The ESSENTIALS are described in a 3-part page (with 4 authors) about the
literary
framework
in Genesis 1 and you should read it before continuing onward, in this page, to my descriptions of
the framework-ESSENTIALS and framework-EXTRAS
plus criticisms of ESSENTIALS and criticisms of EXTRAS.
ESSENTIALS — Framework
Structure
and Creation History
• FRAMEWORK STRUCTURE — For me, the logical structure was immediately obvious and easy to understand, first in the mid-1980s when a speaker described it at a conference of Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, and later when I saw it in Genesis 1-11: How it All Began where Ronald Youngblood says (in 1978) that the simple phrase "formless and empty" in Genesis 1:2 "is the key that unlocks the literary structure of the rest of Genesis 1: The acts of separating and gathering [that give form to the fomless] on days 1-3, and the acts of making and filling on days 4-6."
• CREATION HISTORY — This literary
framework is
a historical framework, and its topically organized history of creation
is a real history of creation, as explained
in my main page:
"History is often written by
arranging topics in a logical framework, not in a chronological sequence. For example, a
comprehensive history of the 1900s could be written using a chronological
organization, beginning at 1900 and including many aspects of history (religious,
cultural, political, military, economic, educational,...) and then doing
this for 1901, and continuing in 1902 through 1999. Or a historian could
choose a topical organization by describing religious aspects of the century's
history, and then cultural aspects, and so on."
Would
you deny that the second type of history (with topical organization) can
provide an accurate description of real historical events, simply because the
events are not listed chronologically?
EXTRAS — a Proof-Claim, Non-Claim, and Speculations
It will be easier to understand the first "extra"
in this section (a claim for textual proof) if we compare it with my claim for textual
plausibility:
My main
page explains why I think the six days of Genesis 1 form a logical
framework, and acknowledges that "the
meaning intended by God [for the creation history] could be only
logical (not chronological)... or both logical and chronological...
or [but this seems highly unlikely] only chronological." Yes,
"both logical and chronological" is
an option.
The framework might describe the chronology of
an old-earth creation spanning billions of years, as proposed in a Day-Age
Interpretation. If we accept their proposals — such as the sun, moon
and stars becoming visible (not being created) on Day 4 — the chronology of
Genesis 1 agrees in
general with
the history of nature proposed by modern science, but it doesn't seem to agree in specifics when
when we carefully examine the details. { A framework view
is also compatible with other old-earth or age-neutral views, such as Intermittent
Days or Days
of Proclamation. }
Or the framework could describe the chronology
of a young-earth history. I
don't see any reason to think that God could not plan a 144-hour
creation,
as described in
the topical framework,
and
then
create
everything
in that
sequence. A young-earth view proposes many miracles (including Apparent
Age) in Genesis 1, but this is consistent with God's miraculous actions
in many other parts of the Bible. And
despite the claims, by some old-earth advocates, that not creating the sun until
Day 4
is a problem for a young-earth view, the plants created in Day
3
could
survive
for
a
day
without
sunlight,
and
for pre-solar "evening and morning" all
that's needed
is 3 days with a non-solar source of light and a rotating earth to produce
periods of dark (evening) and light (morning). / The
major chronological challenges for a young-earth view are its claims
for what happened AFTER the first six days, because young-earth science does not have satisfactory arguments against the old-earth conclusions of conventional science, about a long history
of nature (on earth and throughout the universe) spanning billions of years. You can examine
the arguments (both old-earth and young-earth) in AGE
OF THE EARTH - SCIENCE.
But
a nonchronological framework is also plausible when we look only at the text. Then
we can use the "two books" principle that (as stated by the International
Council on Biblical Inerrancy) "in
some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches,
and
for
prompting correction
of faulty interpretations" and (from WISELY
USING
THE
TWO BOOKS OF GOD) that "our understanding of
total reality (spiritual plus
physical)
will be more complete and accurate if we use both sources of information," in
scripture and nature. Almost all scientists think that information from
nature, logically analyzed using the methods of science, proves (beyond any
reasonable doubt) that the earth is old. When we carefully examine the
text of Genesis 1, interpreting the text as a non-chronological
framework is plausible. But
when
we combine this textual plausibility with what we learn from our scientific
study of nature
— when we "use both sources of information, in
scripture and nature" —
it seems highly probable that a nonchronological framework is the correct
interpretation,
the interpretation that is
true because
it corresponds to what actually happened in history.
note: If we view scripture as having two levels of authorship, by humans and by God, we can ask whether the original human writers thought their description was chronological, and whether God intended it to be chronological, and the answers for these two questions might be different.
