Hi Terry,
>From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Framework interpretation
>Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 13:34:34 -0600
>
>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.
Absolutely!
>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.
A good point; I wasn't implying that they hadn't: only that it wasn't
satisfactorily addressed (at least to my mind!)
Kline explicity does so
>in his 1958 and his 1996 articles.
<snip>
It seems to me that Klineís upper and lower register is rather strained and
esoteric; and some would argue tends towards dualism! I would doubt that
the original readers would have seen anything like that in it!
Klineís argument is cyclic: his argument rests upon accepting the
two-register approach; to paraphrase Blocher, Kline betrays the _a priori
desire_ to find literary language. I donít feel that he has satisfactorily
addressed the first point of Aalders.
Steve
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 28 2002 - 19:13:58 EDT