from his dwelling place affect the earth.

Do you insist on each trumpet (or seal or bowl) being strictly chronological? Must the trumpets be literal trumpets just as the days must be literal days? Personally, I think the trumpets provide a framework for describing God's vengeance, just as the days of Genesis 1 provide a framework for describing God's creation. Whether events literally accord with the order presented is inconsequential.

[dizzle]

I was referring to the symmetry, not the symbolism and typology. Let me put it another way. If I listed my nieces and nephews alphabetically, you probably wouldn't expect that this was also the order in which they were born. Since the order already has an explanation, it would be quite a coincidence if the birth order was the same. Similarly, the order of days of Genesis 1 already has an explanation: it is a topical arrangement that creates symmetry between three realms and three groups of characters. As such, there's no need for the order to also be historical.

Not if God were conveying something, it wouldn't be surprising at all.


Dee Dee, since you're a preterist, I'm a bit surprised at your approach to Genesis 1. How do you interpret the seven trumpets in Revelation 8-9? The accounts of the seals, trumpets and bowls of Revelation seems to me to be most similar in Scripture to the format of Genesis 1. While they are written in a different language, they all use a tightly structured framework of seven items, with the seventh being set off as special. They all describe events not witnessed by any human (at least not at the time of writing). Rather than being strictly historical from a human perspective, they allow a glimpse of what is happening behind the scenes, showing how God's actions from his dwelling place affect the earth.

Revelation is a completely different genre and it is stated in the opening verses that it is "signified." Secondly it is the very fact that I am a preterist that drives my interpretation of Genesis since I am convinced that evening and morning means exactly that. i.e. I take time statements seriously.

And yes the trumpets and seals are chronological in their groups. They restate the same events but within their own kind they are indeed chronological.

[Mercury]

Not if God were conveying something, it wouldn't be surprising at all.I see you're disagreeing, but I don't follow your reasoning. Can you explain in a few more words?

Revelation is a completely different genre and it is stated in the opening verses that it is "signified."What genre is Genesis 1? It seems far closer to apocalypse or prophecy than history. I'm using a wider definition of apocalypse that doesn't tie it to destruction but rather can include both creation and destruction on a cosmic scale, interweaving both natural and supernatural events in highly evocative language. Both Genesis 1 and Revelation reveal things no human saw. Unlike typical historical accounts, Genesis 1 does not reveal any sources, whether direct eyewitnesses, investigation, or other books. And, there's also the direct similarities with the seven-item accounts used in both, as I mentioned earlier.

Secondly it is the very fact that I am a preterist that drives my interpretation of Genesis since I am convinced that evening and morning means exactly that. i.e. I take time statements seriously.Saying that you take some portion of Scripture "seriously" is unhelpful in a conversation like this. I think we both try to take all of Scripture seriously. The question is whether the time statement is meant to be literal, not whether one takes it seriously. I think you'd agree that we should take Hosea 6:2 seriously, yet that doesn't require us to take its time statements literally (nor to think it applies directly to us). Taking Scripture seriously should include recognizing literary forms and techniques, and that's one of the things that attracted me to both the preterist viewpoint and the framework view.

And yes the trumpets and seals are chronological in their groups. They restate the same events but within their own kind they are indeed chronological.Since you think they restate the same events (as do I), you obviously are not applying the type of strict chronology that young-earth creationists apply to Genesis 1. Just because Death is given authority to kill by the sword when the fourth seal is opened doesn't mean that people couldn't be killed by the sword before that point, for instance.

While there's some cause-and-effect ordering in the trumpets and seals, for the most part I don't think they are chronological, though I admit I haven't studied them in much detail. In any case, they don't contain a clear other purpose for their order the way the days of Genesis 1 do, since they don't contain such obvious symmetry.

[dizzle]

I see you're disagreeing, but I don't follow your reasoning. Can you explain in a few more words?

Mercury unfortunately I am time-impaired. You are desiring a much deeper conversation that I am able to give.

One thing though

Saying that you take some portion of Scripture "seriously" is unhelpful in a conversation like this. I think we both try to take all of Scripture seriously.

You are correct - that was badly worded. I think you know though what I meant - time statements are an over-riding concern for me in light of my preterism. You expressed surprise that I would be a YEC preterist, and that was my attempt, within the context of your pointing out another belief of mine, to explain exactly how exactly the opposite of what you are positing is correct. I am surprised that all preterists are not YEC.

That is really all I can invest at this point. I hopped a bit into this thread because I do find the FE interesting and compelling, but I am still very much in the "study" stage.

[Mercury]

Mercury unfortunately I am time-impaired.No problem. I'll just add one clarification.

I think you know though what I meant - time statements are an over-riding concern for me in light of my preterism. You expressed surprise that I would be a YEC preterist, and that was my attempt, within the context of your pointing out another belief of mine, to explain exactly how exactly the opposite of what you are positing is correct. I am surprised that all preterists are not YEC.If preterism was about taking time statements literally and some non-time statements figuratively (which I realize is going further than what you said), maybe I'd feel the same way. But I see it as being about interpreting Scripture according to its genre, so that apocalyptic language and didactic teaching are treated quite differently. As such, the issue with Genesis 1 isn't whether it contains time statements, but rather what the genre is.

That's why, for me, the framework interpretation and preterism seem to fit together quite nicely. In general, both have more appreciation for varied methods of conveying truth than futurism or young-earth creationism. I'm sure you've come across futurists who think reading a passage about the sun being darkened as apocalyptic is the same thing as saying it isn't true. I've heard the same from young-earth creationists about a symbolic view of the six days, or the trees or serpent. Frequently, it isn't just because of disagreement about the genre of a passage, but because futurists or YECs bypass the genre question altogether.