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>
You addressed your comments in a reply to me and thus assuming this was your intent, so my reply:
In reply to:[color:"blue"]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. . . .
I do not recall ever mentioning Meredith Kline? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/scratch.gif" alt="scratch" title="scratch[/img] Nor, do I ever recall stating that everyone who takes a position other than a literal 24/6 day creation has done so because they are trying to incorporate modern science into their eisogesis to avoid embarrassment, etc. It is true that many DO reject the young earth and 24/6 day creation for that reason. This is common knowledge. But why you went out of your way to defend Dr. Kline on this matter, as if someone was attacking his knowledge of Hebrew or the sincerity of his view, I have no idea?? My former professor, John Frame rejects the young earth and 24/6 day creation as well, and I have had personal contact with him about this as you have Kline. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]
In reply to:[color:"blue"]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.
Again, I have no idea why you chose to direct these type of comments to me?? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img] Nowhere have I EVER even intimated that those who oppose the traditional, historical 24-hour 6 day creation are to be suspect as to being actually saved. Why even bring this up? I cannot recall ANYONE in ANY thread on this Board ever implying such a thing. But, then again, I have been known to forget a thing or two. There may have been an individual who suggested that anyone who didn't hold to the "literal" interpretation was unregenerate. But surely, nothing of the sort has been said in this particular thread.
Perhaps you have this Board confused with another where you have read such things as you have ranted against here? Hey, it happens!! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]
Pilgrim,<br>Yes, you are right. I did nothing but rant. I "replied" to you when I was intending merely to address the issue in general and thought that was the context of this discussion. I assumed that you and others here were aware of the rather heated controversy that has been raging in many denominations as some seek to make the 24/6 position into a shibboleth for serving as officers in the church. It this light, I also therefore, misunderstood: <br><br>1) "As Reformed Christians we have a special stake in the creation/evolution debate. With our high view of Scripture we are pre-committed to the integrity of the word of God in all areas of life. Unfortunately, much of Reformed theology writes off six-day creation as naive fundamentalism or gross bibliolatry. Though most Reformed scholars would decry evolutionism, they often capitulate to the evolutionary elite, being pressured to re-interpret Genesis in order to maintain academic credibility. This is a tragic surrender of orthodoxy to the reigning cultural mythology of our day: chance-oriented, naturalistic evolutionism." Dr. Gentry [From the article you suggested.]<br><br>2) "The suppositions of modern science are probably the #1 factor, IMHO, that have influenced some to cast off accepting the 24/6 day creation, out of fear of looking foolish before the world. Thus they grasp at these other views to try and find some semblance of continuity between the Bible and science."<br>"The bottom line for me is that with everything else considered, when I read the Genesis account, it SCREAMS 24/6 day creation; the Spirit of the text is clearly that of a literal historical narrative and all these other views are poor attempts to circumvent the obvious." 06/16/03 11:27 AM Pilgrim<br><br>3) "For centuries, the six days of Creation in Genesis were understood by nearly all Church Fathers and Biblical Hebrew scholars to be ordinary 24-hour days. However, due to the widespread acceptance of evolution over the last 130 years (even in the church), attempts have been made to interpret the days of Creation in a way consistent with the evolutionary time scale. Even many who accept fiat creation (Creation out of nothing through the power of God's Word) feel compelled to somehow incorporate the evolutionary time scale, if not the evolutionary process itself, into the Genesis account of Creation. Thus, some creationists have attempted to stretch the seven "days" of the Creation week into several billion years!" 06/16/03 06:23 PM Wes<br><br>4) "I couldn't agree with you more. As I said on one of these psots, when I aske my pastor about Covenant Seminary he said Bryan Chapell believes that because the original texts cannot be interpreted conclusively that it was actually 24 hours, that he believes the men at the seminary have the right to take either interpretation. My first thought when I heard that some don't believe in a 24 hour day in regards to creation, I said to my pastor that it sounded very much like that thinking just gives more credence to evolution." 06/17/03 05:25 AM Linda<br><br>5) "All reputable Hebrew scholars will tell you that there is absolutely no ambiguity at all with Genesis as to what Moses is trying to convey. He is saying that God historically created in 6 ordinary, 24 hour days. I personally would like to hear what from the language and text of Genesis compels Chapell to believe there is no clarity here. I mean, this ain't brain surgery." 06/17/03 05:34 AM Fred<br><br>These seemed to me to suggest (in concert with the current controversy) that the only reason anyone would reject the 24/6 position is because they 'suppress the truth in unrighteousness'. Again, though, I apparently misunderstood all of this. I used Dr. Kline (or those holding his view, actually) as an example to try to illustrate that there are believers who are competent scholars whose motives seem to be to correctly understand the Bible, rather than to further evolutionism, as is so commonly asserted. Given the context of the issue, in general, I did not have to go out of my way to mention Dr. Kline. He is a good example of the point I was making. Defending him personally, was not really why I used his name, though I would not be ashamed to do so (I must say that I don't know what mentioning John Frame was supposed to convey to me. Should I have used him as an example to illustrate my point?). With regard to the way the issue is being played out--excluding those on this thread, of course--I do believe that I am duty bound to my Lord to defend the honor of my neighbor; much more that of my brothers and sisters. Anyway, I am sorry I said anything at all. But much more so that you thought I was attacking you.<br>David<br>
David,<br><br>You wrote:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]These seemed to me to suggest (in concert with the current controversy) <span style="background-color:yellow;">that the only reason</span> anyone would reject the 24/6 position is because they 'suppress the truth in unrighteousness'.</font><hr></blockquote><p>And this is exactly where my objection to what you wrote came in. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] There is ample evidence and historical precedence to posit that "many" reject the 24/6 creation model as valid due to an attempt to reconcile the "weight" of the scientific community with Scripture. I have a high regard for Meredith Kline myself, but see no reason to dismiss out of hand the possibility that he too is under the pressure of having to defend this particular doctrine to the scientific community. There is nothing in his writing that would prove otherwise. Men of great stature in the conservative Christian community (this is why I mentioned John Frame) offer little EXEGETICAL proof for their rejection of the traditional and biblically solid 24/6 view. Yes, they offer their reasons, but from all that I have read by such men, their reasons are less than convincing, to say the least. I, for one, was not suggesting that it is Kline's, or anyone else who holds to a non-24/6 view, intention to further evolution or its related unbiblical assertions. It is very well possible that the need to try and find some semblance of continuity between the biblical account of creation and the constant barrage of the alleged "evidence" concluded by the scientific community is an unconscious one. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img]<br><br>My contention is that one can hold firmly and unashamedly to a 24/6 creation on EXEGETICAL grounds alone. There is nothing in the natural order that would demand one abandon or even question the doctrine.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Anyway, I am sorry I said anything at all.</font><hr></blockquote><p>It is unfortunate that you feel that way. Defending a man's honor is a noble and biblical thing. However, no one is attacking the "honor" of Dr. Kline but rather his erroneous view concerning creation. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
