Framework Hypothesis

[farouk]

So anyway, this is how I see it:

It can be helpful for commentators to summarize and suggest ideas, whether to Genesis 1, or wherever. As long as the ideas suggested never take on the aura of the original.

(Just as it ought to be legit for an artist to paint in the style of another artist. As long as s/he doesn't claim it's the work of someone else.

Or a poet to imitate the style of another. As long as who wrote what is clear.

I would have thought that if someone makes shoes similar to Louboutin's it would be legit as long as they don't claim it IS a Louboutin.

It would be hard for a tattooist to claim his/her work was someone else's anyway because the whole process is innovative and individual anyway.)

These are by way of comparison.

 

[Knotical]

But you clearly beg the question!

You cannot simply claim that it was all literal, you need to make an actual argument.

You are missing the point. Look at what Moses wrote that was included in the bible. What part of what he wrote could be considered allegory or poetic? My contention is that all of it is literal. What is your contention?

 

[BornAgain]

I read your post 20 just now. To be fair, though, the material in that post is really just an assertion - it does not contain an actual argument, in any reasonable sense.

But let's be fair to ourselves: To make an actual case either way will be very hard work indeed, work that has occupied better minds than ours over the centuries.

So I doubt someone will be able to "make a case" in a post or two.

I am not trying to make a case...just telling the truth as it is. What did you see that I stated was in error?

 

[BornAgain]

Yes, I agree. But i believe Jesus died on the cross to fullfill the old testament.

Yes, Jesus came to fulfill the Old Law.

 

[farouk]

Analogies can be made about Creatorial work and authorial work in writing, art, etc.

But in the end the wondrous Creator cannot be reduced to conformity with whatever Moses as a writer is extra-Biblically deemed to be.

 

[jasoncran]

the jewish year is 5713.

i guess the orthodox interpret their torah wrong and didnt consult darwin. they base their calender from the creation event with adam and eve being created till today.

http://www.chabad.org/calendar/default_cdo/jewish/Jewish-Calendar.htm

them days to them are literal. i dont get if the day isnt literal then so must be the nights. you have told me not to think like a greek, yet you, drew, did just that. the jews dont even have the idea of an allegory in their views of the torah for the most part. theres only one verse but that isnt in the torah but of the prophets, and paul mentions that. that is isiah 54.

 

[Drew]

You are missing the point. Look at what Moses wrote that was included in the bible. What part of what he wrote could be considered allegory or poetic? My contention is that all of it is literal. What is your contention?

I still think we are dancing - simply stating our positions, and not making the relevant cases.

I contend that Moses wrote a mixture of stuff - some literal, some "allegorical".

Now we need to stop dancing and each make our case. No sensible reader will do either the following:

1. Say "Oh, since Knotical says its all literal, Genesis 1 must all be literal";
2. Say "Oh, since Drew says its a mix of literal and allegorical, Genesis 1 must all be allegorical"

 

[Drew]

I am not trying to make a case...just telling the truth as it is. What did you see that I stated was in error?

I am not sure I fully understood your post, but what I did understand, I agreed with (if I recall correctly).

But that's not the point. One does not (responsibly, anyway) decide an issue by simply "comparing opinions". Yes, you believe "X" to the be case. And Knotical believes "Y" to be the case.

But that means almost nothing - each position needs to be argued for, supported with evidence, etc.

 

[Knotical]

I still think we are dancing - simply stating our positions, and not making the relevant cases.

I contend that Moses wrote a mixture of stuff - some literal, some "allegorical".

Now we need to stop dancing and each make our case. No sensible reader will do either the following:

1. Say "Oh, since Knotical says its all literal, Genesis 1 must all be literal";
2. Say "Oh, since Drew says its a mix of literal and allegorical, Genesis 1 must all be allegorical"

If you feel some of what Moses wrote, that was included in the bible, was allegorical, then provide a reference. You keep talking about supporting our positions, but you have yet to support yours. I am saying that I believe that all of what Moses wrote, that was included in the bible, was written literally. What are you saying is actually allegory?

 

[smaller]

If you feel some of what Moses wrote, that was included in the bible, was allegorical, then provide a reference. You keep talking about supporting our positions, but you have yet to support yours. I am saying that I believe that all of what Moses wrote, that was included in the bible, was written literally. What are you saying is actually allegory?

Of course Moses literally wrote. This does not mean that there are not allegorical matters contained in the writings just as there are in the Garden accounts.

Matters 'spiritual' were assuredly written by Moses. Spiritual matters are conveyed by 'allegory' as they are matters that can not be seen with physical sight. We do not see things like grace, faith, love and mercy for example with physical eyes. We may see external results of having same, but these realities originate in the unseen, internally.

As to the framework hypothesis readers of any of the scriptures are going to come to different conclusions. I do not prescribe to a literal only interpretation of the six day creation as there are factual differences in how various themes on 'time' itself is presented in the text. Time is not measured by just hours on the clock as man perceives them.

s

 

[Drew]

If you feel some of what Moses wrote, that was included in the bible, was allegorical, then provide a reference. You keep talking about supporting our positions, but you have yet to support yours. I am saying that I believe that all of what Moses wrote, that was included in the bible, was written literally. What are you saying is actually allegory?

This is going nowhere. No hard feelings....

 

[farouk]

In Medieval theology (not that I am advocating it) each Bible passage was supposed to represent several meanings, including allegorical. In this way, it was harder for people to pin down what the passage actually meant (and thus they were more likely to rely on church leaders for authoritative faith statements).

