"Framework Hypothesis? What's That?"

[JonLanceBarker]

hi, everybody.
i am a creationist who doesn't really care much about the OE-YE debate (it's not a faith-decider or anything like that, just an interesting question).

i am starting this thread because i see some Christians on tWeb have listed in their beliefs a certain protology of a name that i am completely unfamiliar with.
that protology is the Framework Hypothesis.

i have no idea what that means.
so my question is:

what is the Framework Hypothesis, and how does it fit in with Genesis?

[The Curtmudgeon]

what is the Framework Hypothesis, and how does it fit in with Genesis?

Not that I strongly support Wiki, but they do have a quick overview of the Framework Hype (sorry, that's "Hypo") here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_(Genesis)). The Protestant Reformed Church's website has an article rebutting it (WARNING: I have not read the article, so I don't know if I agree with any and/or all of its points, but I do agree with its stand that the FH is wrong) here (http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_83.html). I only suggest it as a place discussing the FH so that you can get an idea what it's about, and at least what some see as objections to it.

The (research is us) Curtmudgeon

[JonLanceBarker]

maybe you'd better read it, then.
it seems they either picked entirely the wrong guy to actually refute the FH or the right guy to categorically condemn it to hellfire.
that PRC article was quite informative in the language consistently used by YEC's to condemn any somewhat less straightforward reading of Genesis.
now, don't get me wrong, that sort of vigorous condemnation may of course be justified, but it has the detrimental effect of making YEC's look incredibly paranoid.:noid:

[Pilgrim]

The Frame work Hypothesis is the idea that the creation narrative has a literary aspect to it and is type of Hebraic literary device which high lights both God's creativity and God's order.

Basically there are days of creating and days of filling as it were. Day one and day 4 correspond, day 2 and day 5 and then day 3 and 6 correspond. With the whole thing being book ended by the introduction and day 7.

The text is then seen as less a scientific explanation of creation and more of a comment on the character of God.

[The Curtmudgeon]

maybe you'd better read it, then.

Nah, I'm not interested in the FH myself. I was only supplying some material for you. I only suggested it because it had a "What is the Framework Hypothesis?" section right at the top. It looked like it might answer your question in the OP, whether or not the rest of the document was worth anything.

The (I've never seen any good proof that the so-called literary frame is intrinsic, not extrinsic) Curtmudgeon

[JonLanceBarker]

The Frame work Hypothesis is the idea that the creation narrative has a literary aspect to it and is type of Hebraic literary device which high lights both God's creativity and God's order.

Basically there are days of creating and days of filling as it were. Day one and day 4 correspond, day 2 and day 5 and then day 3 and 6 correspond. With the whole thing being book ended by the introduction and day 7.

The text is then seen as less a scientific explanation of creation and more of a comment on the character of God.

the correspondence i understand.
so then, the days may not actually represent a chronological order of creation, but rather a literary organization based on theme and probably intended to help oral memorization?

[JonLanceBarker]

The Frame work Hypothesis is the idea that the creation narrative has a literary aspect to it and is type of Hebraic literary device which high lights both God's creativity and God's order.

in short, the creation account in Genesis 1 would then be something like "Berei[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] Shorter Catechism, Part One."
(since you're a Presbyterian minister, i'm assuming you know enough Hebrew to understand my reference.) :smile::teeth:


Basically there are days of creating and days of filling as it were. Day one and day 4 correspond, day 2 and day 5 and then day 3 and 6 correspond. With the whole thing being book ended by the introduction and day 7.

so this approach emphasizes more the pattern of God's creation, rather than the chronological order; that God makes a foundation (space and time, heavens and seas, dry land and vegetation) for the things that shall be supported by it (stars and planets, birds and fishes, animals and man).
and the literary arrangement is meant to reflect this arrangement, according to the hypothesis.


The text is then seen as less a scientific explanation of creation and more of a comment on the character of God.

Genesis was never intended to be a scientific explanation, just a true story. :teeth:
i can't help but think that the word "yom" (being, as it were, a word that means either day or age or whatever period of time) was intended to denote some kind of chronological significance to the various stages in Genesis.
after all, why use a word referring to time if the best interpretation of the passage has little to do with time at all?
so why wouldn't the organization actually reflect the reasons for which God might have created the universe in that particular chronological order, instead of merely being a useful literary illustration?

