Sojourner<>< said:
There are a lot of chronological indiscrepancies in the creative events of creation week when looking at it from the framework viewpoint that suggest that Genesis was not intended to be read in this way.
The whole theory is based on the pattern between days 1-3 as days of forming and the parallel 'filling' in days 4-6. I think that the pattern is very interesting as a sort of divine stamp on the creation week and I would like to study more about it. It sort of reminds me of the relationship between types and antitypes. But, for me, it isn't proof enough to support the framework theory because its chronological difficulties are by far outweighed by the smoothness of the traditional reading.
A quote I pulled from my systematic theology book that speaks about the pressure put on believers to accept this theory because of modern science:
"So great is the advantage, and for some the relief, that it could constitute a temptation . . . We must not espouse the theory on grounds of its convenience but only if the text leads us in that direction." -Henri Blocher, In the beginning
that book by blocher is a must read on the topic of gen 1
review of _in the beginning_ by blocher, henri
first my amazon review
5 of 5 stars conservative thoughtful Biblical exegesis of Gen 1-3 July 10, 2003 Edit Review
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 liberal 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.
limited to less than 1000 words and what the average person will skim read *grin*
now the full story-----
The first chapter "Approaching Genesis" is where Blocher outlines his method of exegesis and is where the reader forms his first and most lastly impressions of the author. The chapter is one of the best conservative exegetical statements i can remember reading. For instance,
"If we give the name 'inspiration' to that divine work by which the Bible was composed and which allows us to identify it with God's own utterance, then we must approach the opening chapters of Genesis as inspired texts, rich with the truth of God clothed with the authority of God. We must also, in order to understand them better, make use of the harmony of the Scriptures. We must take advantage of the common inspiration, bringing other passages to illumine the difficulties. That we shall do. We shall trust the method of interpreting Scripture by Scripture, according to 'the analog of faith'." pg 17
In the section, "the place of the sciences" he introduces the theme of 3 ways that bible and science can interact: concordism, antiscientism and fideism. He consistently uses the term antiscientism(this is a translated french book) for that constellation of theology-exegesis-science that we label YEC. On the concordist he writes "badly equipped and badly trained for exegesis, the concordists have more than once projected the science of their own time on to the Word of God, superimposing a different and varying authority of that which should remain supreme." pg 22
