Free adult chat lines yahoo answers
Mark Geremia of Nuance Communications and Chief Joseph Solomon of the Methuen, Mass.
There are many more serious exegetical problems with the framework view.23 Third, Genesis 1–11 has the same characteristics of historical narrative as Genesis 12–50, most of Exodus, much of Numbers, Joshua, 1 and 2 Kings, etc.
Another reason that a great many Christians think that the age of man and the universe does not matter and that the scientific establishment’s view does not conflict with Scripture is because they or their teachers have been influenced by William Henry Green.1 The famous Old Testament professor at Princeton Theological Seminary wrote an article in 1890 in which he argued that “the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 were not intended to be used, and cannot properly be used, for the construction of a chronology.”2 He concluded that “the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world.”3 In other words, Green contended, the Bible is silent about the age of man and also the age of the earth and universe, so scientists are free to determine these ages according to the scientific evidence, and Christians need not reject or fear any date so determined.
Of course, Green was not the first to reject the biblical chronology prior to Abraham.
First, the Hebrew waw-consecutive verb forms used in Genesis 1 (and continuing through the rest of the book) are characteristic of Hebrew narrative, but not of Hebrew poetry.22 Second, Genesis 1 does not have the dominant characteristic of Hebrew poetry, namely parallelism, where the truth in the first part of a verse is repeated in different ways in the second part (e.g., ).
But those who hold to the Framework view claim there is a different kind of parallelism in Genesis 1 that should lead us to conclude that Genesis 1 is not straightforward history.