Evidence for God from Science

Bart,

See my last reply to zoe. If Gen 1 (2) is higher than Gen 3-11, then the bottom line is that it is myth. There is no way to consistently hold to a Framework model in Genesis 1 (2) and then hold to a historical narrative in 3-11. It requires a change in your hermeneutics within the story itself. Again, I can't stress this example enough--to employ the hermeneutics necessary to get a Framework Model and then to go back and insist on its historicity would be exactly the same as taking Jesus' parables as parables and then going back and insisting on their historicity.

It simply doesn't do. Of course, you can do whatever you want. People have the right to be inconsistent, but I hardly think that God is. And, further, if I am allowed to be inconsistent in Genesis 1, then why not everywhere else in Scripture? I can level the same argument here that I leveled at Gman sometime ago. If I can change heremeneutics midstream, why can't I do so, with, say, the Resurrection? Perhaps the crucifixion was literal but the resurrection was allegorical? The preaching was literal, but the resurrection appearances were allegorical?

The importance of a consistent hermeneutic is obvious. The Framework Model is self-consistent when it views Gen 1 as Myth. It is self-contradictory when you try to make it view Genesis 1 as history.

jac wrote:in the Framework view, it is NOT true that "this happened next." But that doesn't matter, because we aren't considering any of these things to be historical in the first place. What we are saying is that the yomim represent (not "are") actions of God. They are a literary device, nothing more.

FIrst, I don't see at all why the framework demands that these are representations of acts of God. (Other than, of course, how long He took). Why should we give up (other than perhaps some scholars doing so)...but we are we restricted to only being a representation?

Secondly, "this happened" next is still accurate and historical with respect to when they happened with those framework.?

I am going to do a but more reserach on what this model presents. Obviously the sources I have been reading don't seem to be limited to your constraints.

Jac3510 wrote:Bart,

See my last reply to zoe. If Gen 1 (2) is higher than Gen 3-11, then the bottom line is that it is myth. There is no way to consistently hold to a Framework model in Genesis 1 (2) and then hold to a historical narrative in 3-11. It requires a change in your hermeneutics within the story itself. Again, I can't stress this example enough--to employ the hermeneutics necessary to get a Framework Model and then to go back and insist on its historicity would be exactly the same as taking Jesus' parables as parables and then going back and insisting on their historicity.

It simply doesn't do. Of course, you can do whatever you want. People have the right to be inconsistent, but I hardly think that God is. And, further, if I am allowed to be inconsistent in Genesis 1, then why not everywhere else in Scripture? I can level the same argument here that I leveled at Gman sometime ago. If I can change heremeneutics midstream, why can't I do so, with, say, the Resurrection? Perhaps the crucifixion was literal but the resurrection was allegorical? The preaching was literal, but the resurrection appearances were allegorical?

The importance of a consistent hermeneutic is obvious. The Framework Model is self-consistent when it views Gen 1 as Myth. It is self-contradictory when you try to make it view Genesis 1 as history.

I understand what you're saying Jac. A consistent hermeneutic when the source material is different in some significant way however puts the cart before the horse, in my opinion. I believe we're tasked to draw the truth from a passage in exegesis and that there can be a danger of eisogesis when we force our theological framework (to use the term differently) back onto the passage.

I don't accept your imposition of the word "myth" onto Gen 1 & 2 if there is a differentiation between the preciseness of the words and phrases as used in these chapters as oppposed to those following. I think there is a reasonable basis to use the terms from a less precise perspective rooted in the nature of the source material itself that ought not to be discounted in favor of simplifying the hermeneutic applied.

I don't think it's outside the realm of reasonable possibility that given the nature of the material in Genesis 1 & 2 that there is a less precise use of similar terms or literary devices there than similar terms in the passages following and that there would almost by necessity need to be, given the limitations of the language, culture, world view and non-scientific nature of the human author and original audience.

