Re: Schaefer's Book

Craig,
thanks for your comments! Please find my remarks (PR) following some of
your paragraphs (CR):

Craig Rusbult wrote (16 Aug 2004):
CR: 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.

PR: It seems that I accepted too readily the definition of "concordist"
as used by Paul Seely and others on this list. I remember Meredith
Kline's framework interpretation. But is the characterization of Genesis
1 as "real and accurate" his or yours? The topical division of the 6
days of creation looks plausible as a literary device. But even if we
accept it as such, we are still not yet bound to discard chronology, as
Armin Held and I have shown in PSCF 4/1999, and since then the evidence
for it being chronologically correct has grown, as indicated in some of
my posts on this list. Furthermore, it has to be remembered that the
effects of each of the 6 days' works continues until today, providing
for a series of overlaps after the various beginnings.

CR: ...To me, the framework seems obvious, but we can still ask the
question is whether Gen 1 is ALSO intended to be chronological...

PR: In fact, it is feasible that all of the following views are
simultaneously correct - a divinely inspired message may be
multidimensional:
(1) The central message God gave in Gen.1 is that he is the Creator of all.
(2) He pointedly demoted all heathen cosmology gods to created entities.
(3) He enabled the prophet who wrote Gen.1 to formulate a very poetical
story.
(4) He led his thinking to realize the beautiful symmetry of the 2x3
framework.
(5) He revealed him these 6 aspects on 6 consecutive (literal) days or
nights.
(6) On purpose, he chose a setup of 6 corresponding eons agreeing with
the reality, bio-geochemical logic and chronology he knows (preceded by
the "beginning" eon of 1:1 and concluding by the colophon of 2:4
introducing eon 7 which includes all biblical history and our present age).
(7) He inspired the prophet to use anthropomorphic terms compatible with
the thinking of all times and cultures.

CR: 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?

PR: The only feasible solution must separate (a) the evolutionary origin
of the human bodily and soulish dimensions (psychology) of Gen.1:26 from
the creation of the human spiritual dimension (in God's image) of
Gen.1:27, and must separate (b) the creation of humankind (preadamic
Homo sapiens) in Gen.1:27 from the later covenant with Adam (formed in
his mother's womb and inspired as a representative head of all
humankind) in Gen.2:7.

CR: 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.

PR: To be consistent with geological evidence, it must be local to Sumer
(southern Iraq) and cannot include all humans living then (I still have
difficulties with the possibility of Noah's reaching Jabel Judi in
Urartu, cf. Carol Ann Hill). I think it is possible to match this
scenario with Gen.6-9 and with biblical theology.

Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland
<pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution
"..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)