Here are three EXTRAS (proof-claim, non-claim,
speculation) and a commentary:
• A CLAIM FOR TEXTUAL PROOF — Although
I claim only “textual plausibility” for a non-chronological framework,
a prominent framework advocate, Meredith Kline, wanted
to show — using only the text of Genesis, independent from science — that
the framework cannot be chronological, so in 1958 he wrote "Because It
Had Not Rained." The original
paper is available, but it's easier to read the summary in a later
paper by Lee Irons, who says that "although
the above considerations [describing the framework's logical structure] make
the
framework interpretation a plausible understanding of the days of creation,
we recognize that we have not yet demonstrated the impossibility of a sequential
understanding of the creation days. ... [but Kline's analysis of Genesis
2:5-7, and application of it to Genesis 1, shows that] during the creation
period,
God
did not rely on supernatural means to preserve and sustain His creatures
once they were created..." and this "necessitates
a non-sequential interpretation of the creation account [for the first 3
days before the sun was created in young-earth proposals], and non-sequentialism
in turn demonstrates
that the week of days comprises a figurative framework." Irons
continues with another argument: "The final exegetical
observation that ultimately clinches the case is the unending nature of the
seventh day." But
I'm not
convinced that we can conclude — based only on the text of Genesis
1 — that
the days
must
be only nonchronological, and neither are proponents of a young earth,
who often deny even the existence of a framework!
• A Claim for Naturalistic Creation? No. Contrary
to irresponsible accusations from some young-earth critics, a framework view
is not linked with
theistic evolution, because acknowledging a framework is compatible with
all of the major views: young-earth
creation, old-earth progressive creation (with independent creations or by
genetic modifications), or old-earth evolutionary creation. {A claim
that the history in Genesis 1 is non-chronological is compatible with
all
views, including a generic young-earth creation, but not with traditional
young-earth creation.} Meredith
Kline does not say that God created using only natural process; instead
he claims that "during
the creation period, God did not rely on supernatural means to preserve
and sustain His creatures once they were created. (italics added)" Kline
is focusing on preservation, not creation. And, more important, his
claim is an EXTRA that is not an essential part of a framework view. { Personally,
I think Genesis 1 describes creation history in a nonchronological framework,
and God used both natural-appearing and miraculous-appearing actions during a
creation process lasting billions of years, as explained in my
views about creation. }
• SPECULATIONS — In
a speculative extension of the basic framework
proposal, Meredith Kline (in 1996) claims to "show
how two-register cosmology informs and shapes the treatment of both the space
and
time dimensions in the
Genesis prologue. It is found that a metaphorical relationship exists
between the two levels; the heavenly level (upper register) is described
in figures drawn from the earthly level (lower register). As for the
seven-day scheme, it belongs to the upper register and is, therefore, to
be understood figuratively,
not literally." (from Space
and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony)
another commentary: Rowland Ward, in Length
of Days in Genesis (a paper in 2001 defending the Framework Interpretation), "points
out that the FI does not depend
on a special exegesis
of
Genesis 2:4-7," and he thinks Meredith Kline — in his writings
about the essentials and extras
of
FI — "overdoes things at times."
Criticisms of Framework-ESSENTIALS
FRAMEWORK STRUCTURE — I've seen two main
arguments against the framework's logical structure:
A) regarding
the parallel between Days 1 and 4, the sun (Day 4) is placed "in
the expanse of the sky" but the "expanse" is
not created until Day 2 (not Day 1); this is true, but the main theme
of 1-and-4 is light, while the main theme of Day 2 is water, and
the expanse is just a place to put the producers of light.
B) regarding
the parallel between Days 2 and 5, creatures "fill
the water in the seas" (Day 5) and "seas" are
not mentioned until Day 3 (although the sea-water, which the creatures of Day
5 live in, did exist in Day 2); this is true, but the main theme of 2-and-5
is water, while the main theme of Day 3 is land (it's the new
thing, since Day 2 already had water), and the minor distinction between water
and seas (both are mentioned in Day 5, and the creatures lived in both) seems
trivial.
