I'd like to make a few remarks about the literary framework interpretation of Genesis 1, based on personal reflection, and hopefully these will generate some discussion. These are in no particular order.
A. First, a definition of the "literary framework" interpretation. The way I see it, this is a broad term which refers to the view that Genesis 1 is a creation story written within the "framework" of a 7 day week. This "framework" is not a historical framework, but rather a literary one. i.e. the 7 day story is not (and was never meant to be) a historical account of the beginning of the universe, but exists as a literary, topical and theological device.
B. The primary purpose of the 7 day structure would seem to be to present a theology of the Sabbath (cf. Exodus 20:8-11). However, the 7 day structure also provides an opportunity to teach other theological lessons about creation -- for example, the order, grandeur and providence that is present and visible in creation.
C. Furthermore, it is quite clear that Genesis 1 as a literary framework serves a polemic purpose -- in other words, it speaks against pagan creation ideas held in the ANE. Eg. there is one God who effortlessly speaks the universe into existence, and lovingly crowns humanity lord over creation after providing them with all their physical needs. Celestial objects are not divine, but subject to previously ordained cycles of time.
D. More sophisticated theories of framework interpretation have been worked out by certain theologians. The most frequently made observation is the parallelism between days 1-3 and days 4-6; hence the suggestion is of two "triads", where days 1-3 are about the forming of "kingdoms", and days 4-6 are about the filling of these "kingdoms" with their "population" or "rulers". More complex still is Meredith Kline's formulation of a "2 register cosmology". It should be pointed out that these sophisticated theories (esp. Kline) have their critics; they are elaborations of the basic framework view, and are not essential to holding the framework view.
E. The framework view readily admits that Genesis 1 is an artistic, creative work of a human mind. Dictation theories of scripture are rejected. As such, there is no need to harmonise the details of Genesis 1 with any scientific findings. Advocates of the framework interpretation regard the 7 days of Genesis 1 as literal, 24-hour days in the natural sense, which proceed chronologically as presented in the story. It is the story as a whole that is figurative and non-historical. As such, creationist arguments about the waw consecutive indicating a sequential progression of events, and yom meaning a literal day, etc. are not relevant to the framework interpretation -- framework advocates agree wholly with these sort of arguments.
F. The framework interpretation stands against attempts to interpret Genesis 1 concordistically with science -- for example, the gap theory and the day-age theory. Unlike these interpretations, and like YECism, the framework view takes Genesis 1 at face value on a literary level. (Though not on a scientific or historical level, in stark contrast to YECism).
G. The framework interpretation in its broad sense (i.e. not restricted to more sophisticated ideas such as the Klinean theory) is probably the most widely held view among evangelical/conservative Theistic Evolutionists, especially at a scholarly and theological-college level.
H. Despite being widely held and widely taught, the framework interpretation appears to be poorly understood by YECists. This is evidenced by the fact that YECists pour large amounts of effort into arguments based on yom, waw, etc. (which are more relevant for day-age advocates) and relatively little attention is given to the framework view. To illustrate, the AiG website does not have any articles refuting the framework view written by its own people and aimed at a lay audience -- all it does is link to a couple of off-site technical articles (Pipa, Kulikovsky).
See http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/compromise.asp
The Answers Book, published by AiG, has this to say:
The fact that they pin the "Framework Hypothesis" exclusively to Kline (see footnotes), and call it "a very complex view", together with the fact that all it rates is this very brief mention (within a large chapter defending literal 6-day creation), demonstrates that they really don't understand the framework view and have no awareness of the view's importance.
I. Following on from H, one might suspect that the relative silence on the framework interpretation from popular YECist organisations demonstrates not only a lack of understanding of the view, but perhaps also a tacit recognition that it is an interpretation which is very difficult to attack, and indeed, is far superior to their own literalistic interpretation.
J. The framework interpretation follows naturally from the standard evangelical view of scripture -- that scripture is inspired providentially by God, but not dictated; it is a collection of human literary works. By contrast, YECism and day-age belief require some kind of supernatural "tampering" with either the author or the text, Koran-style.
K. Some might dispute this, but the framework interpretation is probably most consistent with the views of the church fathers about Genesis, and early theologians such as Augustine.
Perhaps I'll leave it at that -- I'd love some comments on what I've written, whether you agree or disagree with anything I've said, and whether you have any further insights to add.