 

[Knotical]

Of course Moses literally wrote. This does not mean that there are not allegorical matters contained in the writings just as there are in the Garden accounts.

Matters 'spiritual' were assuredly written by Moses. Spiritual matters are conveyed by 'allegory' as they are matters that can not be seen with physical sight. We do not see things like grace, faith, love and mercy for example with physical eyes. We may see external results of having same, but these realities originate in the unseen, internally.

As to the framework hypothesis readers of any of the scriptures are going to come to different conclusions. I do not prescribe to a literal only interpretation of the six day creation as there are factual differences in how various themes on 'time' itself is presented in the text. Time is not measured by just hours on the clock as man perceives them.

s

Examples?

 

[Knotical]

This is going nowhere. No hard feelings....

Only because you refuse to provide examples to support your position.

 

[smaller]

Examples?

of what?

Grace, mercy, love, faith etc are all 'in the law,' are spiritual internal in originations and not something we can set in front of our eyes 'tangibly.'

If you need examples what can I really say. Some are not inclined to see what can not be seen even if shown in the scriptures.

s

 

[farouk]

When one tries to discover 'real allegory', 'definite symbolism', etc., without a tangible referent, then it will probably lead to all sorts of interpretational problems.

 

[Knotical]

of what?

Grace, mercy, love, faith etc are all 'in the law,' are spiritual internal in originations and not something we can set in front of our eyes 'tangibly.'

If you need examples what can I really say. Some are not inclined to see what can not be seen even if shown in the scriptures.

s

It is a given that there is a difference between discribing something that is tangible and describing something that is intangible, however, does that mean when we speak of the wind that it is allegory?

But, when it comes to the creation account Moses is literally describing the event of how God created something tangible. How can that be considered symbolic?

 

[smaller]

When one tries to discover 'real allegory', 'definite symbolism', etc., without a tangible referent, then it will probably lead to all sorts of interpretational problems.

Agree with you there. The nature of spiritual understandings can be simple and complex simultaneously and is subject to more dispute than the normal undertakings of doctrines etc.

Most who engage in symbolism and allegory have to have a pretty good grip on the scriptures and engaged same over a long period of time. It's not something that comes overnight or to newbies who tend to get caught up in the basics.

How many legalists for example see this matter in 'the law?'

Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

That fact was 'in the law' for centuries yet the Jews never saw it for the most part. So was justification by faith, and again, largely unseen or perceived.

It is the same with protology, the study of beginnings. There is much there to see but most will invariably get caught up in simplistic notions and that's where they seem to stay. I have enjoyed protology from several angles over the years and largely reject the literal only angles. It was a literal event, but there are other things to see other than just that.

A fruit containing good and evil for example? Good and evil are not 'literal material' to begin with. Not like a slice of a fruit that we could set on a plate and look at.

s

 

[smaller]

It is a given that there is a difference between discribing something that is tangible and describing something that is intangible, however, does that mean when we speak of the wind that it is allegory?

That all depends on what the viewer may grasp. To me wind will always be an association term with the Spirit. If one can't see that in text they just can't see it.

But, when it comes to the creation account Moses is literally describing the event of how God created something tangible. How can that be considered symbolic?

There are an abundance of intangibles to observe in those matters. A super abundance. I don't discount that it was a literal event, but to say it was only literal is a severe misnomer.

If you take a single text from Jesus Own Mouth for example, and apply it to the Garden experience you might expect to see what really happened to Adam and Eve for example, in an entirely new light, with His Disclosures of these facts in hand:

Mark 4:15
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

Do I think this happened to Adam? Without any question in my mind. Do I think Satan literally cut open Adam's heart and crawled in there? Uh, no. It is an intangible matter and must be understood via spiritual insights.

Some will just not be able to see this matter from the beginning. And this is but a single example. Did Jesus' statement change the way I view this matter of Adam? Again beyond any doubt. From the moment God spoke blessing upon Adam with Eve yet within him what Jesus said happens happened.

I no longer saw just Adam from that moment on. There was Adam and the deceiver within his heart. No one with literal sight will be able to see this matter and I say, too bad. It's not given to them to see it this way.

s

 

[Knotical]

That all depends on what the viewer may grasp. To me wind will always be an association term with the Spirit. If one can't see that in text they just can't see it.


There are an abundance of intangibles to observe in those matters. A super abundance. I don't discount that it was a literal event, but to say it was only literal is a severe misnomer.

If you take a single text from Jesus Own Mouth for example, and apply it to the Garden experience you might expect to see what really happened to Adam and Eve for example, in an entirely new light, with His Disclosures of these facts in hand:

Mark 4:15
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

Do I think this happened to Adam? Without any question in my mind. Do I think Satan literally cut open Adam's heart and crawled in there? Uh, no. It is an intangible matter and must be understood via spiritual insights.

Some will just not be able to see this matter from the beginning. And this is but a single example. Did Jesus' statement change the way I view this matter of Adam? Again beyond any doubt. From the moment God spoke blessing upon Adam with Eve yet within him what Jesus said happens happened.

I no longer saw just Adam from that moment on. There was Adam and the deceiver within his heart. No one with literal sight will be able to see this matter and I say, too bad. It's not given to them to see it this way.

s

Granted that Jesus used references about Adam, and others from the OT, to further explain his ministry and purpose for coming to this earth, but if we go back to the OP, do you support or deny the Framework Hypothesis.