Framework theory of creation?

After reading through the OEC and YEC threads, I was surprised that there is no mention (that I saw) of either the Framework Hypothesis on Genesis 1, or John Walton's "Inaugurating the Cosmological Temple" paradigm.

For those of you not familiar with it, the framework hypothesis argues that the key point of Genesis 1 is to establish kingdoms and fill them (and provide rulers for them).

So on days 1-3, God establishes kingdoms: light, sky/sea, land/vegetation
Days 4-6, the kingdoms are filled: luminaries, birds/fish, land animals/man

Are you familiar with the framework hypothesis? Do you agree or disagree with the approach, and why?

My possible theory EyesOnZion is that the initial framework of this planet was it was massive sphere of water or some type of liquid.

KJV

Genesis Chapter 1

2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.


I am about to propose an absolute speculation. I don’t want to lead anyone down the wrong path.


“And the earth was without form”: Possibly meaning the earth did exist but did not have form. Water has no form.

“and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep.”

I’ve seen many national geographic shows about underwater exploration. It is deep and it is dark.

“And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” So far it’s not stating the Lord is creating the earth, right then in there. Mostly likely He already established it before than.

“Also He is moving upon the face of the waters.” So it seems to me He is classifying it as water and not some type of other liquid. From that 1 verse, I speculate the Earth was possibly a massive sphere of water with no life.

“Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters.” Now the Lord is making land on top of the sphere of water. Afterwards he starts create life.


11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

David,

Thanks for your response. I agree that the creation narrative in Gen 1 doesn't require an ex nihilo understanding of "formless and void". The Hebrew, 'tohu v bohu' is difficult to translate, but would allow for your understanding. Your understanding of the firmament (v.6-7) seems to be at odds with the traditional understanding of the text (and the Hebrew 'raqia') which seems to envision a dividing wall between the waters below (sea) and the waters above (sky). I don't know of a good way to get around this conclusion. Out of curiousity, do you believe that God made the 'deep', or the watery planet, as you see it?

That said, perhaps I need to be more clear about the framework theory. It argues that the text of Genesis 1 is not primarily about giving a historical chronology of what took place in creation, rather it's a historical categorization of what took place. It points to the different spheres of the world, and demonstrates how God both created those spheres and provided continuing 'rule' for those spheres.

A fuller explanation of the thinking behind it can be found in Meredith Kline's 1958 article, "Because It Had Not Rained".

Although Kline himself argued for YEC, other holders of the view argue for OEC, but technically, the framework theory offers a different way of looking at the text, and doesn't speak to the age of the earth.

Is anyone familiar with this theory and have an opinion (positive or negative)?

[Out of curiosity, do you believe that God made the 'deep', or the watery planet, as you see it?]

All speculation: I believe God made both. God created the planet purely out of water and the byproduct was the deep.

[It argues that the text of Genesis 1 is not primarily about giving a historical chronology of what took place in creation, rather it's a historical categorization of what took place.]


Agreed, there are missing books in the KJV that could answer many questions: For example...


1 Chronicles Chapter 29

29. Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they [are] written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer,


2 Chronicles Chapter 9

29. Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, [are] they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?


2 Samuel Chapter 1

18(Also he bade them teach the children of Judah [the use of] the bow: behold, [it is] written in the book of Jasher.)


Sorry but the link you provided EyesOnZion, did not open but that’s okay. I prefer to stay totally with in the bible or possible legitimate books that should be connected to the bible. Now regarding the true age of Earth, I read this in the Book of Adam last night.


The 1st Book of Adam: Chapter 12: Paragraph 7. [If it’s legitimate]

And God accepted his offering, and sent His blessing upon him and upon his children. And then God made a promise to Seth, saying, "At the end of the great five days and a half, concerning which I have made a promise to thee and to thy father, I will send My Word and save thee and thy seed."