[Pilgrim]

in short, the creation account in Genesis 1 would then be something like "Berei[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] Shorter Catechism, Part One."
(since you're a Presbyterian minister, i'm assuming you know enough Hebrew to understand my reference.) :smile::teeth:



so this approach emphasizes more the pattern of God's creation, rather than the chronological order; that God makes a foundation (space and time, heavens and seas, dry land and vegetation) for the things that shall be supported by it (stars and planets, birds and fishes, animals and man).
and the literary arrangement is meant to reflect this arrangement, according to the hypothesis.



Genesis was never intended to be a scientific explanation, just a true story. :teeth:
i can't help but think that the word "yom" (being, as it were, a word that means either day or age or whatever period of time) was intended to denote some kind of chronological significance to the various stages in Genesis.
after all, why use a word referring to time if the best interpretation of the passage has little to do with time at all?
so why wouldn't the organization actually reflect the reasons for which God might have created the universe in that particular chronological order, instead of merely being a useful literary illustration?

I think the language is used in that way to highlight God's orderly way as well as God's creative way. At least, that's the way it was presented to me in seminary and it makes very good sense to me.

When using language poetically one often uses words in such ways. "Love, it is a river." Why use the word river if Love isn't actually a flowing body of water right? Same as above the way I see it.

Please note, this thread is not a debate thread regarding creationism, young earth, old earth or other and it is not a debated thread regarding evolution. It is a thread asking for an explanation of the Frame Work Hypothesis. Thanks.

[JonLanceBarker]

does the Framework Hypothesis necessarily dischronologize the first chapter of Genesis?
could it be possible that the literary structure highlighted by the Hypothesis is simply a reflection of the chronological order, and perhaps even an explanation of it?

[Pilgrim]

does the Framework Hypothesis necessarily dischronologize the first chapter of Genesis?
could it be possible that the literary structure highlighted by the Hypothesis is simply a reflection of the chronological order, and perhaps even an explanation of it?

No and yes respectively to your questions.

[JonLanceBarker]

No and yes respectively to your questions.

so then, one can recognize the Framework Hypothesis as a reasonable interpretation, and still be an OEC or YEC.
this is part of why i recognized a paranoid misunderstanding in the words of whoever it was that wrote the response at that site.

[JonLanceBarker]

No and yes respectively to your questions.

and by "an explanation of the chronological order" i mean the possibility that Genesis actually is a record of the chronological order in which God created, and the Framework Hypothesis works best simply as an explanation of why He did so.

just so we're clear...:wink:

[Pilgrim]

so then, one can recognize the Framework Hypothesis as a reasonable interpretation, and still be an OEC or YEC.
this is part of why i recognized a paranoid misunderstanding in the words of whoever it was that wrote the response at that site.

I should think so though I've never really seen anyone argue it that way.

[JonLanceBarker]

I should think so though I've never really seen anyone argue it that way.

why, do you think?

[Pilgrim]

why, do you think?

I guess because the framework hypothesis is not meant to be an argument for any literal creation narrative. It is understood to be a comment about the character of God rather than a statement on how creation happened scientifically. Still, I don't think that would preclude reading it the way you are approaching it.

You may have just found a great master's thesis with this one!

[JonLanceBarker]

I guess because the framework hypothesis is not meant to be an argument for any literal creation narrative. It is understood to be a comment about the character of God rather than a statement on how creation happened scientifically. Still, I don't think that would preclude reading it the way you are approaching it.

You may have just found a great master's thesis with this one!

a master's thesis in what?
theology?
i'm not exactly in seminary.
or was it a master's thesis for you? :wink:
EDIT: so, why then is the Framework Hypothesis listed as a separate protology?

[JonLanceBarker]

busy writing that master's thesis, pilgrim? :teeth:

[JonLanceBarker]

so curtmudgeon, is the FH still wrong?

[KBertsche]

does the Framework Hypothesis necessarily dischronologize the first chapter of Genesis?
could it be possible that the literary structure highlighted by the Hypothesis is simply a reflection of the chronological order, and perhaps even an explanation of it?

I believe it usually dischronologizes Gen 1. Meredith Kline is probably the best known proponent. He saw the account as alternating between the "upper register" (i.e. God's perspective and time) and the "lower register" (man's perspective and time). He equated Day 1 and Day 4, viewing Day 4 as essentially a restatement of Day 1. This certainly dischronologizes the account.

Perhaps others who are considered "Framework" (e.g. Blocher, Sailhamer) don't dischronologize so much, but I'm not sure.

