Evidence for God from Science

Anyone here investigate the framework model of creation? I have a pastor locally that was discussing it and it was intriguing. Any thoughts for or against?

I haven't heard of it.

If you wouldn't mind, I need info to form an opinion.

And thanks I am very interested!

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.

But why couldn't we if we knew that the language in 1 was quite different from 2 and on? THe way it was exdplained to me was that the language Moses used was much more poetic than Gen 2. And in that context, can't Gen 1 be viewed as, perhaps not allegorically, but *generally*?

Why would this be threatening when the language still shows the power, might, and majesty of God, His control, and His orderliness? PLus, when we get to Gen 2, the details show the historical narrative.

This is purely curiosity on my part and I am not devoted to this view....just wondering.

For the record, zoe, you shouldn't have to offer the disclaimer you did there at the end. I understand you wanting to be sure that people don't take your questions as a defense, but I think that points to a broader problem that we have. It's rather depressing when we can't ask questions about a position without being perceived as advocating it . . . but I guess that's beside the point.

To your question, I have never been very impressed with arguments about "exalted speech." Let me give you a parallel example, and tell me what your for reaction is.

The prologue to John (John 1:1-18) was clearly not intended to be part of the original Gospel. John may have been the author, but it is just as likely that another had written it. In fact, it seems like it was a late Christian hymn or poem that John used and adapted as a preface to his gospel. We know this because the language, though it isn't quite poetry, is certainly exalted. It has a particular flow that the rest of the book doesn't, and as such, we should consider it secondary to 1:19-20:31.

Now, believe it or not, that's a pretty standard argument among many scholars. Even though we have no textual evidence of any kind that the prologue ever existed independently of the Gospel in any form whatsoever. The rebutal is rather simple: the same author can write with multiple styles if he so chooses when it fits his purposes.

So, back to Genesis 1. Just because the language is "exalted" doesn't mean it isn't historical. However exalted it may be, it is not poetry, despite how much people would like to see it that way. It is rather to silly to say that an author is not allowed to write actual history with a doxological tone, isn't it? Yes, Gen 1 is loftier than Gen 2, but could that not be due to the nature of the material being addressed? Think about your own preacher. When he is getting into the "nitty gritty details" of one of Paul's letters, does he talk the same way as when he is preaching out of one of the great Psalms of worship? Is not one of the marks of a great writer/communicator that they can choose the right tone of presentation for the right material?

And beside that, I would dispute just how exalted the language actually is. It begins with the standard ye, marking a standard continuation of historical narrative. There is no metering to speak of. It speaks of great things in the world that are often taken as symbols in exalted literature . . . light, darkness, sun, moon, stars, seas, and earth, etc. . . . but then, then is a creation story. If you were composing a creation story (and there is no doubt Gen. 1 is a composition!), would its very nature not sound "exalted"? Try the exercise yourself. Write a creation story and see how the language looks . . .

Finally, you come to my main objection in the last post. There is simply too close a tie between Gen 1 and 2 to say one is allegorical and the other historical. Gen 2 is so clearly a recounting of the details of the sixth day that, without Gen 1, much of Gen 2 would be difficult to understand. Put differently, many of the details of Gen 2 presuppose details given in Gen 1. So I don't see how a person could say that one was historical and the other allegorical.

Well . . . I'd respond something along those lines, anyway . . . Is it a slam dunk, definite PROOF? Of course not, but I think all this weighs pretty heavily against the framework theory, and I see little reason to adopt it.

Jac3510 wrote:For the record, zoe, you shouldn't have to offer the disclaimer you did there at the end. I understand you wanting to be sure that people don't take your questions as a defense, but I think that points to a broader problem that we have. It's rather depressing when we can't ask questions about a position without being perceived as advocating it . . . but I guess that's beside the point.

I've learned that this particular section is to be broached with caution

jac wrote: To your question, I have never been very impressed with arguments about "exalted speech." Let me give you a parallel example, and tell me what your for reaction is.

