BrianB said:
"Although an interpretation that has the majority report in church history must be taken seriously, it is simply inappropriate to let history dictate our conclusions. As our knowledge of societies and cultures much different than our own increases we must be prepared to revise our views in light of new context. Semper reformanda (always reforming) must be our motto in both word and practice as we investigate what Scripture has to say."

The discovering of the supporting arguments for the Framework Interpretation might be the product of us having to go back and revisit something we thought we knew, once we discovered that God created things longer ago than we thought. Study of nature can lead us to re-examine things.
What you seem to want to gloss over is exactly that which many of us who hold to the "historical" view (6 24-hour day creation) deem to be the fundamental issue. How others have understood the text throughout history, especially biblical history cannot and should not be relegated to an inferior source when trying to come to the truth of creation. Perhaps you have dealt with this issue in your paper(s)? I haven't read them, so I would like to give you the opportunity to address this issue.

It seems to me when I read God's infallible Word, that throughout its history, not one individual, including and particularly the Lord Christ believed anything but that God created the universe in 6 24-hour days. So, it isn't just what previous theologians in more recent history have concluded from the text, but what has been held as true from the very beginning. I will assume that it isn't necessary for me to provide the long list of texts to prove my point. grin But one cogent example would be the worship of God on the Sabbath day, i.e., one day in seven which even Adam and Eve practiced as did all who followed after them. The requirement was again reestablished by God when He gave Moses the Decalog on Sinai and which can only be logically understood if one assumes a literal 24-hour day, which the Commandment itself asserts as fact.

To posit that we must "reform" our doctrine of Scripture due to the ever changing scientific "evidence", new knowledge of cultures and societies, etc., would in essence deny that God has communicated in propositional truth with the expressed purpose of enlightening the minds of men of ALL ages. I can't help but think of how we are told one day by the "ever-reforming" medical community, that eating chocolate is injurious to our health. But not long thereafter, another "more reliable study" comes out which says that eating chocolate is beneficial to one's health. Thankfully, God, being all-wise, isn't bound by the winds of change. Nor is He subject to "Sempera Reformanda" as He gains knowledge of scientific studies, knowledge of cultures and societies, etc. But God revealed Himself in a perfect manner so that the fundamentals of truth, one of which is how He created all things, is and can be known by men; from the first to the last, and yes, even by children.

Lastly, although you will surely consider this next reason less than substantial, it nonetheless is a valid one. Can it possibly be true that for nearly 6000+ years, every man, woman and child who has ever lived has been wrong in their belief that God created the earth in 6 24-hour days? And if they were wrong about that basic doctrine, how many other things has man been wrong about concerning God, Christ, salvation, etc.?? [Linked Image]

In His Grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]