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

[Dee Dee Warren]

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

[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

[Dee Dee Warren]

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

[Dee Dee Warren]

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]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderator Notice

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.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[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]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderator Notice

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.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[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
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
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