The prologue to John (John 1:1-18) was clearly not intended to be part of the original Gospel. John may have been the author, but it is just as likely that another had written it. In fact, it seems like it was a late Christian hymn or poem that John used and adapted as a preface to his gospel. We know this because the language, though it isn't quite poetry, is certainly exalted. It has a particular flow that the rest of the book doesn't, and as such, we should consider it secondary to 1:19-20:31.

Now, believe it or not, that's a pretty standard argument among many scholars. Even though we have no textual evidence of any kind that the prologue ever existed independently of the Gospel in any form whatsoever. The rebutal is rather simple: the same author can write with multiple styles if he so chooses when it fits his purposes.

No disagreement here, absolutely....but sometimes the author *does* want to stress a passage and/or change the tone of the passage.

jac wrote: So, back to Genesis 1. Just because the language is "exalted" doesn't mean it isn't historical. However exalted it may be, it is not poetry, despite how much people would like to see it that way. It is rather to silly to say that an author is not allowed to write actual history with a doxological tone, isn't it? Yes, Gen 1 is loftier than Gen 2, but could that not be due to the nature of the material being addressed? Think about your own preacher. When he is getting into the "nitty gritty details" of one of Paul's letters, does he talk the same way as when he is preaching out of one of the great Psalms of worship? Is not one of the marks of a great writer/communicator that they can choose the right tone of presentation for the right material?

And beside that, I would dispute just how exalted the language actually is. It begins with the standard ye, marking a standard continuation of historical narrative. There is no metering to speak of. It speaks of great things in the world that are often taken as symbols in exalted literature . . . light, darkness, sun, moon, stars, seas, and earth, etc. . . . but then, then is a creation story. If you were composing a creation story (and there is no doubt Gen. 1 is a composition!), would its very nature not sound "exalted"? Try the exercise yourself. Write a creation story and see how the language looks . . .

Ok, perhaps poetic is not the right word. Or said differently, can't something be "general" or "exalted" and still be historic? and thus we have a narrative that is not meant to be specific (certainly from a literary standpoint Genesis is not very detailed...it is far more "poetic" than specific...no mention of details of cells, molecules, or processes....certainly this, to me, speaks of a narrative that is less concerned with details and more concerned with big events) What intrigues me about the framework hypothesis is that really you break the creation into three oeriods...days 1and 4; 2 and 5; and 3 and 6. And this actually fits very nicely from a historic standpoint.

I guess to me I am not seeing the controversy between declaring it exalted and yet still being historic in the general sense. Certainly I would't view this as allegory merely broader snapshots of history.

jac wrote: Finally, you come to my main objection in the last post. There is simply too close a tie between Gen 1 and 2 to say one is allegorical and the other historical. Gen 2 is so clearly a recounting of the details of the sixth day that, without Gen 1, much of Gen 2 would be difficult to understand. Put differently, many of the details of Gen 2 presuppose details given in Gen 1. So I don't see how a person could say that one was historical and the other allegorical.

BUt does the framework hypothesis *demand* that one take it as allegory? Why would it? Even if we do see the parallels and see the days fitting within each other, that doesn't take away it's hostoricity, does it?

PLus, why should the parallels in the days ruin the tie between 1 and 2? Gen 2 is only detainling days 3 and 6 in the framework hypothesis, certainly not

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. [/quote"

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

And in Gen 2 it details the creation of Adam and Eve....doesn't seem to be any worries to me...

jac wrote: Well . . . I'd respond something along those lines, anyway . . . Is it a slam dunk, definite PROOF? Of course not, but I think all this weighs pretty heavily against the framework theory, and I see little reason to adopt it.

I would definitely worry about it if it truly means that it is taken as simply a cute story...I guess right now you haven't convinced me that this demands an allegorical meaning. It doesn't seem like a myth to me.

