Re: [asa] the Way Science Works/

At 11:22 AM 7/27/2007, George Cooper wrote:

>"..I am not familiar with the "framework" view,
>... Yet, I am optimistic that a particular
>literal view I am working on will surface to
>become one that is actually supportive of
>science, and makes some subjective predictions,
>too. ~ Helio [aka George Cooper]

@ From my archives on the subject, FYI:

  The Framework Hypothesis is a literary
understanding of the 6 days of creation. I
learned it from Meredith Kline while @GCTS and
from the OT department there as well.It
underscores the poetic nature of the writing and
even defines it as a form of Hebraic poetry that
highlights the nature and character of God in
creation. In the framework there are days of
creating and days of filling. Day one goes with
day 4, day 2 with day 5, day 3 with day 6. And all is balanced out.
It shows that Good is not only creatively
spontaneous but also does things with order. It
asserts that the creation narrative is not a
scientific explanation but a literary one that
has more to do with the nature of God than with
giving a historic account of
creation. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=10570

More:

· 'To rebut the literalist interpretation of the
Genesis creation week propounded by the
young-earth theorists is a central concern of
this article. At the same time, the exegetical
evidence adduced also refutes the harmonistic
day-age view. The conclusion is that as far as
the time frame is concerned, with respect to both
the duration and sequence of events, the
scientist is left free of biblical constraints in
hypothesizing about cosmic origins.'[Kline, M.G.,
Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony,
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 48:2,
1996] Meredith Kline is a leading advocate of the 'framework hypothesis

In note 47, Kline says:

'In this article I have advocated an
interpretation of biblical cosmogony according to
which Scripture is open to the current scientific
view of a very old universe and, in that respect,
does not discountenance the theory of the
evolutionary origin of man.' In an unedited draft
of this paper, Kline wrote: '... Certainly,
Genesis indicates that there were steps or
stages. The debate is over the time duration of
each step ... To be sure, the word "Yom" or "day"
is almost always used to refer to a 24-hour
period so the prima facie indication would be the
same in Genesis ... My concern here is that the
literary structure may indicate something else ...'

· Henri Blocher, another leading Framework
proponent, wrote: 'This hypothesis overcomes a
number of problems that plagued the commentators
[including] the confrontation with the scientific
vision of the most distant past.' [Blocher, H.,
In the Beginning, IVP, p. 50, 1984.]

· 'We have to admit here that the exegetical
basis of the creationists is strong. ... In spite
of the careful biblical and scientific research
that has accumulated in support of the
creationists' view, there are problems that make
the theory wrong to most (including many
evangelical) scientists. ... Data from various
disciplines point to a very old earth and even
older universe...' [Boice, J. M., Genesis: An
Expositional Commentary, Zondervan Publishing
House, Grand Rapids, 1:57-62, 1982.] James
Montgomery Boice (1938-2000), a staunch defender of Biblical inerrancy.

· Bruce K. Waltke, leading Hebrew and Old
Testament Scholar: 'The days of creation may also
pose difficulties for a strict historical
account. Contemporary scientists almost
unanimously discount the possibility of creation
in one week, and we cannot summarily discount the
evidence of the earth sciences.' [Waltke, B.K.
and Fredricks, C.J., Genesis: A Commentary,
Zondervan, Grand Rapids, p. 77, 2001]

· 'It is of course admitted that, taking this
account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most
natural to understand the word [day] in its
ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the
Mosaic account into conflict with facts [millions
of years], and another sense avoids such
conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt
that other.' ~ [Hodge, C., Systematic Theology,
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids,
MI, USA, pp. 570-571, 1997. ] Charles Hodge
(1797-1878) was a systematic theologian at
Princeton seminary, who wrote many books and
articles defending the truths of Christianity, including biblical inerrancy

· '..confessedly, it would not have been as
readily deduced from the Genesis text had it not
been for the evidences advanced by secular
science.' [Payne, J.B., The Theology of the Older
Testament, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 136,
1972.] J. Barton Payne (1922-1979), Presbyterian Old Testament scholar.

· 'From a superficial reading, the impression
received is that the entire creative process took
place in six twenty-four hour days. If this was
the true intent of the Hebrew author this seems
to run counter to modern scientific research,
which indicated that the planet earth was created
several billion years ago ... the more recently
expanded knowledge of nuclear physics has brought
into play another type of evidence which seems to
confirm the great antiquity of the Earth, that
is, the decay of radioactive minerals.' [Archer,
G.L., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction,
Moody, Chicago, p. 187, 1985.] Gleason Archer,
Hebrew scholar and staunch defender of biblical inerrancy

· 'It is apparent that the most straightforward
understanding of Genesis, without regard to the
hermeneutical considerations suggested by
science, is that God created the heavens and the
earth in six solar days, that man was created on
the sixth day, and that death and chaos entered
the world after the fall of Adam and Eve, and
that all fossils were the result of the
catastrophic deluge that spared only Noah's
family and the animals therewith.' [Pun, P.P.T.,
Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation
39:14, 1987] Pattle Pun is a biology professor at Wheaton College.

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jul 27 12:59:06 2007