Re: Schaefer's Book

From: Craig Rusbult <>
Date: Mon Aug 16 2004 - 22:07:31 EDT

    How does a "framework" interpretation fit into your discussion?
Is it concordist? It considers the history of Genesis 1 to be REAL
and accurate, but described topically and NON-CHRONOLOGICALLY.

    Re: history and chronology, in a web-page asking "how old is the
universe?" I say:
    ...nonchronological does not mean nonhistorical. In a framework
interpretation, Genesis 1 describes historical events that actually
occurred. These real events are just described in a way that is
logical, not chronological. This is consistent with the fact that
history is often written (now and in the past, in the Bible and
elsewhere) with a topical structure in which topics are arranged in a
logical framework, not in a chronological sequence.
    In Genesis 1, for example, Days 1 and 4 describe two related
aspects of what actually happened during history - there was a
separation of light from darkness due to God's creation of our sun -
even though there was no separation (Day 1) until the sun was created
(Day 4). When combined, the "form and fill" description in Days 1
and 4 is historical but not chronological. Similarly, Days 2 and 5
describe two historical aspects of creation for the sea (which was
then filled with sea animals) and sky (filled with sky animals), as
do Days 3 and 6 (for the creation of land, land plants, and land

    To me, the framework seems obvious, but we can still ask the
question is whether Gen 1 is ALSO intended to be chronological. (and
we can ask about historicity, since the framework could be used for a
non-historical story, too; in the second post this is denied by Kline)
    A framework interpretation makes "science vs scripture" questions
less difficult, since the historical claims are much less detailed
and specific (if we assume the answer is "no" when we ask "is it also
meant to be chronological") with Gen 1 only claiming "this is WHAT
God did" but not describing when or in what sequence.
    I have no trouble accepting Genesis 1 as both non-chronological
(so there are no questions about how there could be plants in Day 3
for a long time before the sun was created in Day 4) and historical.

    But since the framework ends in Gen 1, questions still remain:
    What about the historicity (and historical context) of Adam and
Eve, and their relationships to hominids who had been around for more
than a million years?
    And what type of "Noah's flood" (global or local) would be
consistent with Gen 6-9 and geological evidence? On this list, and
in books and web-pages, Glenn and Dick (and others) have raised many
challenging questions about finding a flood theory that is credible,
biblically and also scientifically.

Received on Mon Aug 16 22:28:01 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 16 2004 - 22:28:02 EDT