The 1st Book of Adam: Chapter 19: Paragraph 1 [If it’s legitimate]

Then God revealed to him again the promise He had made to Adam; He explained to him the 5,500 years, and revealed unto him the mystery of His coming upon the earth.

[Most likely He was referring to Jesus Christ]


Now if 5.5 days = 5,500 days.

Then if it took 6 days to create to earth, by human perception alone, by our standards, it probably took 6,000 years. This does not include the time the Earth was purely ocean. So far it’s still a mystery with that.

David,

For what it's worth, I would be very cautious about using extrabiblical, "possible legitimate books" to determine too much of your theology. While I was trying to identify your source (I think your first quote, at least is from 2nd Adam, not 1st Adam), it seems it would fall under the broad category of pseudopigraphal work.

While I'm not intimately familiar with this particular book, judging from the company it's typically found in makes me very nervous. Many of the pseudopigraphal writings are clearly from a later date than they claim. Also, many are re-writes of biblical text for the sake of pushing the theological agenda of a given Jewish sect.

Admittedly, I don't know the details of the Book of Adam as intimately as I know other pseudopigraphal works, and it would probably be some length of time before I could become intimate (if I ever did...I have a lot of other studies on my plate). But as a brother, I would urge caution before considering them too highly. As a broad statement of the so-called 'lost books', I'd consider them commentaries at best, and heretical at worst (depending on the book, obviously).

That said, I'm well familiar with the idea that the 6 days of creation = 6000 years, which seems similar to your view. While I don't hold to it, I have no problem with that approach either. Also, I'm glad you believe that God created the watery planet, or 'deep', I think it's fundamental to a proper understanding of God that he created the world 'out of nothing'.

[For what it's worth, I would be very cautious about using extra biblical, "possible legitimate books" to determine too much of your theology.]

I absolutely agree with you. I’m still doing research and I also thank you for the warning and correction.

[Also, I'm glad you believe that God created the watery planet, or 'deep', I think it's fundamental to a proper understanding of God that he created the world 'out of nothing'.]

You’re welcome EyesOnZion. Science and Faith will always have issues but I do believe in the Big Bang Theory...

Genesis Chapter 1

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

I have question for you EyesOnZion…

Luke Chapter 8

30. And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.

31. And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep.

The devils were scared to be sent to the deep. Do you think that is where the devils are located? The bottom of the ocean?

David Pratt said:

“and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep.”

I’ve seen many national geographic shows about underwater exploration. It is deep and it is dark.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't this be "space" or "the heavens," not the deepness of the waters? If it's on the face, it's like the Spirit of God on the face of the waters. Same concept. It's surrounded in darkness, not that the underwater is dark (though it is).

Genesis Chapter 1

2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


Possibly but it said the darkness was on the face of the deep. Not the Earth. It alreadys leads into Earth. And it was voided of life of anything. And the darkness, which is space, was upon the deep.

The deep of the planet. Deep of the Earth. Deep within Earth.

LOL, it never went this "deep" in this one verse before.

David Pratt said:

I have question for you EyesOnZion…

Luke Chapter 8

30. And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.

31. And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep.

The devils were scared to be sent to the deep. Do you think that is where the devils are located? The bottom of the ocean?

Click to expand...

I hope I can figure out how to do this...but let me try to tackle the answer. To be honest, I haven't considered all the ramifications of this answer, so this is just a gut response. First let me say that I don't think that the deep is the same as the ocean, per se. In order to really get a grasp, an understanding of the Ancient Hebrew cosmology is necessary. If you take all that the Bible presents about the world, you end up with a picture of the world sorta like this...


Scholars will debate some of the finer points of this chart, but generally speaking, they all look something like this. So the 'deep' is actually a separate layer below the ocean (well...sea is what they call it). Now this 'deep' is talked about in other cultures as well, especially in their creation accounts. The deep tends to represent a chaotic force where no life can exist. In some accounts, the god battles with the dragon of the deep, in others he rises out of the deep. I think that this "uninhabitable chaotic force" is a better description of the deep than attributing it to some actual locale on the ocean floor.

