To criticize Kline's article because it cannot be verified scientifically
is to dismiss what Kline is trying to contribute too easily. Kline is
analyzing the Scriptures as literature. As I understand it, his original
intent, in part, was to show that the Hebrew text did not require some of
the rigid interpretations of time that some Christians require. I see his
paper as opening up the limits to what is required by Scripture. That
gives Christians more latitude in trying to see how Science and Scripture
may be interpreted in a consistent way.
>>
>
Glenn wrote
>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.
The two-register view is based on Scripture. The idea that time and matter
and man himself are in some sense incomplete replicas of heavenly things is
a pretty consistent theme in Scripture: Gen 1:26, Hebrews 8:4,5, Hebrews
9:1-11 come to mind immediately. Since Scripture deals with spiritual
issues, it seems reasonable to me that Scripture will make claims for which
Scripture (interpreted with the leading of the Holy Spirit of course) is
the only source. If there were no knowledge which could be gotten only
from Scripture, one might wonder why God would have given the Scriptures to
men.
[snip]
Glenn writes
>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.
>
It seems to me that the main point of Kline's exegesis of 2:5 and 2:6 is
that the ed (rain, mist, whatever) began after the scene of Gen 2:5. While
he does seem to think ed should be translated as "rain," one of the
possibilities he mentions is "rain cloud," which is not very specific. I
don't think he's trying to nail down the precise nature of the water. He's
trying to point out that it had a beginning after the time frame of Gen
2:5.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)