A. First, a definition of the "literary framework" interpretation. The way I see it, this is a broad term which refers to the view that Genesis 1 is a creation story written within the "framework" of a 7 day week. This "framework" is not a historical framework, but rather a literary one. i.e. the 7 day story is not (and was never meant to be) a historical account of the beginning of the universe, but exists as a literary, topical and theological device.
B. The primary purpose of the 7 day structure would seem to be to present a theology of the Sabbath (cf. Exodus 20:8-11). However, the 7 day structure also provides an opportunity to teach other theological lessons about creation -- for example, the order, grandeur and providence that is present and visible in creation.
C. Furthermore, it is quite clear that Genesis 1 as a literary framework serves a polemic purpose -- in other words, it speaks against pagan creation ideas held in the ANE. Eg. there is one God who effortlessly speaks the universe into existence, and lovingly crowns humanity lord over creation after providing them with all their physical needs. Celestial objects are not divine, but subject to previously ordained cycles of time.
D. More sophisticated theories of framework interpretation have been worked out by certain theologians. The most frequently made observation is the parallelism between days 1-3 and days 4-6; hence the suggestion is of two "triads", where days 1-3 are about the forming of "kingdoms", and days 4-6 are about the filling of these "kingdoms" with their "population" or "rulers". More complex still is Meredith Kline's formulation of a "2 register cosmology". It should be pointed out that these sophisticated theories (esp. Kline) have their critics; they are elaborations of the basic framework view, and are not essential to holding the framework view.
E. The framework view readily admits that Genesis 1 is an artistic, creative work of a human mind. Dictation theories of scripture are rejected. As such, there is no need to harmonise the details of Genesis 1 with any scientific findings. Advocates of the framework interpretation regard the 7 days of Genesis 1 as literal, 24-hour days in the natural sense, which proceed chronologically as presented in the story. It is the story as a whole that is figurative and non-historical. As such, creationist arguments about the waw consecutive indicating a sequential progression of events, and yom meaning a literal day, etc. are not relevant to the framework interpretation -- framework advocates agree wholly with these sort of arguments.
F. The framework interpretation stands against attempts to interpret Genesis 1 concordistically with science -- for example, the gap theory and the day-age theory. Unlike these interpretations, and like YECism, the framework view takes Genesis 1 at face value on a literary level. (Though not on a scientific or historical level, in stark contrast to YECism).
G. The framework interpretation in its broad sense (i.e. not restricted to more sophisticated ideas such as the Klinean theory) is probably the most widely held view among evangelical/conservative Theistic Evolutionists, especially at a scholarly and theological-college level.
H. Despite being widely held and widely taught, the framework interpretation appears to be poorly understood by YECists. This is evidenced by the fact that YECists pour large amounts of effort into arguments based on yom, waw, etc. (which are more relevant for day-age advocates) and relatively little attention is given to the framework view. To illustrate, the AiG website does not have any articles refuting the framework view written by its own people and aimed at a lay audience -- all it does is link to a couple of off-site technical articles (Pipa, Kulikovsky).
See http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/compromise.asp
The Answers Book, published by AiG, has this to say:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3661 said:
The fact that they pin the "Framework Hypothesis" exclusively to Kline (see footnotes), and call it "a very complex view", together with the fact that all it rates is this very brief mention (within a large chapter defending literal 6-day creation), demonstrates that they really don't understand the framework view and have no awareness of the view's importance.
I. Following on from H, one might suspect that the relative silence on the framework interpretation from popular YECist organisations demonstrates not only a lack of understanding of the view, but perhaps also a tacit recognition that it is an interpretation which is very difficult to attack, and indeed, is far superior to their own literalistic interpretation.
J. The framework interpretation follows naturally from the standard evangelical view of scripture -- that scripture is inspired providentially by God, but not dictated; it is a collection of human literary works. By contrast, YECism and day-age belief require some kind of supernatural "tampering" with either the author or the text, Koran-style.
K. Some might dispute this, but the framework interpretation is probably most consistent with the views of the church fathers about Genesis, and early theologians such as Augustine.
Perhaps I'll leave it at that -- I'd love some comments on what I've written, whether you agree or disagree with anything I've said, and whether you have any further insights to add.
