Talk:Framework interpretation

message: Good work on starting this page! It's been on my to-do list for a while, but I'm glad to see that it has now been done and been done well. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Double-plus Kudos on the work so far here! I was really surprised to find the Framework Interpretation on Wikipedia, and I'm furthermore impressed at the depth to which the writers of this article have been able to maintain, whilst keeping (of course) true encyclopedic style! Yay! Sir Ian (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Kudos

message: I expannded the first para, trying to make it more complete. More importantly, I edited out the somewhat cumbersome references to "some scholars feel" etc etc: it's sufficient just to set out the idea. BUT, there need to be references to sources so that readers can check for further details: at the moemnt the article is very light on names (Ms Kline is about it). I'd suggest some work on this aspect using Wenham or someone like that. PiCo 12:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your efforts, PiCO. I agree that this article still could do with a fair bit of work, and more thorough referencing. I'll try to work on it when I get more time. I think that attention needs to be given to Blocher's work (In the Beginning) as it seems to be a major reference point. Oh, and by the way, I believe that Kline is actually a male (despite the first name)! Tonicthebrown 14:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meredith G. Kline was indeed a man. It's one of those names that crossed over. Lesslie Newbigin has the same problem. :-) --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First para and some suggestions 

message: ===Exegetical===
====God's rest====
Many theologians prefer the non-literal interpretation of the seventh day because it explains the apparent contradiction between the literal interpretation of the events of the seventh day and God's nature.  states God "rested, and was refreshed" on the seventh day. This seems to contradict  which says God "does not become weary or tired."
Most creation literalists argue for a literal interpretation of the days in Genesis as the only view which is logically compatible with the fourth commandment:
They claim the author of the commandment speaks of it in a literal sense and therefore it must be interpreted literally. 
Framework advocates respond to the to the claim that the Sabbath command of Exodus 20 demands a literal interpretation of the days of creation by pointing out that the author of the epistle to the Hebrews in Hebrews 4:1ff regards the seventh day mentioned in Genesis 1 not as a literal 24 hour day, but as an eternal day of rest which believers are exhorted to enter into through the completed work of Jesus Christ.  The Framework advocates go on to point out that if indeed the author of Hebrews interprets the seventh day of creation as an unending day, then the correspondence found between the seventh day of Exodus 20 and Genesis 1 must be one of analogy rather than that of literal equivalence.
====Heaven's Firmament====

It is noted that the seven-day creation account (Genesis 1) has a formulaic structure with repetition and other poetic elements. Furthermore, it is based on an ancient cosmology with the firmament of heaven acting as a solid ceiling which holds up the waters of heaven, and within which the sun, moon and stars are embedded. These considerations are used to further argue the case that the Genesis creation accounts were not written as a scientifically accurate report, but rather as a religious text.
[End of unsourced material removed from article HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material removed from article 

message: ====God's rest====
Many theologians prefer the non-literal interpretation of the seventh day because it explains the apparent contradiction between the literal interpretation of the events of the seventh day and God's nature.  states God "rested, and was refreshed" on the seventh day. This seems to contradict  which says God "does not become weary or tired."
Most creation literalists argue for a literal interpretation of the days in Genesis as the only view which is logically compatible with the fourth commandment:
They claim the author of the commandment speaks of it in a literal sense and therefore it must be interpreted literally. 
Framework advocates respond to the to the claim that the Sabbath command of Exodus 20 demands a literal interpretation of the days of creation by pointing out that the author of the epistle to the Hebrews in Hebrews 4:1ff regards the seventh day mentioned in Genesis 1 not as a literal 24 hour day, but as an eternal day of rest which believers are exhorted to enter into through the completed work of Jesus Christ.  The Framework advocates go on to point out that if indeed the author of Hebrews interprets the seventh day of creation as an unending day, then the correspondence found between the seventh day of Exodus 20 and Genesis 1 must be one of analogy rather than that of literal equivalence.
====Heaven's Firmament====

It is noted that the seven-day creation account (Genesis 1) has a formulaic structure with repetition and other poetic elements. Furthermore, it is based on an ancient cosmology with the firmament of heaven acting as a solid ceiling which holds up the waters of heaven, and within which the sun, moon and stars are embedded. These considerations are used to further argue the case that the Genesis creation accounts were not written as a scientifically accurate report, but rather as a religious text.
[End of unsourced material removed from article HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Exegetical

message: 
It is noted that the seven-day creation account (Genesis 1) has a formulaic structure with repetition and other poetic elements. Furthermore, it is based on an ancient cosmology with the firmament of heaven acting as a solid ceiling which holds up the waters of heaven, and within which the sun, moon and stars are embedded. These considerations are used to further argue the case that the Genesis creation accounts were not written as a scientifically accurate report, but rather as a religious text.
[End of unsourced material removed from article HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Heaven's Firmament

message: New Bible Dictionary (3rd ed.) article "Creation" pp239-241
"But how far does Genesis intend us to read its opening chapters as history? Would they, as many maintain, be better termed myth? 
...
"1:1-2:3 is full of repetitive formulae and quasi-poetic language. It is not quite poetry, but rather high-flown prose. The division of the account into seven days is the most obvious repetition, but repeated commands, fulfilments, naming, blessing and appreciation fomulae, mostly in multiples of seven, show that is a very carefully crafted opening to the book.
"Furthermore there is an interesting pattern in the arrangement of the creative acts by days. The first three days match the next three.
...
"If 'myth' is defined as stories about God's action in the past which affect the present, it is clear that Genesis' accounts of the creation and the fall fit this definition. But as Jacobsen pointed out, in Genesis and many Near Eastern accounts there is a strong interest in cause and effect, the linkage of events over time, which give the narratives a historical cast. So he called them mytho-historical. If myth could be purged of its negative overtones of error and falsity, this might be acceptable. It is preferable to describe these chapters as proto-historical or theological history.
...
"Interpreted along these lines Gn 1-2 conflicts with modern scientific discovery less than is often supposed. In its original BC context it was challenging the theologyh and ethics of ancient orientals... Gn. 1 is not so much scientific and historical explanation of how the world came to be, but a theological hymn of praise to the creator for his bounty bestowed on man."
Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference as requested

message: This view is not obscure. Sources for other scholars can be found and added. Removal was unwarranted.  Simple search shows this:
.  Even though an article on this subject does not exist, adding stuby content to an aritcle is just the way wikipedia works. 
--Firefly322 (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It generates only 5 Google Book & 6 Google Scholar hits, so yes it is "obscure" (as well as being tangential to the topic of this article). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Analogical day view