We have had some interesting conversations here lately regarding creation views. Many here are drifting toward a Framework view while others hold on to the 6 days of creation view. One new interesting item, I had not seen before, is that within the 1st two chapters of John there are 7 days mentioned (the other Gospels are not so exacting here). John's literary style appears directed, with other similarities (1:1) to a 6 day creation (of course we do not make out theology based on literary style ...., but this observation is still valuable). Do any of you support the Framework view ? Does anyone here support another view? How/why?
The framework view holds that the days of Genesis form a figurative framework in which the divine works of creation are narrated in a topical, rather than sequential, order. This view holds that the picture of God completing His work of creation in six days and resting on the seventh was not intended to reveal the sequence or duration of creation, but to proclaim an eschatological theology of creation.
Any view other then a literal 6-day scheme cannot be sustained Biblically. Paul said death came to the whole creation through Adam's sin. If we accept any other view besides a literal interpretation of Genesis, we must accept death before Adam. It just doesn't work.
All views beyond said literal one have been crafted simply to attempt a reconciliation between Scripture and "science," thus denying Sola Scriptura.
For anyone interested in the scientific evidence against evolution/old earth, and for a young creation, I would recommend the Institute for Creation Research's website: http://www.icr.org/
Any view other then a literal 6-day scheme cannot be sustained Biblically. Paul said death came to the whole creation through Adam's sin. If we accept any other view besides a literal interpretation of Genesis, we must accept death before Adam. It just doesn't work.
While I agree with you, others state that Satan himself fell prior to creation (death) and that Paul's discourse was covering only this "present evil age" and not the spiritual realm of the devil himself, since he and his (fallen angels) have no redemption. Additionally, the Framework view (FWV, which of course has many angles being explored) still works very well within Paul's theology, as death does not need to occur prior to Gen 3:15....except with the above limitation which the day age people have to contend as well...
Henry said: Any view other then a literal 6-day scheme cannot be sustained Biblically. Paul said death came to the whole creation through Adam's sin. If we accept any other view besides a literal interpretation of Genesis, we must accept death before Adam. It just doesn't work.
All views beyond said literal one have been crafted simply to attempt a reconciliation between Scripture and "science," thus denying Sola Scriptura.
For anyone interested in the scientific evidence against evolution/old earth, and for a young creation, I would recommend the Institute for Creation Research's website: http://www.icr.org/
While I do hold to a six literal 24 hour periods of time for creation I'm afraid I just can't get behind their scheme of using the ages of the various patriarchs to measure the age of the earth. So while I don't believe the earth is billions and billions of years old neather do I think its only six thousand (or whatever the current deduction held by ICR) years old.
Don't know Joe and I maintain that is the most correct view. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> All I know is that God created it and it was good. I don't see anywhere that God placed a date. So for me its not something I worry about. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" />
While I agree with you, others state that Satan himself fell prior to creation
(Fred) Can these others demonstrate this from scripture. If we are to read God's words proclaiming his creation as very good at the finishing of his creative act, then I believe it is biblically reasonable to believe Satan had not fallen and that some time between the finishing of creation and the fall of man, there was a rebellion by the devil.
I am currently reading one of the best books critiquing Hugh Ross's Progressive Creation view, called "Refuting Compromise" by Jonathan Safarti. The study of his most valuable comprehensive work is to show the theological, biblical, and scientific inadequacy of Progressive Creationism and Hugh Ross as its chief promoter, but through the course of this study, he does interact with other compromising points of view of Genesis (the FWV being one of the more popular among misguided Presbies). The book is outstanding, and extremely devestating to the Progressive view. I would heartily recommend it to a serious student wishing to study out these systems.
Fred
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
Many would be very quick to point out Job 38 where they assert the angels (morning stars) sang together at creation and thus were in existence prior to it. They also assert that when God said it was good that it ONLY applies to what He created at that time and that angels were not mentioned being made during/at creation. They also assert that the throne of God is described with angels (Isa 6) and ask how long it has been in esistence.......Thus, it is not that clear cut.....there could had been a rebellion anytime and we really do not know "exactly" when.......
One area of challenge being considered at present is the assumption of the fall of Satan in Genesis 3 itself....that his actual fall is his temptation of Eve in the Garden.
What we do know is the fall of Satan was within God's master plan. No matter when it happened God's plan included this event and its repercussions for His own glory. When is the question of the day and me thinks we will not know in this lifetime.
Many would be very quick to point out Job 38 where they assert the angels (morning stars) sang together at creation and thus were in existence prior to it. They also assert that when God said it was good that it ONLY applies to what He created at that time and that angels were not mentioned being made during/at creation.
(Fred) Yes, they would, and just as many would further point out Psalm 104:4, where God is said to make the angelic spirits his ministers, and those angelic beings are connected to his first week of creation. Granted there is nothing in the scripture that specifically states when angelic beings were created, I believe enough evidence suggests that they were. Regardless, even if one argues for them being in existence before the creation week, the FWV still has serious short-comings as a defensible biblical model. It most certainly ignores the grammatic element of the creation narrative with its assertion that the first week is a figurative expression of God creating in a topical fashion, rather than sequential.
