Re: Schaefer's Book

A view which has been around has all the benefits of Craig's suggestion
and fits Glenn's need for "truth" as well. If Gen. 1:1-2:4 is a 6-night
revelation, there is no need to make the creation of sun, moon and stars
occur on or before the first day so as to appear on the fourth (something
St. Augustine noted as impossible).
Also it allows the firmament to be solid and waters to be under the
earth.
Dave

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:09:58 -0500 "Roberts, Joe"
<Joe.Roberts@thecb.state.tx.us> writes:
> Wow that's a good insight.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On
> Behalf Of Craig Rusbult
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 9:08 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Schaefer's Book
>
>
> How does a "framework" interpretation fit into your discussion?
> Is it concordist? It considers the history of Genesis 1 to be REAL
> and accurate, but described topically and NON-CHRONOLOGICALLY.
>
> Re: history and chronology, in a web-page asking "how old is the
>
> universe?" I say:
> ...nonchronological does not mean nonhistorical. In a framework
>
> interpretation, Genesis 1 describes historical events that actually
> occurred. These real events are just described in a way that is
> logical, not chronological. This is consistent with the fact that
> history is often written (now and in the past, in the Bible and
> elsewhere) with a topical structure in which topics are arranged in
> a
> logical framework, not in a chronological sequence.
> In Genesis 1, for example, Days 1 and 4 describe two related
> aspects of what actually happened during history - there was a
> separation of light from darkness due to God's creation of our sun -
>
> even though there was no separation (Day 1) until the sun was
> created
> (Day 4). When combined, the "form and fill" description in Days 1
> and 4 is historical but not chronological. Similarly, Days 2 and 5
> describe two historical aspects of creation for the sea (which was
> then filled with sea animals) and sky (filled with sky animals), as
> do Days 3 and 6 (for the creation of land, land plants, and land
> animals).
>
> To me, the framework seems obvious, but we can still ask the
> question is whether Gen 1 is ALSO intended to be chronological. (and
>
> we can ask about historicity, since the framework could be used for a
>
> non-historical story, too; in the second post this is denied by
> Kline)
> A framework interpretation makes "science vs scripture"
> questions
> less difficult, since the historical claims are much less detailed
> and specific (if we assume the answer is "no" when we ask "is it
> also
> meant to be chronological") with Gen 1 only claiming "this is WHAT
> God did" but not describing when or in what sequence.
> I have no trouble accepting Genesis 1 as both non-chronological
> (so there are no questions about how there could be plants in Day 3
> for a long time before the sun was created in Day 4) and historical.
>
> But since the framework ends in Gen 1, questions still remain:
> What about the historicity (and historical context) of Adam and
> Eve, and their relationships to hominids who had been around for
> more
> than a million years?
> And what type of "Noah's flood" (global or local) would be
> consistent with Gen 6-9 and geological evidence? On this list, and
> in books and web-pages, Glenn and Dick (and others) have raised many
>
> challenging questions about finding a flood theory that is credible,
>
> biblically and also scientifically.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
Received on Wed Aug 18 00:20:41 2004