The Literary Framework Interpretation

[~candice~]

Think of an historic event. Observing and recording the event was a reporter, an historian, a poet, a politician, a story teller, a philosopher, and a reverend.

Would you expect to hear the same account being told either the same way or with the same purpose?

One would expect the reporter to report facts, but present it with a dramatic flair to catch the reader's attention.

The historian would gather and present as much facts as possible from different angles and present it without emotional language.

The poet would present the feal of the facts rather than the exact facts.

The politician would present a speach with an intent towards either inspiration or persuasion, thus not all the facts need be presented, just the ones to get the point across.

The story teller will embellish the facts, but probably focus more on the people involved rather than the event itself.

The philosopher would present more of the meaning of the facts than the facts themselves.

The reverend would create a point or a moral to the event, and his presentation would be crafted such to highlight the points leading to the bottom line. Thus, as far as details go, one would only hear about the details necessary to bring the point across.

So when I say Gen. 1-2 is not a western/scientific historica presentation, I simply mean it wasn't written to provide a history lesson. It wasn't meant to be read as a scientific journal outlining the creation of the earth. Man's relationship to the earth is not the focus. Knowing the earth is not the focus. Teaching science is not the focus.

Make sense?

The Lord gave us a glimpse into His creation process with an intention, and it is presented in such a way to lead the reader towards that intention.

This I do agree with (and it does make sense!). So if it were not intended to be a scientific document, why do people read it and enforce it in a face-value scientific way *question mark*.

[nebula]

Other than this is the way we think, interpreting everything through a Hellenistic mindset?

[Guest shiloh357]

Gen 1-2 and indeed the first 11 chapters are not meant to be seen scientifically. That much is certain. They serve as very brief overview of human history which serve to provide the context for the rest of the Bible from chapter 12 of Gen. onward.

These chapters serve as providing the context for the plan of redemption beginning with God's establishment of a covenant with Abraham in order to make for Himself a people in the earth through which redemption would come.

Gen 1 is not a scientific account and should not read as such. It is an very brief overview of creation. Gen. 2 narrows the focus of Gen. 2. It is more or less a retelling of the creation story, but the focus is on man and God's redemptive relationship with man. It is not separate creation story, but simply attempts to draw one's attention to the most important aspect of the Gen1 account, namely the creation of man.

Genesis 1 and 2 are actually very theologically rich and one could spend months just mining the deep theological truths it holds particularly as they relate to the plan of redemption. God is actually more interested in making a theological point in both of these chapters, not a scientific one.

[~candice~]

Gen 1-2 and indeed the first 11 chapters are not meant to be seen scientifically. That much is certain. They serve as very brief overview of human history which serve to provide the context for the rest of the Bible from chapter 12 of Gen. onward.

These chapters serve as providing the context for the plan of redemption beginning with God's establishment of a covenant with Abraham in order to make for Himself a people in the earth through which redemption would come.

Gen 1 is not a scientific account and should not read as such. It is an very brief overview of creation. Gen. 2 narrows the focus of Gen. 2. It is more or less a retelling of the creation story, but the focus is on man and God's redemptive relationship with man. It is not separate creation story, but simply attempts to draw one's attention to the most important aspect of the Gen1 account, namely the creation of man.

Genesis 1 and 2 are actually very theologically rich and one could spend months just mining the deep theological truths it holds particularly as they relate to the plan of redemption. God is actually more interested in making a theological point in both of these chapters, not a scientific one.

Shiloh, thank you for your patience, I am starting to see things a bit more clearly now . Can I ask you, what does it mean if a portion of the text is not to be taken scientifically *qm*. Does it make the underlying message true but the details only a vehicle to communicate this *qm*. You keep talking about the one literal interpretation being the interpretation that the author intended, so how do you see here that there is no scientific intent *qm*. I'm just trying to reconcile it all, because I was under the opinion that you were a 6 literal day young earth (maintaining the order of days) creationist, and yet agree that the text is not to be read scientifically.

*qm* = question mark, my keyboard is broken!

[nebula]

I'm just trying to reconcile it all, because I was under the opinion that you were a 6 literal day young earth (maintaining the order of days) creationist, and yet agree that the text is not to be read scientifically.

Andy, let me share with you - as a scientist of sorts how I myself deal with it.

I don't worry about...which if you knew me would know that this is a big deal! I'm a very literal, nit-picky, give me the facts, etc. type of person. But the only way I can reconcile the whole thing . . . is to not reconcile it.

Basically, when I am talking science, I speak science - although I do adjust the language a bit - like saying "designed" instead of "evolved" or "became" or the like, saying the earth is "believed to be" 4.5 billion years old instead of saying it "is" that old.

