Thanks, Jack, for suggesting that we discuss Kline's article. That
article is surely a major contribution to the discussion of origins
and the Bible's teaching on origins.
I do not understand what is meant by those who say or at least imply
that Kline's model is suspect because parts of it cannot be verified
by natural scientific investigation. Since when do Christians hold
that origins models, or for that matter, any other teaching derived
from Scripture, require extra-biblical verification? Of course, natural
scientific results can be found to be *consistent* with a biblical
model; and often those results can even point the way to our asking
if our previously-held position which we thought was biblical is in
fact correct. But our ability to verify can never be a factor in accepting
or rejecting a proposed biblical model.
Personally, I lean more and more to the literary or framework model
that Kline espouses. (A minor aside: he points out that in my 1970
book I suggested the day-age model and also refers to the fact that
in my 1993 book I allowed for the literary model. My main reason for
being very careful about the literary model was the fear that it would
be used to make Adam and Eve mythical, an untenable position in my
view.) If I have any criticism of Kline's article, it is the introduction
of the "two-register" idea. It sounds a little mechanical. Perhaps
he could have gotten across the same ideas by saying, "What was going
on in heaven was..." and "What was going on in Creation was..." I guess
I react a little to counting--perhaps that's because some people (NOT
Meredith Kline!) have attempted various numerological approach to the
biblical text.
I'll be anxious to see what others have to say about Kline's specific
verse-by-verse interpretations, his comparison of the Hebrew words
with other parts of the OT, etc.
Russ
--e-mail: rmaatman@dordt.edu Home address:Russell Maatman 401 Fifth Ave. SE Dordt College Sioux Center, Iowa 51250Sioux Center, Iowa 51250 Home phone: (712) 722-0421