Ah, I see what you are asking. I don't really think you could consistently hold to a framework interpretation and at the same time take it as history. The principles that lead a person to adopt a framework interpretation bar a historical interpretation and vice versa. Thus, if you take it as history, you can't really take it as a literary framework.

Basic reason: look at the name of the model itself (which is, by the way, an excellent name for it). It is called the framework model because it sees the six days as a literay device, not a historical account, to convey a theological meaning. The two triads of days are taken to represent kingdoms--a creation kingdom and a creature kingdom--and that God is sovereign over all. To try to go back and say, "Oh, and it is also real history" would make about as much sense as taking one of Jesus' parables and saying at the end, "Oh, yeah, and it's also real history." That would be silly, not because men couldn't really find a perl in a field or because slaves couldn't really invest money for their masters, but because that's just not the point of the story. Same thing here.

Even further, in the framework view, "days" aren't ages or literal days. They are, again, literary devices (the framework by which the story is told). But if the days are allegorical, then our confidence that the rest of the story is allegorical pretty much goes out the window as well.

With all that said, if it so happens to be true that you can talk about the heavens/stars being made, and then the earth being made, and then animals/people being made, and thus we can say that the framework is actually real history, the reply is simply coincidence. Let me explain what I mean. Shy of a YEC interpretation of Gen 1, nobody believes that the earth was made before the heavens. And it is more obvious that the earth had to come before animals and people come, so the stars->earth->people "creation account as history" is pretty unconvincing.

On the flip side, someone could argue that such an account would be a big deal if it was told against a geocentric background. There, you would expect an earth->stars->people arrangement, but there is no reason to think that Moses (or Israel) was geocentric . . . I don't think that's an issue I'd really have to defend . . . not here, anyway!

So, the tl;dr to all this is that the very idea of taking the six days as a literary device bars us from considering this as real history, and the very idea of considering this as real history bars of from considering the six days as a literary device.

Jac3510 wrote:Ah, I see what you are asking. I don't really think you could consistently hold to a framework interpretation and at the same time take it as history. The principles that lead a person to adopt a framework interpretation bar a historical interpretation and vice versa. Thus, if you take it as history, you can't really take it as a literary framework.

Basic reason: look at the name of the model itself (which is, by the way, an excellent name for it). It is called the framework model because it sees the six days as a literay device, not a historical account, to convey a theological meaning. The two triads of days are taken to represent kingdoms--a creation kingdom and a creature kingdom--and that God is sovereign over all. To try to go back and say, "Oh, and it is also real history" would make about as much sense as taking one of Jesus' parables and saying at the end, "Oh, yeah, and it's also real history." That would be silly, not because men couldn't really find a perl in a field or because slaves couldn't really invest money for their masters, but because that's just not the point of the story. Same thing here.

Hmmm, I get what you're saying, but I still don't see why it has to be mutually exclusive. Inasmuch as it describes God's creative work as three creative stages/"days" and it DOES hold to God's sovereignty, why can't it be both descriptive and yet still exalted writing? It DOES describe God's work and that work is TRUE and acurately describes God's character.

jac wrote: Even further, in the framework view, "days" aren't ages or literal days. They are, again, literary devices (the framework by which the story is told). But if the days are allegorical, then our confidence that the rest of the story is allegorical pretty much goes out the window as well.

What do you mean by "the rest of the story"? Do you mean Gen 2? Why should it? First, as you have already pointed out, the language in Gen 2 IS different and speaks to a different intent from the author. Secondly, why should taking some text as narrative and some as "exalted" negate the confidence we have in either? Isn't that the point of understanding scripture? taking each passage as it was meant to be? And if some scripture doesn't speak to absolute historical narrative (I guess this all depends on where you hang your hat on the specifics of what defines historical. )

jac wrote: With all that said, if it so happens to be true that you can talk about the heavens/stars being made, and then the earth being made, and then animals/people being made, and thus we can say that the framework is actually real history, the reply is simply coincidence. Let me explain what I mean. Shy of a YEC interpretation of Gen 1, nobody believes that the earth was made before the heavens. And it is more obvious that the earth had to come before animals and people come, so the stars->earth->people "creation account as history" is pretty unconvincing.

