Framework Hypothesis

[farouk]

So ppl claim that there is a gap between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2, do they?

 

[Knotical]

Why? Why is it possible that the creation account is to be taken literally (that is what I wrote).

I think it is really easy to show that it is at least possible, not least because we have the precedent of other "non-literal" Scriptural texts.

As stated, this is not an issue that concerns me much. But I do take it as self-evident that it is highly plausible that "a talking snake" is not intended to be taken literally. Can I prove that right now? Well, no - its a gut feel.

I trust you realize that you are basically begging the question when you write "I believe the creation account is not poetic, as there is nothing about it that can be considered poetic". That is really just a statement of what you believe, it is not a case.

And I fully concede that, to this point anyway, my "argument" is very flimsy indeed. I would never argue thus:

1. There are examples of non-literalism in the scriptures;
2. Therefore, Genesis 1 is non-literal.

What I would argue, and just did argue is this:

1. There are examples of non-literalism in the scriptures;
2. Therefore, Genesis 1 could be non-literal.

I grant that my view is that Genesis is indeed "non-literal", but I understand I have not made a case yet.

Part of my case would be "scientific" - there is overwhelming evidence that a 7 day scenario is at variance with the facts. Just to let you know: I am not willing to get into a "creationism" debate, so, to be fair, I won't play the "science" card. However, I am willing to think about making a "Biblical" case for my position.

I suggest rereading your first post in this thread as it appears you are contradicting yourself. First you say it is possible, then you say you are not supporting it. What is your stance, then provide support for it.

 

[Knotical]

So ppl claim that there is a gap between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2, do they?

That is not what is being considered in the Framework Hypothesis. In a nutshell it proposes that you break down creation into 3 - two day groups, and the latter 3 days directly correspond with the former 3 days, instead of the previously accepted understanding that creation occurred over six days of ordinary length. The gap theory doesn't even enter into it.

 

[Drew]

Here is 2 Timothy 2:14-19:

Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16 Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”

Where does this address the framework hypothesis?

I trust I need not point out that to invoke this text as a "rebuke" to those who embrace the framework hypothesis obviously begs the question at issue; Such a position presumes the very thing for which a case needs to be made, namely that Genesis 1 is to be taken literally, and then chastises those who do not share such a view.

 

[Drew]

That is not what is being considered in the Framework Hypothesis. In a nutshell it proposes that you break down creation into 3 - two day groups, and the latter 3 days directly correspond with the former 3 days,..

Here is how wikipedia characterizes the FH:

The framework interpretation (also known as the literary framework view, framework theory, or framework hypothesis) is an interpretation of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis which holds that the seven-day creation account is not a literal or scientific description of the origins of the universe, rather, it is an ancient religious text which outlines a theology of creation. The seven day "framework" is therefore not meant to be chronological but is a literary or symbolic structure designed to reinforce the purposefulness of God in creation and the Sabbath commandment.

This is not exactly the same thing you describe. Do you agree with the wikipedia definition of the FH?

 

[farouk]

That is not what is being considered in the Framework Hypothesis. In a nutshell it proposes that you break down creation into 3 - two day groups, and the latter 3 days directly correspond with the former 3 days, instead of the previously accepted understanding that creation occurred over six days of ordinary length. The gap theory doesn't even enter into it.

Oh okay, Ty for the explanation. I don't subscribe to either theory, anyway.

Sounds a bit like the Bullinger Bible notes' way of seeing structures reflecting from one another; not sure how to explain it.

 

[BornAgain]

The topic has to do with a view on creation that says it was not done in six days of ordinary length, that it was done in a sort of framework. Basically, those who hold to this hypothesis consider the account in Genesis as poetic and not a literal telling of the account of creation.

I think I am starting to see Knotical's view on a hypothesis...relating to the duration of time in creation.

 

[Knotical]

Here is 2 Timothy 2:14-19:

Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16 Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,†and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.â€

Where does this address the framework hypothesis?

I trust I need not point out that to invoke this text as a "rebuke" to those who embrace the framework hypothesis obviously begs the question at issue; Such a position presumes the very thing for which a case needs to be made, namely that Genesis 1 is to be taken literally, and then chastises those who do not share such a view.

Well, the first problem the hypothesis supporters have trouble selling is how the Genesis 1 account can be considered poetic considering it does not follow any kind of poetry convention. The rest of it is even harder to understand. Plus, how, if you are a pastor, can you support this idea and explain it to new believers when it is still considered a "hypothesis."

 

[farouk]

The Bullinger Bible notes seems to do to a lot of verses: impose a structure such as:

3-2-1; 1-2-3.

And so forth.

(I wonder if this Framework stuff was influenced by Bullinger?)

I don't subscribe to it, anyway.

 

[Knotical]

Here is how wikipedia characterizes the FH:

The framework interpretation (also known as the literary framework view, framework theory, or framework hypothesis) is an interpretation of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis which holds that the seven-day creation account is not a literal or scientific description of the origins of the universe, rather, it is an ancient religious text which outlines a theology of creation. The seven day "framework" is therefore not meant to be chronological but is a literary or symbolic structure designed to reinforce the purposefulness of God in creation and the Sabbath commandment.