[JonLanceBarker]

well i understand the reasoning behind wanting to reconcile the creation of light with the creation of the sun, but one has to wonder: if day 1 and day 4 are pretty much the same period, why not apply the same rule to 2 and 5, or to 3 and 6?

is Kline consistent in his application of that hermeneutic? :hrm:

[KBertsche]

well i understand the reasoning behind wanting to reconcile the creation of light with the creation of the sun, but one has to wonder: if day 1 and day 4 are pretty much the same period, why not apply the same rule to 2 and 5, or to 3 and 6?

is Kline consistent in his application of that hermeneutic? :hrm:

I don't really remember. Kline's view is fairly complex, and I had a hard time understanding it. I'd recommend that you read up on it yourself. There's some stuff on the web (google for Meredith Kline and Westminster Seminary in California), and he's written a full chapter in The Genesis Debate.

[JonLanceBarker]

I don't really remember. Kline's view is fairly complex, and I had a hard time understanding it. I'd recommend that you read up on it yourself. There's some stuff on the web (google for Meredith Kline and Westminster Seminary in California), and he's written a full chapter in The Genesis Debate.

hmmm...will do, but it's getting late, so can't do it now.
nighty night, all.

[BrianB]

Lots of info already on Tweb:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=13180
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=335662

Brian

[JonLanceBarker]

:stunned:

wow...Brian, you may have just converted me overnight...(in a very literal sense, it's about 2:30 as i write this! :teeth:)

i think you make a good case for the dischronologization of Gen. 1, actually...i mean, in the various other examples of Biblical "dis-chron" you cited, none were trying to establish a Sabbath system, so we have a rather exceptional case in Gen. 1!!!

i appreciate your input...if you have anything else to add to the wealth of info you just left me, i'd love to hear it!

:thumb:

[Pilgrim]

Just one further though: the late Dr. Kline (just passed away a month ago) does follow through with pattern and days 2 and 3 are seen as attached to days 5 and 6 respectively. Days of creating and days of filling as it were.

[Dee Dee Warren]

:stunned:

wow...Brian, you may have just converted me overnight...(in a very literal sense, it's about 2:30 as i write this! :teeth:)

i think you make a good case for the dischronologization of Gen. 1, actually...i mean, in the various other examples of Biblical "dis-chron" you cited, none were trying to establish a Sabbath system, so we have a rather exceptional case in Gen. 1!!!

i appreciate your input...if you have anything else to add to the wealth of info you just left me, i'd love to hear it!

:thumb:

I think Brian's arguments are very good.

[JonLanceBarker]

I think Brian's arguments are very good.

i'd have to agree with you there! :teeth:

so DD, what is your take on the FH, exactly?

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am not exactly sure right now as eschatology has captured my interest. I do think though there is great merit to a lot of its ideas.

[JonLanceBarker]

I am not exactly sure right now as eschatology has captured my interest.

which reminds me: i owe you and JP many thanks for helping me to decide my eschatological position. :smile:
after all, it was your argumentative endorsement of preterism based on scripture that set me on the path to a decision in favor of preterism. :thumb:


I do think though there is great merit to a lot of its ideas.

once again, a resounding "me too!" :teeth:

especially appealing to me is the lack of need to argue about the age of the earth, as the FH makes the question utterly irrelevant.
this is important, because it seems to me that neither YEC's nor OEC's can really prove their own claims about the age of the earth.

on the one hand, the Genesis genealogies seem to allow for gaps in the record between the names of notable mentions (after all, i've read that "father" in that text can just as well mean "ancestor").
so the major support for YEC seems to have dried up.

on the other hand, the various methods of "absolute" dating based on radioactive isotope decay don't seem to be as reliable as geologists like to let on...i mean, you put one of those isotopes in a nuclear reactor, you've changed the half-life right then and there, so why not allow for influence on the rate by cosmic radiation? as far as i'm concerned, the rate of decay cannot be proven to be constant.
so there goes the basic reason for advocating OEC.

EDIT: so obviously i hold neither to 6,000 years nor to 4 billion...neither one seems right to me!

as Brian so aptly puts it, it seems we must remain "agnostic" in regard to the age of the earth.
though i'm sure Kline now knows all he's ever going to want to know about such questions, God bless him. :pray:
too bad he can't come back to edit any of his books...:hehe:

[KBertsche]

on the other hand, the various methods of "absolute" dating based on radioactive isotope decay don't seem to be as reliable as geologists like to let on...i mean, you put one of those isotopes in a nuclear reactor, you've changed the half-life right then and there, so why not allow for influence on the rate by cosmic radiation? as far as i'm concerned, the rate of decay cannot be proven to be constant.
so there goes the basic reason for advocating OEC.