Fred
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
While I agree with you, they would be very quick to reply once again saying if you keep a sequential view in Gen 1 then you need to keep one in Gen 2 as well. Of course, a problem arises there in Gen 2:19, where it "appears" if man was created prior to the animals. They would also point to individuals such as Ross and state he uses science and a faulty hermeneutic to support his view. They take for instance his Day 1 and Day 4 scenario where he states the light was "made" on Day 1 and "appeared" on Day 4. The problem though is the Hebrew word means "made" as used in Day 4.
In turn, the holders of the FWV (such Reformers as Meredith Kline, Dr. Bruce Waltke, Howard Van Til, etc.) claim to follow in the footsteps of Calvin when he said, "The Holy Spirit had no intention to teach us astronomy." They also appeal to others such as Augustine and Galileo and then layout their view. I believe it was Galileo that said something like, 'The Bible tells us how to go to heaven and not how the heavens go.'
While I agree with you, they would be very quick to reply once again saying if you keep a sequential view in Gen 1 then you need to keep one in Gen 2 as well. Of course, a problem arises there in Gen 2:19, where it "appears" if man was created prior to the animals.
(Fred) Yes (sigh) <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> I know there are some muddle headed Christians who think Genesis 2 is some alternative creation narrative, and because of the arrangement of the discussion in chapter 2, it some how trumps the 24 hour, 6 day view and establishes [insert whatever view you want to believe here]. However, if one keeps in mind that chapter 1 is the general overview of how God created, and then chapter 2 simply goes back and fills in details left out of chapter 1, particularly details of God's creation of man, his placement in the garden, and to those who hold to CT, the establishment of the covenant of works, then the so-called trumping of this passage over the 24/6 view falls apart. Chapter two is not meant to be sequential like chapter 1, and in fact lacks the strict sequential grammatical nuances that are present in chapter 1, like the waw consecutives following one after another and the setting apart of each day of creation with "the evening and the morning" and an ordinal marking the day, 1st day, 2nd day, etc.
Quote
In turn, the holders of the FWV (such Reformers as Meredith Kline, Dr. Bruce Waltke, Howard Van Till, etc.) claim to follow in the footsteps of Calvin when he said, "The Holy Spirit had no intention to teach us astronomy." They also appeal to others such as Augustine and Galileo and then layout their view. I believe it was Galileo that said something like, 'The Bible tells us how to go to heaven and not how the heavens go.'
(Fred) I would correct Calvin, as well as Galileo. The Bible does teach us about astronomy, and every other science; it teaches us how to think about such things from the point of view of a creator who has told us how he created, and I would add when he created (that is the importance of the geneaologies of chapters 4 and 5 and the table of nations in chapters 10 and 11). Though it is true that the Bible does not tell us about supernovas, cosmic background radiation, X-rays, and sunspots; the Bible does direct how we are to think about such things and evaluate them from a creature point of view, not one of bald naturalism with no biblical reference. In other words, the Bible tells us how we are to interpret scientific evidence. Those Christian men who desire to be taken as credible and "scholarly" by the scientific community, will allow the scientific community and their interpretations of such evidence to shape their personal views, even though the scientific community is for the most part anti-God. It is as if their so called interpretation of the scientific evidence is utterly neutral. We know better, I hope. In the minds of these Christian men, if they don't give some hat tip to the scientific community and the science they promote, they believe Christianity will not be relevant and they have lost some footing so as to witness to the members of that scientific community. So, it is pretty clear to me that what we believe about origins and how we understand the Genesis record is detrimental to our theology, our honor of God, and our witness to the "scholarly" types.
Fred
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
Well, while I still agree with you they still have answers for us here as well. First, these are not only muddle headed Christians that are espousing these views, but scholars far better acquainted with both the languages and hermeneutical scope of the Scriptures than you or I. This does not mean they are right necessarily, but it also means we cannot just dismiss their views without properly refuting them (which was the purpose of the original post).
Second, it is fine to say that Gen 2 is not meant to be sequential—and IMHO it is not—but saying and proving are two different matters. I would suggest reading Waltke’s commentary on Genesis as he handles your objections— they are too long to post here. I will simply shortcut his lengthily arguments and say that the Hebrew literally reads “a …. day” in Gen 1. Walkte (whose Biblical Hebrew Syntax is the standard in Reformed and other seminaries...) states, “the lack of the definite article on each of the 5 days suggests they may be dis-chronological…..
Third, while I am sure Calvin and Galileo would concur with most of what you wrote, I sincerely doubt, especially in Calvin’s case, that you can assert that he needed to, “give some hat tip to the scientific community and the science they promote….” IMHO this was not part and parcel of his statement, nor does it fit his theology, personality…., et. al. Additionally, they can pull from several other texts in the Scripture and simply prove their point that science is not God’s main intent in some texts. For instance, Psa 139:13 states, You knit me together in my mother’s womb. Here God is not speaking of genetics or immediate cause. To suggest otherwise is to distort the text. We need to discover the intent of the text(s) and make our arguments exegetically....and not from isogesis....In short, IMHO we need to be developing a full hermeneutic of creation, independent "as possible" of science.
While I do not agree with the FWV, it will take more than a little rhetoric to disprove their propositions and thus I believe the Christian community needs to be vigilant in constructing the truth against such views. This view and others are being taught in a smörgåsbord fashion in our seminaries as we speak….