On the flip side, someone could argue that such an account would be a big deal if it was told against a geocentric background. There, you would expect an earth->stars->people arrangement, but there is no reason to think that Moses (or Israel) was geocentric . . . I don't think that's an issue I'd really have to defend . . . not here, anyway!

So, the tl;dr to all this is that the very idea of taking the six days as a literary device bars us from considering this as real history, and the very idea of considering this as real history bars of from considering the six days as a literary device.

Jac, I just don't seem to be as shocked as it seems I should be (or as shocked as the tone of your description demands )...and I am either puzzled by that or scared by that. Partly because of the person I learned this from...is one of the most respected pastors I have ever known.

To me, it seems that Gen 1 can be representing a history, or at least, the important aspects of the history of the universe. It's almost as somebody describe the history of the United States by describing the development of the states and then describing the events of the US (poor analogy I know....I might be able to refine it).

Of course this would mean that we should be able to read this into the text and analyizng the language. However, my point is that if we were able to understand the author's intent, then a text like this could be taken as both an accurate record and even as it is more creative in it's accounting.

It seems like this could simply be a history of three large creative periods...why not? Presented in such a way to overlap? And then Moses gets down to narrative business in Gen 2, whereas Gen 1 seems focused on the character of God as creator.

Interesting...I need to investigate further...

Jac, this probably sums up what I was trying to say

www.asa3.com wrote:It's important to recognize that non-chronological does not mean non-historical. In Genesis 1 the literary framework is a historical framework because it is used to describe historical events that actually did occur. These real events are organized by topic, so the result is called topical history. This is consistent with the fact that 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. { note: In practice, written history is often organized in ways that are less simple, that cannot be so easily categorized. }

zoe, I understand what you mean by topical arrangement and it being actual history. I've also already said why I don't find that line of thought persuasive:

I wrote:look at the name of the model itself (which is, by the way, an excellent name for it). It is called the framework model because it sees the six days as a literay device, not a historical account, to convey a theological meaning . . .

To try to go back and say, "Oh, and it is also real history" would make about as much sense as taking one of Jesus' parables and saying at the end, "Oh, yeah, and it's also real history." . . .

Even further, in the framework view, "days" aren't ages or literal days. They are, again, literary devices (the framework by which the story is told). . . .

if it so happens to be true that you can talk about the heavens/stars being made, and then the earth being made, and then animals/people being made, and thus we can say that the framework is actually real history, the reply is simply coincidence . . .

the stars->earth->people "creation account as history" is pretty unconvincing . . .

the very idea of taking the six days as a literary device bars us from considering this as real history

I don't mind if someone wants to hold to the framework model. What I do mind is if they try to take aspects of the day-age model (which is that it is historical narrative) and apply it to the framework model which does not view the text as historical narrative. There are not three ages. The "days" are allegorical. Yom doesn't mean "day" or "age" or anything like it. It is nothing more than a literary device.

The entire picture, then, is theological. It does not proclaim to be history anymore than the parables of Jesus do. What it claims is that God created the universe in two distinct aspects--the general creation and the creatures that inhabit it--and that God is sovereign over all. It has no chronology, not because it is topical history, but because it has no claim to be historical at all. It is only "historical" in the sense that the stars, the earth, and animals were, at some point, all created (whatever that means, which is the point--the framework model doesn't know or care what "create" means).

