RE: Schaefer's Book

     Meredith Kline considers his framework view to be concordist:

     My view of Gen. 1 is precisely the same as my view of Gen. 2-3
(and of Gen. 4-50 and all the rest of the Bible's historical
narratives). It is essentially concordist, absolutely opposed to
interpretations of Gen. 1 as myth or saga or existential allegory. My
position is not that Gen. 1 as a whole is figurative; it is rather
that the chronological framework of the creation narrative is
figurative but the persons and episodes mentioned there are
historical in a concordist sense. My view of Gen. 1 differs only in
the degree of figurativeness from Collins' own "mildly concordist"
view.
     What has happened, I surmise, is that [Jack] Collins has fallen
in with an inconsistency in the (unofficial) ASA usage of the term
"concordist." In the treatment of Gen. 1, concordism has come to be
identified in an exclusive way with acceptance of a chronologically
sequential order of the narrative (whatever the length of the
"days"). While taking the duration aspect of the chronology
figuratively is classified as concordist, interpreting the narrative
order of Gen. 1 figuratively (by taking it as not chronologically
sequential) is quite arbitrarily equated with taking the account as a
whole as figurative and hence gets classified as non-concordist.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF9-96Kline.html

Craig
Received on Mon Aug 16 22:28:10 2004