I'd like to add one more name to the supporters of the Framework
Interpretation - Casper Milquetoast. Instead of opining that the writer
of Genesis was too ignorant to get the facts straight (which you can
read between the lines), the entire view is couched in theological
double-speak. (BTW, I've read Blocher whose tome is largely
unreadable.) If these so-called apologists haven't gone to the pains of
working on logical explanations for the seeming inconsistencies just say
so. But don't put flowery wallpaper over cracks in the plaster. Better
let's endeavor to fill the cracks.
For example, a "day" of indefinite length is as literal as a 24-hour
day. Psalm 90:4 says, "For a
<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0505&version=
kjv> thousand
<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08141&version
=kjv> years in thy [God's]
<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05869&version
=kjv> sight are but
<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03117&version
=kjv> as
<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0865&version=
kjv> yesterday when it is
<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05674&version
=kjv> past, and as a
<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0821&version=
kjv> watch in the
<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03915&version
=kjv> night [3-4 hours]." God's time and man's time are dissimilar, so
the "days'" of Genesis should not be an issue. On the third "day,"
vegetation proceeds animal life both on earth and in Genesis. Plants
can thrive without animals, but animals eat plants. God appoints the
celestial bodies as timekeepers on the fourth "day" for the sighted
creatures that will use them for signs and seasons starting on the fifth
day. Then come animals and lastly man on day six both in Genesis and in
the fossil record. Fowls or birds are mentioned in three consecutive
verses but "flying creatures," a possible translation, may refer to
insects. We could nitpick a few odd words and phrases, but in general,
the entirety of Genesis One appears to be a literal chronology or at
least an attempt at one, and it certainly appears that was what the
author intended - not some "symbolic structure designed to reinforce the
purposefulness of God in creation."
If you want to help plug the holes, by all means we literalists would
welcome the help, but If you want to call the writer an ignoramus at
least have the chutzpah to do it. Imagine two Israelite shepherds
shlepping their flocks over the hills and one turns to the other and
says, "You realize the Torah wasn't meant to be taken literally, it
simply "outlines a religious doctrine of creation."
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
<http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/> www.genesisproclaimed.org
Framework interpretation (Genesis)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_(Genesis)
The framework interpretation (also known as the literary framework view,
framework theory, or framework hypothesis) is an interpretation
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics> of the first
chapter of the Book of Genesis
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wiki/Book_of_Genesis> which holds that
the seven-day creation
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wiki/Creation_according_to_Genesis>
account found therein is not a literal
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wiki/Biblical_literalism> or scientific
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wiki/Science> description of the origins
of the universe <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wiki/Universe> ; rather,
it is an ancient text which outlines a religious doctrine of creation
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wiki/Creation_%28theology%29> . The seven
day "framework" is therefore not meant to be chronological but is a
literary <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wiki/Literary_device> or
symbolic <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wiki/Symbolism> structure
designed to reinforce the purposefulness of God in creation and the
Sabbath <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wiki/Shabbat> commandment
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wiki/Ten_Commandments> .
While based primarily on exegetical
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wiki/Exegesis> considerations, the
framework interpretation also attempts to synthesize knowledge of
historical and cultural conditions out of which the text arose, as well
as a theology of general revelation
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wiki/General_revelation> . It has been
advanced in modern times by scholars such as Meredith
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wiki/Meredith_G._Kline> G. Kline and
Henri <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wiki/Henri_Blocher> Blocher and has
the support of commentators including Gordon Wenham
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wiki/Gordon_Wenham> . It stands in
contrast to more literalist
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wiki/Biblical_literalism> approaches to
the Genesis text.
[snip]
*
In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis (Paperback) 29 used &
new available from $8.00
by Henri Blocher (Author), David G. Preston (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Opening-Chapters-Genesis/dp/0877843252
Editorial Reviews
Book Description
"Curiosity about our beginning continues to haunt the human race. It
will not call off the Quest for its origins." The opening chapters of
Genesis -- important at any time -- have been the focal point of
controversy for more than a century. Few topics have been so hotly
debated by theologians, philosophers and scientists alike.Henri Blocher
argues that our primary task is to discover what these key chapters of
the Bible originally meant. Only then will we be able to unravel the
knotty issues surrounding human origins.Taking into account a vast array
of scholarship, Blocher provides a detailed study of creation week, the
image of God, the significance of male and female, the garden covenant,
the Fall, the curse and the promise of redemption. He also offers
significanct theological insights into the creation-evolution debate.
Language Notes
Text: English, French (translation)
Reviews:
51 of 51 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
<http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-rev
iews/stars-5-0._V47081849_.gif> Relevant to Bible-and-science issues,
but also to far more., July 25, 1999
By A Customer
When I was single and about to leave college some 15 years ago, a
semester-long private study of this book and the book of Genesis itself
filled me with a new sense of meaning concerning my existence as a man
in this world.
Blocher argues on the basis of the elaborate literary structure of Gen.