But when I am talking theology, I will say "6 days" and the like.

I know, it sounds kooky, but because I can't figure out how the two are reconciled, and seen and read the pit-falls all the others have gotten into trying to reconcile them, I find this to be the best way to deal with it.

*qm* = question mark, my keyboard is broken!

Oh dear! How about just use one of the question smilies ... like this guy:

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh, thank you for your patience, I am starting to see things a bit more clearly now . Can I ask you, what does it mean if a portion of the text is not to be taken scientifically *qm*.

Well, in the case of the Bible, the Bible really makes no scientific claims or statements. The Bible is not anti-science, it is pre-science. The Bible does not get into the nuts and bolts of natural world. For the purposes of Scripture, it simply tells us that God created both heaven and earth. The Bible is not interested in discussions of how mountains and oceans were formed or the various elements that comprise our universe and so on.

Let me illustrate with an analogy. Let's say I write to a friend of mine about a car I am working on and trying to make street worthy. I write to him and say, "yesterday I worked on the engine, the rear axle and the transmission differential. Actually, yesterday I worked on the differential first, but I mentioned the engine first instead. Did I lie or provide misinformation? Of course not. I simply told him what I did yesterday. The order in which I performed those tasks is not relevant to the purpose of why I was writing. I did not go into exactly what I did to the differential or to the rear axle or to the engine. I was just telling him about the car.

The Bible says that on the 5th day, God created the sea life and the birds. Now would it really make a difference if the birds were created first? Not really. Again, the Bible is not giving a scientific account and so the order is not that important. What is important is that on the 5th day, God created the sea life a the birds and told them to be fruitful and multiply after their own kind. The order in which they were created is not relevant to purpose behind the creation account in Genesis.

In addition, the Bible uses very nontechnical, observational language. For example when the Bible refers to the sun moving across the sky or the day when the sun stood still in the book of Joshua. From an observational standpoint, that is what happened and the Bible is written from that perspective. Scientifically, we know that the earth stopped rotating on it axis.

People mistake this for being an example of the geocentric view in the Bible, but it isn't. The Bible never claims the earth is the center of the universe. It makes no geocentric claims. It uses the same observational langage we still use today when we talk about sunrise and sunset.

Does it make the underlying message true but the details only a vehicle to communicate this *qm*.

It simply means that what the Bible says happened did happen, but it is related to us in a way meant to really place the focus on the Lord, not on creation. God's purpose was to create man and the creation account is incidental to that higher purpose.

You keep talking about the one literal interpretation being the interpretation that the author intended, so how do you see here that there is no scientific intent *qm*.

Because of the nonscientific approach the author uses. Had his intent been scientific, he would have spent more time telling us how the landmass was formed and how mountains came to be and the chemical make up of the water and the temperature of the atmosphere and a host of other things. It is not scientific, because the purpose is lay groundwork for understanding the need for the redemption of man. Genesis 1 is the foundation of plan of redemption and everything else builds on it.

I'm just trying to reconcile it all, because I was under the opinion that you were a 6 literal day young earth (maintaining the order of days) creationist, and yet agree that the text is not to be read scientifically.

I am not really hung up on the length of the days. God could have easily done it in 6 solar days and that would be surely fine with me. He can take all of the time He needs or doesn't need. To me, obsessing over the length of the days is like being given a brand new 2010 Porsche and fixating on which Amazonian rubber tree forest the tires were made from.

Worrying about the actual length of the days takes the focus off of the Lord. We begin to focus more on the creation and less on Creator. If we are not careful, even theology can become an idol.

[nebula]

Worrying about the actual length of the days takes the focus off of the Lord. We begin to focus more on the creation and less on Creator. If we are not careful, even theology can become an idol.

[~candice~]

Neb, you started sharing your understanding of Gen 1 in this post here, can you expand? It is so beautiful, that anywhere we look in the Word, we find God's plan for our redemption through Christ. Praise God! It's in genealogies and creation and psalms and prophecy and ... everywhere!

[nebula]

Thanks, Andy.

But, actually, I got help with that. Shiloh posted a real good theological interpretation of Gen 1 some time ago. Let me refer you to it. (He's more of a Biblical scholar than I am.)

New Creation Perspectives

[~candice~]

Thanks, Andy.

But, actually, I got help with that. Shiloh posted a real good theological interpretation of Gen 1 some time ago. Let me refer you to it. (He's more of a Biblical scholar than I am.)

New Creation Perspectives

Wow. I just read Day 1. Finally finally finally! It makes so much more sense reading it in this way. What a blessing, thank you Shiloh.