This is not exactly the same thing you describe. Do you agree with the wikipedia definition of the FH?

In my opinion it doesn't matter how it is explained, I just think it is wrong.

 

[BornAgain]

Well, the first problem the hypothesis supporters have trouble selling is how the Genesis 1 account can be considered poetic considering it does not follow any kind of poetry convention. The rest of it is even harder to understand. Plus, how, if you are a pastor, can you support this idea and explain it to new believers when it is still considered a "hypothesis."

We must not look to Genesis 1 to learn how God created things or in how much time He created things. In other words.....another man made doctrine of confusion and distortion of the Bible.

 

[Drew]

Well, the first problem the hypothesis supporters have trouble selling is how the Genesis 1 account can be considered poetic considering it does not follow any kind of poetry convention.

This is a simple assertion on your part. Can you make a case that it "does not follow any kind of poetry convention"? Do you not see how a talking snake at least has the whiff of allegory?

The rest of it is even harder to understand. Plus, how, if you are a pastor, can you support this idea and explain it to new believers when it is still considered a "hypothesis."

I am not sure what your point is. The question on the table is "do you believe the framework hypothesis?" Should we not be talking about the arguments pro and con for that hypothesis?

Either way, the 2 Timothy text is entirely irrelevant to the matter at issue. In no way does this text speak to either the truthfulness, or the falsity, of the framework hypothesis.

 

[farouk]

Like, I can see how a poet, an artist, a tattooist, etc would want to create a balanced structure to his or her work of art.

But I'm not sure one can do that with God's revelation in Scripture, that is, introduce frameworks and structures that are not already there.

 

[BornAgain]

Either way, the 2 Timothy text is entirely irrelevant to the matter at issue. In no way does this text speak to either the truthfulness, or the falsity, of the framework hypothesis.

2 Timothy 2:14 has nothing to do with the OP....I think we are talking hypothetically which goes back to creation which has nothing to to with Timothy's scripture.

 

[BornAgain]

Like, I can see how a poet, an artist, a tattooist, etc would want to create a balanced structure to his or her work of art.

But I'm not sure one can do that with God's revelation in Scripture, that is, introduce frameworks and structures that are not already there.

I guess this thread is based on hypothesis...a false doctrine that should be removed from the Bible.

 

[farouk]

For example, a poet may legitimately count the syllables and craft a rhyme; an artist will balance the light and shade and center the painting on a particular theme; a tattooist will rightly adjust the pattern to body contours, etc. But reading structures and patterns into Scripture that are not really there isn't legit, I don't think.

 

[Knotical]

This is a simple assertion on your part. Can you make a case that it "does not follow any kind of poetry convention"? Do you not see how a talking snake at least has the whiff of allegory?


I am not sure what your point is. The question on the table is "do you believe the framework hypothesis?" Should we not be talking about the arguments pro and con for that hypothesis?

Either way, the 2 Timothy text is entirely irrelevant to the matter at issue. In no way does this text speak to either the truthfulness, or the falsity, of the framework hypothesis.

For a couple of examples, there is no rhyme, or metre in the Genesis 1 account. In regards to the snake talking, do you not remember how the donkey spoke to Balaam when there was an angel standing in their way with a sword ready to strike him down if he tried to pass. Was that allegory?

 

[farouk]

I guess this thread is based on hypothesis...a false doctrine that should be removed from the Bible.

I guess if we take into account that Romans 14 assumes that some things are not necessarily strongly stated in Scripture, one way or another, then there might be room for some sort of hypothesis element from time to time.

But I agree that if something can't be proved from Scripture it's wrong to base a doctrine on it.

 

[farouk]

For a couple of examples, there is no rhyme, or metre in the Genesis 1 account. In regards to the snake talking, do you not remember how the donkey spoke to Balaam when there was an angel standing in their way with a sword ready to strike him down if he tried to pass. Was that allegory?

Or, here is something else. What do you think of the Metrical Psalms? Some folk have changed round sentences and cause lines to rhyme, in order that the Psalms can be sung more easily.

But where or not one sings Genesis 1.1, I guess there is a whole lot of difference between what it actually says and teaches, and what superstructure, if any, might be imposed on it.

 

[BornAgain]

For a couple of examples, there is no rhyme, or metre in the Genesis 1 account. In regards to the snake talking, do you not remember how the donkey spoke to Balaam when there was an angel standing in their way with a sword ready to strike him down if he tried to pass. Was that allegory?

I just studied that last week in bible class...I take it as metaphorically. To look at the "talking donkey" is unrealistic but he had a purpose, not literally. (I had a hard time keeping a strait face discussing the talking donkey). The angles were there to help. Not the donkey but Balaam.

And Balaam said unto the angel of the Lord, I have sinned; for I knew not that thou stoodest in the way against me: now therefore, if it displease thee, I will get me back again Num 22:34 (KJV)


We can rack our brains trying to figure out everything in the OT.