1:1-2:3 that the original readers would have read it figuratively. The 7
days of creation represent neither 24-hour periods of time, nor long
epochs of natural history, but are instead a literary structure that
conveys meaningful and true content about the relationship of God,
humankind, and the creation. No chronological significance was intended
whatsoever, Blocher believes, nor inferred by the original readers. The
literary phenomena he explores include the repetition of certain key
words 7 or 10 times (numbers with symbolic value to the ancient
Hebrews), the symmetrical correspondence of creation day 1 (light and
darkness) to day 4 (sun, moon, stars), day 2 (sky and ocean) to day 5
(sea animals and birds), and day three to 3 (land) to day 6 (animals and
humankind), etc. Moreover, the parallels--or rather deliberate
contrasts--between Gen. 1 and other ancient Near Eastern creation
stories, show how Gen. 1 served as a pointed polemic that exalted a
higher concept of the utterly transcendent/immanent God to whom we are
accountable, over and against polytheism. Even the reader who retains
some kind of chronological understanding of the days of creation will be
enriched by an exploration of these literary phenomena of the text. (A
fascinating article, "Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony," by Dr.
Meredith G. Kline of Westminster Theological Seminary in California and
Gordon-Conwell Seminary, argues similar conclusions, and makes good
companion reading to Blocher concerning Gen. 1.
Blocher sees the story of the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2 and 3 as a
depiction in mythical terms of a genuinely historical fall of our first
human ancestors from fellowship with God. The "seed of the woman"
promised in Gen. 3:15, Jesus Christ, restores our access to the "tree of
life" (see Rev. 22:2,14,19) of which human sin deprived us. The whole
Bible is God's revelation about real historical realities, even if some
of those realities (such as our remote origins and distant future) are
more aptly and naturally described to us in figurative terms, while
others (such as the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ) are
more appropriately narrated in a literal manner.
Blocher's book has pastoral value that goes far beyond its relevance to
these particular issues of biblical interpretation. The chapter on Man
and Woman is worth the price of the book. I was left with a deepened
appreciation of the significance of our earthly lives and their
activities (marriage, family, work, etc.) in the context of God's plan
to call out for himself a redeemed human community that is restored
through Christ to be the image of God, and that will enjoy communion
with God and one another forever.
19 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
<http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-rev
iews/stars-5-0._V47081849_.gif> conservative thoughtful Biblical
exegesis of Gen 1-3, July 10, 2003
By R.
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1XZJ32DJS8YV2/ref=cm_cr_dp_pdp>
M. Williams "just an avid reader" (tucson, arizona USA)
First, i come to this book as an extended directed self study on the
issues involved in the Creation-Evolution-Design debate. This book i
rate as one of the 5 most significant books for a conservative reformed
Christian who wants to come to reasoned and faithful conclusions in the
CED debate. It is conservative which i define to be conscious and
considerate of the traditions of the past, to take them seriously, not
simply accepting something because it is new. It is Biblical in the way
the author is very careful to allow the Scripture's Words to speak for
themselves, being very careful not to read into the words his own
cherished beliefs, but to allow the Word to speak to him,
authoritatively and reliably. To this end he is not infected by the l
iberal J-P-D documentary interpretation so often evident in exegesis or
interpretation.
Second, the book is significant on two levels, the first is the
exegetical level, the principles of understanding that the author
explores in the first few chapters. Second is the line by line study
that forms the bulk of the book, roughly chpt 3 on.
The structure of the book is that of Gen 1-3 but the way he writes is
interesting and worth a moment of reflection here. The chapters are more
like consistent essays than the usual exegesis bound to the text. He
takes a major theme in the next section of Genesis then expands it to
cover this issue through the past interpreters and links to other
related Scripture. It roughly follows the systematic organization of
reformed covenant theology.
pg 26 has what i think is the best analysis of the human writers
relationship to Scripture. "That rule follows from the humanity of Holy
Scripture. In the act of inspiration God did not turn his sookesmen into
robots; his Word became their word, under their signature and their
responsiblility. Thus we have no right to go over their heads in order
to set forth a 'divine' meaning which they would never possilby have
imagined-even if those men did not grasp the whole import of what they
attested God in his condescension has limited himself to their
instrumentality; our interpretation must conform to the corresponding
discipline."
If the church would hend this advice much of the CED debate would be
solved, for we would cease to search Genesis for the equivalent of
quarks, trying to query the first few chapters of the Bible and mine it
for scientific truths. Rather we would, as this author does, submit to
the authority of Scripture to speak to the way we do science, to the
ideas that we bring to the universe as we question the master workmen's
creation that we are a small part of.
The book is literary framework in its approach to Gen1-3, M. Kline being
the best example of this in the english speaking world. Anyone familiar
with the CED issues would be advised to read the first 2 chapters of
this book simply to see a careful analysis of exegesis and the result of
allowing Scripture to speak for itself rather than being pushed out of
shape by young earth creationists whom would interpret the 7 days too
literally. Or by scientific reconcilationists would would try to find
modern science confirmed in the light appearing before the sun(ie the
big bang).
The first principle he outlines carefully is to allow Scripture to speak
to its first listeners, their culture, their history. His exegetical
task doesn't end there but extends to teaching what these things mean to
us in our place in space and time. But this application, this preaching
follows critical-historical interpretation not prior to it as so many
would desire.
Thanks to the author for this excellent book and i hope to read more
from his pen."
~ Janice
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 11 13:29:08 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 11 2007 - 13:29:08 EST