Brian, Welcome to the forum
First let me say that I believe in the historic view of creation (6/24). While I do find the Framework Interpretation (FI) interesting it has only made the historic view (which is not without its difficulties) more concrete in my heart. Thus, for this reason I enjoy (when I have time) discussing it.
Second, I have had two professors in the past attempt to teach me this view (Dr Futato and Dr. Waltke) who are both highly respected in their fields of OT and the study of Hebrew and other languages, et. AL. While I appreciated other things both of these professors taught, I did not
find their arguments for these views convincing. Pipa’s (From Chaos to Cosmos
) does a good job IMO of critiquing Futato (Kline).
Third, the FI denies historic Christianity, which is no small matter. TMK “no” theologian of antiquity has ever embraced FI (please correct me if I am wrong here and site the source and quote(s)…). If the FI is correct why do we not even find a hint of it in the OT/NT? What we actually find in the text are pointers toward 6/24.
Fourth, to accept the FI worldview means one is accepting a scientific worldview first and foremost as truth. I know of “no” one who holds to the FI that maintains a young earth view (maybe I have not read enough). As matter a fact one of the claimed strengths of the FI is that it removes the possibility of conflict between the theories of modern scientists (old earth) and the Bible (young earth). While I am sure that is not the intent of these theologians, IMO it elevates science to the same level of truth as Scripture. Sola
Scientifica or Sola
Scriptura—I guess we will have to remove the sola
Fifth, I have problems with the FI seeing Gen 1 as a mere poem versus a historical account of creation. Although Genesis one may include poetic elements, it is not Hebrew poetry. The parallel construction that is the main characteristic of Hebrew poetry is missing. The OT does contain poetry about creation (Job 38:4-15; Ps 104; Is 40:21-31), and its literary form is quite distinct from that in Gen 1. Gen 1 is an historical narrative. [Young]
Lastly, embracers of FI maintain that their view does away with the alleged conflict in interpreting Gen 1 & 2 (compare, Genesis 2:4-6; Genesis 2:19-20). Gunn points out, that it is argued that God created the whole vegetable and animal kingdoms before the creation of Adam according to Genesis one and after the creation of Adam according to Genesis two. However, I see Gen 1:1-2:3 as a general account of the creation of the universe and Gen 2:4f as a detailed account of the creation of man, woman and the garden, and the historical developments which immediately
This relationship between Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25 is implied by the word translated history
) in Genesis 2:4a. This word "never tells how things or persons came into being. It tells what happened after such things or persons had appeared on the scene,” (H.C. Leupold, A Exposition of Genesis
). In Genesis 2:4a, the statement "These are the toledoth
of the heavens and the earth" means "not the coming of heaven and earth into existence, but the events that followed the establishment of heaven and earth (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
, Waltke a holder of FI, himself an editor?). Just as the tholedoth
of Noah, for example, do not mention his birth, but contain his history and the birth of his sons; so the tholedoth
of the heavens and the earth do not describe the origin of the universe, but what happened to the heavens and the earth after their creation (C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament
Have fun, I need to go take care of some personal business for a few days.