Where it gets tricky is the passage you mentioned about Legion. Obviously, if they were afraid of being sent there, it must be considered a real place. While the ancient Hebrews saw it as being under the sea, I'm not insistent that that's where the 'deep' is located. I mean, they also thought a wall was holding up the water in the sky, and modern science has debunked that understanding.

So if I had to take a stab at understanding that passage, I'd be inclined to say that Legion was begging not to be sent to the place of 'chaotic desolation', because that's the worst place imaginable. And while the audience of the time would have assumed that it was located underneath the ocean, I don't think the biblical text is necessarily telling us that it is located there.

But to be honest, I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps we need to give more credence to the Hebrew cosmology, or perhaps we need to consider that the spiritual realm and the spatial realm overlap. But I think we get more answers about the 'deep' from looking at how it's treated in other Ancient Near East cultures than we do trying to locate it through modern science.

David Pratt said:

You’re welcome EyesOnZion. Science and Faith will always have issues but I do believe in the Big Bang Theory...

Click to expand...

Just wanted to respond to this comment. I'm sure in many circled believing in the Big Bang Theory would get a Christian into trouble, but I know many good Christians (who are much smarter than myself) who believe in Big Bang or evolution, or whatever. I think it's a tenable position, depending on how loosely you hold to the text and how many gaps you allow for.

My own approach is to say that I'm agnostic about much of the scientific stuff. I've worked hard enough to become halfway knowledgeable in one field to know that I'm completely ignorant when it comes to some of this higher science.

I don't think that the Big Bang (or anything else) necessarily threatens my theology, but I'm still uncomfortable with relying too heavily on scientific knowledge. Experience tells me that nobody studies in a bubble. Rather, people are looking to confirm their pre-existing biases. One common pre-existing bias of many scientists is a purely naturalistic worldview. Darwin and others did a great favor to this worldview by combining chance and a filter to make things look like design. The only flaw is that this requires a very long time to seem like a viable possibility. I suspect that this (among other presuppositions) has influenced science tremendously, but because I'm not a scientific expert, I can't really say how it has.

So I'm wary. In a world in which most people don't know the names of their ancestors born a century before, and where the greatest archeological minds only discovered this week that all the greek statues were originally very colorful...I'm very hesitant to think that we can say with any sort of accuracy what happened billions or trillions of years ago.

But if you know more about science than I, and you come away convinced that their conclusions are terribly muddied by naturalistic presuppositions, I have no problem with a Christian thinking that the big bang theory is plausible.

I totally disagree with the Big Bang Theory as well. It was humor. Sorry about that, I’m so used to saying that to the people I know, I sometimes forget to explain that to those I do not know. It’s still blessing you typed that information.
The Big Bang in my perception is that God is so powerful, that out of sheer willpower of saying the word, ‘Light’ he created… everything. The ‘bang’ was word ‘light’. How he created it is an absolute mystery. My science teachers always tried to drill it in my head all through from elementary to college but I never paid attention because I don’t believe it. LOL, I still don’t even know what Theory is today. J

David Pratt said:

I totally disagree with the Big Bang Theory as well. It was humor. Sorry about that, I’m so used to saying that to the people I know, I sometimes forget to explain that to those I do not know. It’s still blessing you typed that information.
The Big Bang in my perception is that God is so powerful, that out of sheer willpower of saying the word, ‘Light’ he created… everything. The ‘bang’ was word ‘light’. How he created it is an absolute mystery. My science teachers always tried to drill it in my head all through from elementary to college but I never paid attention because I don’t believe it. LOL, I still don’t even know what Theory is today. J

Click to expand...

Sorry, my bad. I'm slow on the uptake sometimes. But what did you think about the whole 'deep' thing?

David Pratt said:

Your post from the first page with an explanation was awesome EyesOnZion. This is what I enjoy: Trying to back up the creation of the Earth with what's in the Bible and other possible biblical books.

