Steve,
Sender: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
Precedence: bulk
Both Kline and Irons address this objection in the articles I cited.
Both of these guys are in the same denomination as E.J. Young and are
fully aware of his objection here. The more recent articles were
written well after Young's book. The gist of the argument has to do
with the unending character of the 7th day. Kline's article in PSCF
fully develops the notion of the upper vs. lower register. Kline
writes "As for the seven-day scheme, it belongs to the upper register
and is, therefore, to be understood figuratively, not literally." The
upper register activity is the pattern for the Sabbath ordinance.
As with many theological differences, we may disagree on whether or
not this is convincing. I happen to think it is. I also know many
people other than you who do not. However, it cannot be said that the
framework people do not address this issue. Kline explicity does so
in his 1958 and his 1996 articles. Iron's does it as well in his
defense of Kline.
TG
>Terry wrote:
>
><snip>
>>One position that is one of three prominent viewpoints in my church
>> >circles (conservative Presbyterianism in English speaking countries) >is
>>what is called the "framework view". (The other views are 24 hour >days and
>>day-age--a link to the discussion in the Presbyterian Church >of America is
>>at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PCA-Report2000.html .) I
>> >will give you some links to some on-line articles and point you to >some
>>other writings that you might get access to. This view takes a >literary
>>view of Genesis 1 based on internal arguments (usually its >advocates take
>>a more historical/chronological approach to the rest of >Genesis. Professor
>>Meredith G. Kline, Professor of Old Testament at >Gordon->Conwell Seminary
>>and Westminster Seminary in California has >been one of >the most scholarly
>>advocates of this view.
>
>
>E J Young in his Studies in Genesis One (P&R, 1975) reiterated the comments
>of G C Aalders:
>
>"Aalders then adduced two considerations which must guide every serious
>interpreter of the first chapter of Genesis. (1) In the text of Genesis
>itself, he affirmed, there is not a single allusion to suggest that the days
>are to be regarded as a form or mere manner of representation and hence of
>no significance for the essential knowledge of the divine creative activity.
>(2) In Exodus 20:11 the activity of God is presented to man as a pattern,
>and this fact presupposes that there was a reality in the activity of God
>which man is to follow. How could man be held accountable for working six
>days if God himself had not actually worked for six days? To the best of the
>present writer's knowledge none has ever answered these two considerations."
>(p 47)
>
>Unless these points are fully addressed it seems that the Framework
>interpretation/hypotheisis flounders.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
>http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
-- _________________ Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist Chemistry Department, Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/ phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 28 2002 - 15:36:05 EDT