I understand the appeal of the consistency and certainy desired by those who see it differently and I may well be wrong in the degree that I'm willing to apply that argument. The point is that there are different literary forms and contexts even with the same biblical books, sometimes even within passages that are juxtaposed where this trumps the general rules of literary criticism. They're useful tools and guidelines to go by, but they are subject to the text itself, not the other way around.

blessings,

bart

"And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years"

That is a false statement under a "historical literary framework" view (if one could actually exist--which makes about as much sense to me as a square circle). It is NOT true that God created vegetation and THEN created the stars, which is what our verse says here (it starts with va).

You can hold to a literary framework and not have any self-contradictions. You cannot hold to a historical framework model without both contradicting the text itself and the methodology on which it is built.

In any case, I've answered your original question about why we shouldn't hold to it. As you aren't debating in favor of it, I don't see the need to further clarify my case. As you research literary methodology--the hermeneutic that underlies the Framework Model--you'll see how the literary methodology has no interest in historical narrative.

God bless

edit: And Bart, I appreciate your comments as well. I appreciate your perspective, but here we just have a simple disagreement. I don't want to misrepresnt your position, and I think it would take an entire thread to get at the nuances you are hinting at, but it seems to me like your position is rather similar to those who believe Jesus was just accomodating silly beliefs about angels and resurrection when He spoke. In short, people find reasons to not take the text at face value, primarly by implying that the author either didn't know what he was talking about or is writing/speaking based on the known ignorance of his audience. I reject both of those views.

If we can't take Gen 1-11 at face value, we can't take any of Scripture at face value. If we don't take Gen 1-11 literally (and we all understand here what that word means), then we have no right to take the rest of Scripture literally. If, though, we can demonstrate that Gen 1 is meant to be Myth, then we can obviously take it "literally" in the same way we take figures of speech literally. But we CANNOT take it as a historical myth. That is a contradiction in terms, which is what a historical framework model would be.

Jac3510 wrote:The framework theory, c.e., is a (surprisingly) little known view of Genesis 1 that notes the comparisons to the first and fourth days, the second and fifth days, and the third and sixth days. Note:

Day One: Light -> Day Four: Luminaries;
Day Two: Seas/Sky -> Day Five: Birds/Fish
Day Three: Earth/Vegetation -> Day Six: Animals/Human life;
Day Seven: Rest

The literary parallels are interesting to say the least. The interpretation is less so. The idea is that there were three general creation "phases," and even these may not be strictly chronological. The entire account is viewed as mythology (in the proper sense of the word, not at all intended with a negative connotation!)--that is, it is a creation legend, but not necessarily historical--that uses this literary device to demonstrate God's sovreignty in creation while maintaining (or, perhaps better, creating a basis for) the sacredness of the seventh day. In general, then, it presents a strictly theological account of creation that claims to basis in scientific or historical reality.

I would be inclined to believe it if it were not for Gen 2-11. Chapter 1, of course, is absolutely linked with 2-3 in the general unit of 1-3. But 1-3 cannot be separated from 6-11 thanks to the Cain/Abel/Line of Seth units in 4-5. Thus, 1-3 is intractably linked to 6-11, making 1-11 a literary whole. If, then, chapter 1 is non-historical, there is no reason to take 2-11 as historical. But if 2-11 is not historical, then the basis for Abraham's introduction in 12 is also non-historical, leaving the entire book of Genesis groundless.

Just my thoughts.

edit: ah, found a Wikipedia article on it for you.

Thanks Jac,this is interesting but I'll have to study before I can even comment.
Lately study time has been rare but I will get around to it.

Day four does not parallel well with day one. Day four says that the lights are given in the firmament which was produced on day two, not day one.

Day five refers to the creatures in the seas, but seas were not divided or named until day three, not day two. The term "waters" is also used here, but those existed even before day one (Gen. 1:2).

Day five uses the word earth "let the birds fly above the earth" and "let the birds multiply on the earth." I think that it is probable that the word here refers to the dry land of day three, not the planet. Support for this comes from Genesis 2:19. If this is the case, we see another problem; day five is supposed to parallel day two, not day three.

Day three has the appearing of dry land, the forming of seas and the production of plants, but its parallel day (six) does not mention sea life.

Seventh day is not eternal. God will create again (the New Heavens and the New Earth).