>
>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.
I would not want to dismiss Kline's point that the YEC's do not have a good
interpretation of the Scripture. I certainly agree with that. But any
framework of a historical event MUST have hooks and relationships to history.
This is what I see lacking in the Kline article.
If God actually created man, then He had to do it at a certain point in time
and a certain place in space. This is the sine qua non of a historical event.
If God did not actually create man, then the hooks to actual history are not
only not important, they are irrelevant and non-existent.
As I said to Peter Vibert tonight, I agree with Kline that the text does not
require a 6-day creation event. And obviously the view I advocate does not
fall quite into that exegesis. And I do believe that Klines point is
important. But without the historical connection, one can not claim much
force for the Scripture.
Bill wrote:
> That
>gives Christians more latitude in trying to see how Science and Scripture
>may be interpreted in a consistent way.
I am all for that, but if you are going to talk about interpreting the
historical sciences with scripture (geology, anthropology, paleontology), then
you need to tell in a positive sense how the data of anthro etc fit into the
Biblical scenario. If you can't describe a scenario which accounts for the
information, then you have not interpreted the data in a consistent fashion.
Bill wrote:
>
>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.
>
I stand corrected here. Bill, and Russ Maatman are correct in that this
aspect of Kline's views are verifiable from Scripture. Thank you for the
correction.
glenn