Not true! (Maybe you've been reading too much YEC misinformation?) The half-life is constant; a reactor does not change it. Neither does cosmic radiation. Initial concentrations and contamination can be a problem, but the 39-Ar/40-Ar method corrects for this and is quite reliable for dates in the 10's of millions of years. Likewise, 14-C is quite reliable for dates back to 30k years or so.

You are technically correct that the "rate of decay cannot be proven to be constant", but neither has it ever been proven to be variable (except for an extremely small effect for one particular isotope and decay process under extremely high pressure). Further, we have no reasonable physical theory for how most decay processes even COULD be variable (even the RATE project has no good theories for this). Since there is no data or plausible mechanism to the contrary, constancy is a valid working hypothesis.

I'd recommend reading the paper by Roger Wiens:
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

If you want to pursue this further, we should probably start a new thread.

[JonLanceBarker]

hmmm...i would like to pursue this further, KB.
but before i do...is this your particular scientific realm?
because if it is, i may be asking some dumb-looking questions.
i'd just like you to be aware that my current major is biology, not geology...so i won't be intimately familiar with all the technical terms related to radioactive decay.
just a little heads up...:teeth:

[KBertsche]

hmmm...i would like to pursue this further, KB.
but before i do...is this your particular scientific realm?
because if it is, i may be asking some dumb-looking questions.
i'd just like you to be aware that my current major is biology, not geology...so i won't be intimately familiar with all the technical terms related to radioactive decay.
just a little heads up...:teeth:

My field is physics, and I was involved with radiocarbon dating and other radioisotope measurements for my PhD and a postdoc.

Honest questions are fine, of course, even if they look dumb.

You can get the basic terminology and details from Wiens' paper, or from Davis Young's Christianity and the Age of the Earth, or from the standard textbook Principles of Isotope Geology by Gunter Faure.

[JonLanceBarker]

mmm...methinks perhaps i was wrong in tossing up that statement about the half-life.
Wiens's paper is very helpful...i think i recognize a couple of the diagrams from a small explanation one of the professors at my college gave me...he said if the rates of decay could be proven to be variable, the whole setup would blow to pieces.
he had that tone of voice that sounded like Apostle Paul outlining the necessity of the Resurrection of Jesus. :teeth:
i think i've been pretty much convinced...i do wonder a little about experiments testing the variability of the decay rate, although i'm not holding out much hope for the YE position at the moment...:teeth: :lol:

[KBertsche]

mmm...methinks perhaps i was wrong in tossing up that statement about the half-life.
Wiens's paper is very helpful...i think i recognize a couple of the diagrams from a small explanation one of the professors at my college gave me...he said if the rates of decay could be proven to be variable, the whole setup would blow to pieces.
he had that tone of voice that sounded like Apostle Paul outlining the necessity of the Resurrection of Jesus. :teeth:
i think i've been pretty much convinced...i do wonder a little about experiments testing the variability of the decay rate, although i'm not holding out much hope for the YE position at the moment...:teeth: :lol:

Yes, changes in the decay rate are not much more than sci-fi. Radioactive decay is a function of the nucleus and nuclear structure. Unless one somehow messes with the nucleus (e.g. bombarding it with a high flux of subatomic particles) it's hard to even see HOW one could cause the rate could change.

The only exception is electron capture decay, where the nucleus captures an electron from the inner shell of the electron cloud. It is conceivable that under extremely high pressures or strong electromagnetic fields the electron clouds could be perturbed very slightly and this could affect the decay rate slightly. Such a slight effect has been seen in one particular isotope of iron, I think. But this is not a large effect, and it has no bearing on the much more common beta decay, which cannot be affected in the same way.

Some have speculated that a change in fundamental constants, like the speed of light, could change the decay rate. But this is pure speculation. No good mechanisms have even been proposed for how these constants could change.

When radioisotope dating is done properly, it is very accurate and consistent. But like any test or procedure, it can be misapplied or done incorrectly, in which case it can give wrong results.

