Re: [asa] the Way Science Works/

Jack -- you are right, then, I misread it. Sorry.

On 7/28/07, Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>
> 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 <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *To:* Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
> *Cc:* George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net> ; 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 <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
> > *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 * <http://www.aol.com/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437>.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

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 18:31:43 2007