Re: [asa] the Way Science Works/

You are displaying a significant confusion here. I never in any way shape or form implied that the "framework" view was concordist.

I can only see this as a complete misreading of this thread on your part. I was responding to George Coopers interpretation, remember he is just being introduced to the framework view. He was saying that HE interprets Genesis in a fashion that, as he describes it, sounds like a concordist interpretation, at least as I understand concordist interpretation, that is, he is trying to find literal scientific truths in the bible, that were left for future generations to figure out.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: Jack
  Cc: George Cooper ; bertsche@aol.com ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 8:58 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] the Way Science Works/

  The "framework" view is not a "concordist" approach. It takes the "days" as a literary device. The basis for considering the "days" as a literary device is a sort of parallelism among the days. I suppose some framework advocates might be "concordist" in the very broad sense that they might take the literary framework as reflecting some real stages of God's activity. But this would be an extremely loose concordism and nothing like a "day-age" view.

  On 7/27/07, Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
    The problem with such a concordist approach, is that the author of Genesis, and his audience knew nothing about stellar accretion disks, Rayleigh-Tyndall Scattering, and so forth. I dont think that an approach to biblical interpretation that would leave the intended audience completely in the dark as to its meaning, is a reasonable one.
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: George Cooper
      To: bertsche@aol.com ; asa@calvin.edu
      Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 8:04 PM
      Subject: Re: [asa] the Way Science Works/

       
      Thanks Kirk. I should have known Wiki had it.

      This "framework" view seems to be more of a duplex than a single household. It seems too much of a recondite approach for such a very important introductory group of passages that would be best in simple terms. It does not flow for me, it log jams. My pipes, admittedly, are not all that large, so I will not rule this view out.

      I strongly encourage this group to consider the latest discoveries in astronomy and apply them in an exegesis of Gen. 1. Perhpas you have.

      Modern astronomy is bringing amazing news as to the early eras of our solar system. Spitzer's infrared observational abilities has "eyed" hundreds of stellar accretion disks. These disks were postulated as far back as Kant, but only in our times have they been observable. Also, planet formation models are becoming more and more accurate, though they still have a long way to go.

      Is it plausible to state that an uneducated observer of antiquity would, as an eye-witness, state the Earth ever appeared as an object "without form and void"?

      Could the Sun burst forth a flood of light? Dust and gas will enshroud many proto-stellar bodies, but not for very long as light will flood outward flushing it away. Indeed, it is radiation pressure that swells a star to equilibrium. Let there be light.

      Water anyone? Guess what color an observer would see for a highly illuminated accretion disk? It can be blue for the very same reason the sky above is blue -- Rayleigh-Tyndall Scattering. It would require neighbors. Guess what? Iron60 evidence, and other isotopes, demonstrate that our star formed in a typical, active nursery. These neighbors would also need to be very bright, assuming our observer is using normal vision. A single big neighbor is capable of visible light at over a million times the visible solar flux. They are also strongest in the blue end of the visual spectrum. How would our observer describe a billion miles of blue?

      If any have references that explore these ideas, I would be grateful.

      Helio

      bertsche@aol.com wrote:
        FYI, there's a fairly decent summary of the Framework view on Wikipedia:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_%28Genesis%29

        Kirk

        -----Original Message-----
        From: drsyme@cablespeed.com

        Second, you used the word framework. Whether you realize it or not, there is a biblical interpretation titled the "framework" view. It sees Genesis more figuratively, but not as a fairly tale, and it does not conflict with science. If you are not familiar with it the leading authors of this view are Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, among others.
         

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com .
         

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 28 18:30:13 2007