CREATION HISTORY — A common claim, by young-earth advocates, is that the language of Genesis 1 proves it is describing chronological history. I'm not convinced, but you can examine the text and arguments for yourself, and evaluate the strength of this claim. A common concern is that the framework proposes a non-historical view (but this is denied by framework advocates) and it will be a "slippery slope" to denying other historical claims in the Bible. But, as explained in THEOLOGY ABOUT AGE OF THE EARTH, "we can avoid a ‘slippery slope’ by rationally deciding that a 144-hour creation is not true, but The Resurrection is true and is an essential doctrine because (compared with a young earth) it is much more certainly taught and is much more important."
Criticisms of Framework-EXTRAS
If you read the anti-framework pages in
CREATIONIST INTERPRETATIONS OF
GENESIS 1 you'll find criticisms of ESSENTIALS
(the main ones are above) and EXTRAS.
In one sense this is understandable, since
Meredith Kline is a highly respected scholar who has been a prominent advocate
for the
framework
view. Kline has been especially
influential in
the theologically conservative reformed community, which produced two comprehensive
reports (by the Presbyterian Church in America and Orthodox Presbyterian
Church) on
Genesis and creation,
and — responding to the strong pro-framework influence within their denominations
that has been led by Meredith Kline and Lee Irons — wrote
some
vigorously anti-framework
papers.
Unfortunately, critics of a framework rarely make
a
distinction between essentials and extras. In fact, Frank Walker claims
that "Genesis
2:5 is a pivotal passage for defenders of the framework hypothesis" even
though
it's not a part of the framework so it should be considered an "extra" instead
of
a
pivotal
passage.
As part of his defense of a literal young-earth interpretation of Genesis 1, Todd Beall criticizes the framework structure (an ESSENTIAL, shown in green) and also Kline's speculative "ruler" arguments (this is an EXTRA, shown in purple); and my comments are [inside the brackets, in gold]:
The pattern itself does not hold. A few examples will suffice. First, the light of day 1 is not dependent on the sun, so the sun is hardly the “ruler” of it. [He is criticizing Meredith Kline's pro-framework ideas about "rulers" which are speculative and are not part of the basic framework, so criticisms of ruler-arguments, highlighted in purple, are not relevant when deciding whether or not the basic framework-pattern exists.] The light of day 1 is a special creation of God, distinct from the sun. If some have a problem with understanding light without the sun, then they should recognize that something similar will be true in the eternal state. According to Rev 21:23 and 22:5, the sun will not be needed at all, since the Lord Himself is the Light. So just as in the first three days of the creation week, in the eternal state there will once again be light without the sun. Second, the waters existed on day 1, not just day 2. [So what? The parallel is between the SEPARATIONS of water-and-sky in Day 2 and the water-and-sky creatures in Day 5.] Third, in v. 14 the “lights” of day 4 are set in the “expanse” created in day 2 (not day 1). [Again, the criticism is trivial, because here the parallel is between the SEPARATION of day-and-night in Day 1 and the day-and-night producers of light in Day 4.] Fourth, the sea creatures of day 5 were to fill the “water in the seas” which were created on day 3, not day 2, contrary to the chart above (see Gen 1:10) [This is another trivial criticism because it should be easy for Beall, and his readers, to understand that in the separation on Day 3 the LAND appeared, and this merely separated the sea-water, which was one result of the separations in Day 2, into different parts.]; and none of the sea creatures or birds or land creatures other than man were to “rule” anything anyway! Finally, man was created on day 6 not to rule over the land and vegetation (created on day 3), but over the land animals created on day 6 and the sea creatures and birds created on day 5! [So what? This has nothing to do with the framework.] In other words, despite the nice chart, the patterns simply do not hold up! [The criticisms are about trivialities, not the main logical structure of the framework.]
also: Frank Walker has written two papers (1 2)
that mainly criticize framework-extras and defend young-earth views in
ways that are not related to the framework.
CREATIONIST INTERPRETATIONS OF GENESIS 1
(a links-page with a wide range of ideas from different authors)