Hi J_Edwards, I'm finally getting back to your post here.

Oh, and I'm going to work through this thread as if I were in a conversation. If something has been addressed later than some of what I write might be redundant.

J_Edwards said:
Brian, Welcome to the forum hello

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.

Glad to hear that you enjoy discussing the FI, even if you don't agree with it. Part of my task is, of course, to try and get you to change your mind, but even if you don't I hope our appreciation of the Lord grows through this exchange.

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).

Right, like I mentioned before I'd be interested to see what specific arguments from Pipa you found convincing.

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.

As far as your statement that the FI "denies historic Christianity" - I'm not very comfortable with that phrase. If you only mean that it is not the most common understanding of the church, then I agree with that (as I've stated), but to me the phrase "denies historic Christianity" applies to interpretations/people that deny those doctrines that have demarcated orthodox Christianity from non-orthodox, such as monotheism, the resurrection of Jesus, etc. I consider the interpretation of the days of Genesis 1 not even close to a central doctrine, and I'm supported by the fact that the creeds don't either.

Also, I don't think we find pointers toward the 6/24 view elsewhere in the Bible. If you'd like to bring up specific passages we can discuss them. I've already discussed some in my papers.

Fourth, to accept the FI worldview means one is accepting a scientific worldview first and foremost as truth.

I disagree. You'll need to make an argument for that claim.

Fifth, I have problems with the FI seeing Gen 1 as a mere poem versus a historical account of creation.

I don't consider and have never said that Genesis 1 is mere poem. It does convey some 'historical' information, but doesn't convey as much as some (YECs, Day-Agers) think it does.

This relationship between Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25 is implied by the word translated history or generations (toledoth) in Genesis 2:4a

I think we agree on the use of toledoth and how it links the sections of Genesis. Duane Garrett wrote a book called Rethinking Genesis in which he gives an actually supportable use of form criticism (using the ANE form of ancestor epic I think it was) to show the unity of the Genesis stories. Along with this he discusses toledoth and it's use, and I found his presentation persuasive. Good book. I highly recommend it.

Have fun, I need to go take care of some personal business for a few days.

Thanks, and I'm now back! I look forward to your next round of comments.