Science does provide explanation and theories to some but a person can easily be lost and stray from the book if you become to immersed in science books. The allure is strong, so I try to stay away from it.

Click to expand...

Thanks, re: that first post, but I didn't do any of the work on it. Much brighter minds than mine are responsible. But I agree, it's all about learning as a community to understand God's Word better.

I think you're right...science can suck you in. Our culture (well, American culture) seems to tell us that science is absolutely trustworthy, but I'm personally wary of trusting in areas that I have massive ignorance about. I do think that Christian scientists (not the religion) could have a lot to offer, but science seems a field into which few Christians go (or survive).

Sorry for bringing up an older thread, but wanted to comment for David.

Just wanted to say that I am glad to hear someone else holds to this position. (I hold to it as well, at least from what you said so far) The only theologian I have read who agrees is Adam Clarke.

Two quick comments/corrections, v7 firmament is probably air not land. And the sphere of water probably contained earth as well. (lower case earth) So it was probably a sphere of muddy water.

If you want, I can send you my short summary of v 1-10, but I think you would have to email me first as I don't have enough posts to send an email through here.

Grace be unto you dan2082. Please send it. I have to split for work but I'll fully respond later this evening or tomorrow.

And nothing is too old discuss, especially when it applies to The Ancient of Days.

[Removing past theological statements with either actual or potential discordance with the Catholic faith.]

To which I'd add, the days of creation and filling don't line up perfectly when you actually examine the text.

When you boil down creation the way I heard it first in Sunday school: 1) light 2) sky and sea 3) land 4)heavenly lights 5) sky and sea creatures 6) land creatures, sure, that seems to work. Three days of basic ideas, followed by three corresponding days that further the work of the first three days.

However, day two in the text isn't described as creation of the sky and sea, it's described as the creation of a void between upper and lower waters. God actually created and named the sea on the third day, at the same time He created the land. And then, furthermore, he filled the land with plants on the third day, violating the idea that filling happens in days four through six. On day four, God creates the stars, and sets them in the vault of the sky, which was created on day two, not day one. Then, on day five, which is supposed to correspond to day two, God creates birds to fly in the sky, but also sea creatures, filling the sea which was created on day three.

And suddenly the argument that day 4 nicely finishes day 1 , day 5 finishes day 2, and day 6 finishes day 3 falls apart. Day 3 finishes part of day 2, and then fills itself, day 4 finishes day 1 but puts the finished objects inside day 2 , and day 5 fills days 2 and 3.

Gen 1:1 creates the Heavens (e.g. Angels) and earth.

[Day 1] By Gen 1:2, earth already exists as a dark desolate wasteland water-world, with God's wondrous influences sweeping the surface of the same. God causes Light, creating nights & days on the planet:

• planet earth exists
• earth's ocean(s) exist
• the Sun "turns on" and earth "spins" creating day & night

[Day 2] In Gen 1:6-8, earth's lofty skies appear:

• earth's "atmosphere clears"

[Day 3] In Gen 1:9-13:

• earth's "continents emerge" and plant life colonizes the same

[Day 4] In Gen 1:14-ff.:

• stars, Sun & Moon "become visible through cleared atmosphere"

[Day 5] Gen 1:20-ff:

• animal life colonizes earth
  • marine aquatic life colonizes the oceans
  • birds colonize the continents and take to the skies

[Day 6] Gen 1:24-ff:

• animal life colonizes earth
  • terrestrial life colonizes the continents
  • mankind is brought about

Oceans exist on D1 and are populated on D5
Skies emerge on D2 and are populated on D5
Land masses emerge on D3 and are colonized on D5-6
Heavenly objects appear through the skies on D4
Having assigned earth to the ministry of humanity, God rests on D7

Have to agree with @Epiphoskei, the FW hypothesis is imaginative but not based soundly upon Scripture