Framework Hypothesis

[BornAgain]

How is that anything but literal. It is obviously written in the third person, but how is it not literal?

Your questions have been intriguing but I am just wondering what it is that you are looking for?

 

[Knotical]

K: Isn't it not so much whether Moses is supposed to have written literally as whether if it's God's Word, the literal meaning is to be preferred?

The issue here, concerning support for the Framework Hypothesis, is that the creation account could be considered poetic, and not literal.

 

[farouk]

The issue here, concerning support for the Framework Hypothesis, is that the creation account could be considered poetic, and not literal.

K:

Well, interesting.

I guess another comparison (that I was mentioning to someone not long ago) was defining what is original and genuine, compared with what isn't, and whether an imitation can be legit.

For example, Louboutin is claiming a monopoly of all heels with red soles and red insides to stilettos. Not that all those that look like this are genuine Louboutins, but that the idea is genuine and original and so no one else can do it, too.

So what is original and genuine is kind of fluid, in some people's minds.

Julia Kristeva talks about 'intertextuality', a term used a lot in literary criticism. But I think it should be clear what is original and what isn't.

 

[BornAgain]

The issue here, concerning support for the Framework Hypothesis, is that the creation account could be considered poetic, and not literal.

So if it is poetic rather than literal that would take on another concept of creation?

 

[Knotical]

K:

Well, interesting.

I guess another comparison (that I was mentioning to someone not long ago) was defining what is original and genuine, compared with what isn't, and whether an imitation can be legit.

For example, Louboutin is claiming a monopoly of all heels with red soles and red insides to stilettos. Not that all those that look like this are genuine Louboutins, but that the idea is genuine and original and so no one else can do it, too.

So what is original and genuine is kind of fluid, in some people's minds.

Julia Kristeva talks about 'intertextuality', a term used a lot in literary criticism. But I think it should be clear what is original and what isn't.

That is why it is important to go back to the language the manuscripts were written in originaly to understand how specific words and phrases were translated so we do not confuse the meaning (considering how limiting the english language is compared to the originals). I am not going to put myself out there is a greek, hebrew, or latin scholar; but there are those who have gone through that kind of study whom I trust.

 

[Knotical]

So if it is poetic rather than literal that would take on another concept of creation?

That is exactly what this is. Supporters of the Framework Hypothesis assert that the creation account is poetic, not literal, which is where that set there basis for their argument.

Do you consider the creation account of Genesis 1 poetic?

 

[BornAgain]

That is why it is important to go back to the language the manuscripts were written in originaly to understand how specific words and phrases were translated so we do not confuse the meaning (considering how limiting the english language is compared to the originals). I am not going to put myself out there is a greek, hebrew, or latin scholar; but there are those who have gone through that kind of study whom I trust.

Who might that be? You do not want to go back to the other languages but say there are those who have gone through that kind of study. I would like to know who they are.....

 

[BornAgain]

That is exactly what this is. Supporters of the Framework Hypothesis assert that the creation account is poetic, not literal, which is where that set there basis for their argument.

Do you consider the creation account of Genesis 1 poetic?

Do I? No.

 

[Drew]

The approach I am proposing, in order to discredit the Framework Hypothesis, is to look at the writing styles of the men who contributed to the Bible. Specifically the question is whether or not they used different kinds of styles (i.e., literal, allegory, poetic, etc...). My contention, as is many others, is that Moses wrote literally, therefore, the creation account must be taken literally.

Does anyone have evidence that Moses wrote in any other style than literal?

Your argument seems to be:

1. Most of what Moses wrote was literal history;
2. This establishes Moses as a "literal" writer;
3. Therefore, Genesis 1 is to be taken literally.

This argument does not work - just because Moses is primarily an "historical" writer does not mean he cannot use allegory when the occasion calls for it.

 

[thightower]

Mind if I put in my 2 cents? To me it comes down to an individuals worldveiw. If said person has a biblical worldview, the framework hypothesis goes against what the bible teaches. If said person has another type of worldview, they may look into other posibilities of how the earth was created.

 

[Drew]

Mind if I put in my 2 cents? To me it comes down to an individuals worldveiw. If said person has a biblical worldview, the framework hypothesis goes against what the bible teaches. If said person has another type of worldview, they may look into other posibilities of how the earth was created.

The problem with this is that you assume that a "Biblical" worldview means that Genesis 1 is to be taken literally. How do you know this, especially in light of the generally accepted fact that at least some parts of the Bible are not to be taken literally.

 

[BornAgain]

Mind if I put in my 2 cents? To me it comes down to an individuals worldveiw. If said person has a biblical worldview, the framework hypothesis goes against what the bible teaches. If said person has another type of worldview, they may look into other posibilities of how the earth was created.

Hi,

No, is it never a individuals view...that is what the bible is for. When did man make their rules?

 

[thightower]

I look at the OT as a literal history book, as i believe it is the history of the jews. The parts of the bible i think you are refering to as to not take literaly is the prophecy in the bible. I believe God will reveal those parts as they become relevant to us.

 

[thightower]

Hi,

No, is it never a individuals view...that is what the bible is for. When did man make their rules?

What i meant was what authority does a person start out as. Biblical worldview takes the bible as the written living word of God. If a person lets the world cloud that view, they wouldn't start at the bible for the authority.

 

[BornAgain]

I look at the OT as a literal history book, as i believe it is the history of the jews. The parts of the bible i think you are refering to as to not take literaly is the prophecy in the bible. I believe God will reveal those parts as they become relevant to us.

The OT was our tutor...our guide for things to be fulfilled.

 

[Drew]

Please look at my post #20....we have gone full circle.

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.

 

[thightower]

The OT was our tutor...our guide for things to be fulfilled.

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

 

[Knotical]

Your argument seems to be:

1. Most of what Moses wrote was literal history;
2. This establishes Moses as a "literal" writer;
3. Therefore, Genesis 1 is to be taken literally.

This argument does not work - just because Moses is primarily an "historical" writer does not mean he cannot use allegory when the occasion calls for it.

Wrong, my argument is that all of what Moses wrote, that is included in the bible, was literal history, not just some of it. Therefore, the creation account must be accepted as literal.

 

[BornAgain]

What i meant was what authority does a person start out as.

Innocent

 

[Drew]

Wrong, my argument is that all of what Moses wrote, that is included in the bible, was literal history, not just some of it. Therefore, the creation account must be accepted as literal.

But you clearly beg the question!

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