The point I am having trouble making is one of genre. The framework model, by its exegetical principles, sees Genesis 1 not as history but as mythology. The day-age model sees Genesis 1 not as mythology but as history. You cannot get around that by saying that the framework model also tells history because its exegetical principles will not allow it. If there is any history, it is coincidental. Let me return to one of Jesus' parables to make that point as clear as possible:

Consider the parable of the four soils. Is that historical? No, of course not. Now, suppose, though, that you found a man who did scatter seed, and some of that seed did fall on the road, on rocky soil, and weed-infested soil, and then on good soil . . . and suppose the seed on the ground did get eaten by bird, and the seed on the rocky soil did spring up quickly only the wither in the sun, and the seed in the weed-infested soil did get chocked out and never grow, and the seed on the good soil did grow up and bear various levels of fruit. Suppose all of that happened. Would you, then, say, "Aha! So Jesus' parable was actually a historical parable!" No, of course not. You would simply say that the reality of the situation was unrelated to Jesus' story beyond the fact that Jesus told a story that the audience could relate to, precisely because it could have happened. But, in the end, Jesus' parable made no historical claims regardless of what happened in reality, and if Jesus' story did happen in reality, it would only be coincidence.

The same thing is true here. The framework model cannot claim to be history precisely because it does not view Genesis 1 under the genre of historical narrative. It views it as theology, as mythology, etc. In short, the framework model isn't intereseted in, nor does it make any claims on, how things happened. It is interested in Who made them happen and the relationship between them. The lights of the sky (sun, moon, stars) are signs for men; the creation is under man's rule; animals inhabit the creation and also are subject to man; man rules the creation, but animate and inanimate, and is directly subject to God. God is sovereign over all. And the seventh day is holy.

That we can read into the framework model a correct view of the historical creation of the world is only a testament to the fact that we know something about how the world came into being, apart from Scriptural revelation. But, by genre, the framework model makes no claims there. It isn't a historical account. It is a theological account. Nothing more.

Just because it's not referring to actual days why should that demand an allegorical interpretation?

It can be historical and yet refer to an unspecified period of time, correct? It *is* saying that God made the universe, it just doesn't specify the amount of days.

The day age also doesn't demand an actual amount of days (or specifically, the day age then allows us to use our own observations to create the timeline to fit within the six creative "days"). And yet that doesn't qualify as allegorical.

zoegirl wrote:Just because it's not referring to actual days why should that demand an allegorical interpretation?

It can be historical and yet refer to an unspecified period of time, correct? It *is* saying that God made the universe, it just doesn't specify the amount of days.

The day age also doesn't demand an actual amount of days (or specifically, the day age then allows us to use our own observations to create the timeline to fit within the six creative "days"). And yet that doesn't qualify as allegorical.

But in the day-age, the word yom is taken literally, as in, "a long, unspecified period of time." The word yom in the framework model is not referring to a 24 hour day, a long unspecified period of time, or anything in between.

Thus, the answer to your first question: it must be allegorical because the methodology demands it. The Literary Framework Model states that the six days are not six historical days/ages; but rather, they are six literary devices (allegorical in meaning) that are used to convey theological truths. The entirety of Genesis 1 is a literary event, not a historical one. The only "historical" claim you could get out of it is "God made the universe," and even then, that is questionable. You could even hold to a steady-state model and still proclaim the truth of the Framework Model . . .

Okay, so if I am understsanidng you, the main stand of the argument is that the framework model as some scholars present it...*they* have created a model that uses it as a literary device...

But why must it be either or? See, the source I was reading didn't emphasize the allegory as much as it did the framework and it was rpesenting it as historical. I know you say it can't, is that more because the sources you have read show that interpretation or is that what you derive from the text itself. It sounds right now as the former. Obviously you think it is meant to be historical. Why can't create this hybrid model? I certainly have no problem with Yom being "long periods o ftime" as a historical presentation and yet I am intrigued by this framework.

So what is stopping us from presenting the idea that Yom CAN be taken as "long, unspecified period of time" and yet with parallels arrangement? Other than that is the current model.

It is a hermeneutical problem. It is a methodological problem. The principles that allow you to consider the days as parallel bar you from considering the account historical and vice versa. Let me demonstrate.

Let's assume the Framework model. We have seven Yomim to deal with. We decide that there is a correlation between the first and fourth, second and fifth, and third and sixth. As such, according to our model, we see not six creative periods (yomim--long, unspecified periods of time), but in fact three creative periods. Fine. The first of these has to do with the heavens and their inhabitants. The second with the physical earth. The third with the earth's inhabitants. So, we propose this general outline: heavens->earth->man.

Nice and neat! Now, let's look at more details. Our major problem comes at Gen. 1:6, "And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." Do you see it? I'll give you a hint. The same problem occurs in the following verses:

• And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.
  Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.
  
  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, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.
  
  And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."
  
  And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
  
  Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

The words in bold present a problem. That is the word va, meaning "and." This is the standard word used to continue narration in a Hebrew text. It means, "and this happened next . . ."

Now, 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.

Let's compare this to the topical history you talked about earlier. Now, in topical history, everything is historical. If I decide to tell the life of a president, and rather than arrange it chronology, I describe first his policies, then his conflicts, then his faith, needless to say, I will be going back and forward quite a bit in his life. But if I say that first his policies happened and then his conflicts happened and then his faith happened, I would be telling a false story. I don't say that, precisely because I don't mean that at all.

But that is precisely what the Hebrew says. Again, the hermeneutical principle you employ to get around this is to claim that it is not historical. If you claim it is historical, you have a self-contradiction in the passage. But, if rather than viewing it has historical, you instead view it as theological, you can ignore the sequence, realign it according to the stated framework, and talk about the theological themes.

What you seem to be wanting to do is take the parallels suggested by the Framework Model and then suggest three long time periods that were broadly historical. Exegetically, you can't do that. If you take the account as historical then the word va requires you to take the sequence naturally. If you reject the natural sequence, you must also reject the genre of historical narrative. If you do that, you can no more go back and claim it is historical than you can claim that Jesus' parables were historical.

The problem, then, is not with a particular presentation of the model; it is with the methodology one employs to get the model. Feel free to employ it, but if you do so, the necessary result is that Genesis 1 is myth rather than historical narrative.

I don't see it as an absolute barrier. Literary criticism tends to want to categorize by author, document or whatever that the usage of words, phrases or terms etc. are going to tend be consistent within the argued scope and that is a reasonable argument.

You still have to allow for the context of the passage, the intent of the author and the understanding of the original audience however, to contradict that general rule when a preponderance of the evidence calls for it. That's a judgment call and given the nature of Gen 1 and 2 most elements of which were which obviously were not humanly observed events, you can reasonably make greater allowances for the nature and specificity of what is being described particularly in the context of a culture and a language that do not naturally and easily lend themselves to the type of specificity and literalness that we are trying to impose on that text.

I'm not arguing specifically for a framework approach either, but I don't see it as precluded simply because the historical narrative on Genesis that exists from Chapters 3 - 11 is presented at a high level of straight historical narrative. That can be seen as much based upon the nature of the events being recounted and doesn't necessarily require that Chapters 1 & 2 be read to the same standards. When the events themselves are different in nature that is enough to explain a different approach without creating an artificial standard based upon the literary nature of the text.

The more relevant question, I think, and it is somewhat speculative, is to ask if the intent of the author was to present the first 2 chapters at a higher level of generality than the following chapters, if he could or should have used different terms or words to convey that, and that of course has to be examined in view of the language and common vernacular of that day. I tend to believe the answer is that the words, phrases and idioms used were in fact what the author should have used because there were no better means to communicate those events that how it was done. If that's the case, then extrapolating back on the basis of the use of the terms later in the book when the events were more historical than prehistorical, in my opinion, becomes a case of the tail wagging the dog, or forcing the text into the framework of your methodology.

Hope that makes sense. Sometimes I feel like I'm not as clear as I'd like to be on some of these lines of reasoning.

blessings,

bart