[JonLanceBarker]

so what kind of radiation is cosmic radiation?
subatomic?
electromagnetic?
if subatomic, the amount obviously can't be that great...

[Faramir]

EDIT: so obviously i hold neither to 6,000 years nor to 4 billion...neither one seems right to me!

as Brian so aptly puts it, it seems we must remain "agnostic" in regard to the age of the earth.
though i'm sure Kline now knows all he's ever going to want to know about such questions, God bless him. :pray:
too bad he can't come back to edit any of his books...:hehe:

Really? I thought Most FH were also TE (I am presonally an "agnostic" FH, but I thought I was in the minority)

[JonLanceBarker]

Really? I thought Most FH were also TE (I am presonally an "agnostic" FH, but I thought I was in the minority)

well, i simply don't think evolution has enough evidence to support it. :teeth:
besides, the whole "theory" started in the imagination of a man who had already rejected the account of God creating a germ, much less the universe.

to put it bluntly, the idea that natural selection (otherwise known as microevolution) caused different "kinds" of creatures to change into other "kinds" (or macroevolution)
was thought up to explain away the evidence for a Creator.
as such, the Theory of (macro)Evolution is inherently suspect.
and to top things off, no one has witnessed macroevolution, while plenty have witnessed microevolution.

it's merely a matter of "small changes" versus "huge changes."

therefore, anything that smacks of Darwinism i reject wholeheartedly. :smile:

[KBertsche]

so what kind of radiation is cosmic radiation?
subatomic?
electromagnetic?
if subatomic, the amount obviously can't be that great...

Cosmic rays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray) are energetic subatomic particles, mostly protons. A number of radioisotopes (including C-14) are "cosmogenic", i.e. produced by cosmic rays. When cosmic rays hit our upper atmosphere thay make a cascade of other subatomic and radioactive particles This "spallation reaction" provides a continuous source of C-14 to make up for its decay, and we are left with a steady state situation where the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere is fairly constant.

[JonLanceBarker]

Really? I thought Most FH were also TE (I am presonally an "agnostic" FH, but I thought I was in the minority)

i wouldn't know about other FHers.....don't think i know any personally...:teeth:

[TheAnalogman]

Lots of info already on Tweb:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=13180
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=335662

Brian

This is very interesting, too bad Gray Pilgrim didn't post his views on why he found thread 13180 irratating. Guess I need to dust off my Sailhammer.

[JonLanceBarker]

well, "thread 13180" was rather....long. :teeth:
i suppose that alone might irritate the less-than-attentive reader...:hehe:

EDIT: not that i'm implying GP was an inattentive reader, of course....:outtie:

[BrianB]

:stunned:

wow...Brian, you may have just converted me overnight...(in a very literal sense, it's about 2:30 as i write this! :teeth:)

i think you make a good case for the dischronologization of Gen. 1, actually...i mean, in the various other examples of Biblical "dis-chron" you cited, none were trying to establish a Sabbath system, so we have a rather exceptional case in Gen. 1!!!

i appreciate your input...if you have anything else to add to the wealth of info you just left me, i'd love to hear it!

:thumb:

Hey, that's great! I'm glad you found it to be well reasoned. It took me a long time, but I highly recommend writing 'position papers' like this if there's an issue that you'd really like dig into. Like DeeDee's Matt 24 commentary. Good stuff.

Regards,
Brian

[Faramir]

well, i simply don't think evolution has enough evidence to support it. :teeth:
besides, the whole "theory" started in the imagination of a man who had already rejected the account of God creating a germ, much less the universe.

to put it bluntly, the idea that natural selection (otherwise known as microevolution) caused different "kinds" of creatures to change into other "kinds" (or macroevolution)
was thought up to explain away the evidence for a Creator.
as such, the Theory of (macro)Evolution is inherently suspect.
and to top things off, no one has witnessed macroevolution, while plenty have witnessed microevolution.

it's merely a matter of "small changes" versus "huge changes."

therefore, anything that smacks of Darwinism i reject wholeheartedly. :smile:

Oh me too. Me too! I do think it possible the God may have used some other mechanism (not likely but possible) of evolution. But nothing resembling natural selection. But I also think it possible that God created all animals at once (also not likely IMO)

[JonLanceBarker]

well, even if you're a YEC, you can't believe God created all animals at once. :smile: :teeth:

[JonLanceBarker]

just in two "normal solar" days. :hehe:

[JonLanceBarker]

not that it matters to FH people. :shrug: