First of all, many of those who follow Dr. Kline's view do so for exegetical reasons, not because they are ignorant of the Hebrew language. Dr. Kline, for instance, knows the Old Testament, in the original languages, as many of us know our English versions. Bring up a text and he recalls from memory and turns to other, related passages (in the Hebrew and Aramaic). He seems to view Genesis 1 in much the same way that most of us see apocalyptic literature, such as Revelation and Zechariah's night visions. He sees the account as historically true, but thinks that the point of view of the events is in heaven before the heavenly host. I do not agree with Dr. Kline and have had some discussion with him on the matter. However, it is little more than slander to accuse him and others of compromising their faith with the dictates of modern science. We ought to address his actual arguments without digressing into attempts to psychologize about his "real" inner motives for taking the position he does. I have seen no evidence in his life or writings that warrant such treatment. Again I think he is mistaken, but he does see the passage as historical and the Scriptures as trustworthy. <br><br>Sometimes, people take the framework position because of the (all too common) poor argumentation on the part of 24/6ers. Another reason that some take this position is precisely because the Bible is written revelation. Some prominent representatives of the "literal" position treat Genesis as anything but written. They seem to ignore the literary (or intentionally composed) nature of Biblical narrative, but pass the 24/6 shibboleth test because, on the point of the length of the days, they are literalists. For example, Henry Morris says that "the heavens and the earth" in verse 1 does not refer to the heavens and the earth as such. But "the heavens" refers to what we mean by the dimension of "space" in physics. "The earth" refers to all ‘matter' in the universe. The movement of the Spirit over the waters is supposed to refer to the origination of kinetic energy. And "let there be light" refers to the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Talk about trying to twist Scripture to fit science! Nevertheless this ridiculous "interpretation" is overlooked simply because Dr. Morris takes a 24/6 position on the days of Genesis. Again, the framework view approaches the passage recognizing its literary nature. It is, after all, a composed narrative.<br><br>Nevertheless, as I said, I do not agree with his view--taking, instead, a literal view of things. I take Genesis 1 (actually 1:1-2:3) as historical narrative. After telling us that, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, Moses proceeds to lay out his narrative. The narrative is obviously not exhaustive–there are many things that God created that are not listed here such as fragrance, texture, comets, bacteria, sound and so on. What he does include fits his purpose. He begins his narrative at the point where the earth is already created. "Now the earth . . ." He notes that the earth was barren and uninhabited, that darkness was over the deep and that the Spirit brooded over the waters. He then proceeds to address each of these in the narrative that follows. Darkness is addressed by the introduction of the light. And this ‘kingdom' is to be governed by the sun, moon and stars. The barren and uninhabited earth is addressed by the introduction of life upon the earth. And man is to rule over life on earth. With this done and being very good, the brooding Spirit rests–the sabbath. Thus our Creator is introduced. John, in his gospel account, picks up this light and life theme to introduce the Word. Jesus is identified as being this Word throughout the account of his earthly ministry (chapters 1-12), largely through the use of the life and light theme. Anyway, the point is that "the days," are not the focus of the passage and should not be a shibboleth for determining who our brothers and sisters are. And though many people do, in fact, myth-understand Genesis, we ought to be a little more careful in lumping all who disagree with the 24/6 position into this category. It is, at times, factually incorrect.<br>David<br><br>
