I am glad to get another chance to discuss some things with you.
You wrote:
>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.
>
I am one of those who asked whether the two register view could really be
verified. Never having personally seen heaven and not seeing a discussion of
heaven in Genesis 1, it is difficult for me to know whether Kline's view is
correct or not.
I would strongly disagree with your statement "But our ability to verify can
never be a factor in accepting or rejecting a proposed biblical model."
Point of fact: The YEC view IS a biblical model. If the scientific
verification (or lack there of) is not a fact in rejecting their model then
upon what basis can it possibly be evaluated? On what basis can it be
rejected?
If extra-biblical verification is not to be considered at all in assessing
biblical models, then I would contend that any of the very numerous models are
all just about equally good. I would then despair of ever knowing the truth.
The various biblical models are usually fairly internally consistent and
differ with each other in the expected extra-biblical consequences. For
instance, the Day Age model would "predict" an old universe with a
non-discontinuous history. The Gap theory would predict a discontinuity in
history between the previous creation and the present one. Notice that the
main difference between these two biblical models is extra-biblical
expectations. And extra-biblical data must be used to differentiate them.
The YEC view would expect to find rapidly deposited sedimentary structures,
and not find things like foot-prints, worm burrows, the solar cycle and the
earth's orbital cyclicities caught in the sedimentary structures nor salt with
pollen and meteorite dust deposited in the middle of the sedimentary column.
If a biblical model is nothing more than a philosophical system which is
totally encased in its own protective chrysalis and never touches the outside
world, then to me, it is utterly useless.
Russ wrote:
> 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 the Kline article retains the historicity of Adam and Eve, it does so in a
very funny way. There is no discussion of when, where, and how type
questions. The article divorces itself from these type of normal historical
questions. When was the creation of man? Where did it occur? What was the
technology available to them? What is the relation of Adam to Neanderthal,
Homo erectus, Homo habilis and Australopithecus? This article has totally
divorced Adam and Eve from the history of the world we live in which, like it
or not, includes the above named hominids. Are they irrelevant to the
question of Adam and Eve?
) 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.
I will only make one comment on this. Kline (p. 12) talks about the mist but
attempts no physical explanation of this phenomenon. Water does not behave
that way in our world UNLESS you are in a deep basin which is what I have
proposed. Once again, the lack of a proposed mechanism on the part of Kline
divorces the mist from the real world. If it was indeed actual, physical
water, then by golly, we had better make an attempt to explain it physically.
To do less is to relegate it to other worldliness.
glenn