| WHB Home : All Blogs : Recent Blogs : Articles by Meredith Kline - 3/18/2009 | |
March 18, 2009 1:02pm v.17
Rating:
Status: Hidden
| Leave a comment: no comments ~ | Printable Version |
| PREV | 400 of 459 | NEXT |
 I was listening to a Q&A session by Tim Keller "How do Genesis 1 and 2 relate?" Keller mentioned an article by Meredith Kline called Because It Had Not Rained. Meredith Kline was Tim Keller's Old Testament scholar at Westminster Seminary. Kline on Creation The brute force of Kline's argument is to require a rigid translation of Genesis 2:5 that contradicts Genesis 1. Kline's aspiration is to prove that Genesis 1 is a non-sequential poem and cannot be interpreted as a 6-day or 6-age creation period. Kline suggests that the KJV and the RSV translations of Genesis 2:5 are wrong and the ARV translation is correct, but it seems more likely that he has judged the ARV correct because it supports his position. Kline expanded on his article many years later with a supplement article titled: Space and Time in Cosmology. In this article, he criticizes Genesis 1:14 because the Stars and the Sun were created on the fourth day. Kline's conclusion in this article's prologue reveals his presuppositions: "To rebut the literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation week propounded by the young-earth theorists is a central concern of this article. At the same time, the exegetical evidence adduced also refutes the harmonistic day-age view. The conclusion is that as far as the time frame is concerned, with respect to both the duration and sequence of events, the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins." Genesis is correct because planets always form before their star ignites. The Nebular hypothesisis the most widely known and accepted model for explaining Solar System Formation. In the Nebular Hypothesis, the planets form before the star ignites, because the star doesn't ignite until its gathered a massive amount of matter. Here's a video. So, its not that Genesis 1:14 is wrong, or that it cannot be explained, but often our presuppositions negatively affect our hermeneutics. Kline makes many keen observations, but reducing the bible into poems and allegories will empty its meaning. If Kline's conclusion on the Creation Account in Genesis 1 & 2 is that we can learn nothing about Creation, we have defeated ourselves before we started. Kline on Covenant Theology A third article that I found interesting was Kline's response to Daniel Fuller titled: Covenant Theology Under Attack. Daniel Fuller wrote an amazing book titled Gospel and law: Contrast or continuum? : The hermeneutics of dispensationalism and covenant theology. Fuller argues against Covenant Theology's doctrine on the two Adams, and suggests that Adam was not under a Covenant of Works but was actually under a Covenant of Grace and that Covenant of Grace has been an absolute continuum since the beginning, and no one has ever been saved by a hypothetical Covenant of Works. Kline's article attempts to rebut Fuller's books, but I found his responses lacking and mostly ad hominem attacks rather than revealing responses. Conclusion on Kline I highly respect Tim Keller, and if he recommends Meredith Kline, then I will listen to what Kline has to say. These articles are very interesting, although I disagree with them overall, so my apologies goes to Dr. Kline for being too negative. If a friend absolutely objects to a literal interpretation of Genesis or a Covenant of Grace continuum, and refuses to accept Christianity because of either of these doctrines, then I will gladly recommend Kline. Kline's work is excellent scholarship and I've enjoyed his challenging comments. Maybe I'll change my mind someday, but not today.
Last Update: March 18, 2009 2:33pm |
| PREV | 400 of 459 | NEXT |
| Leave a comment: no comments | [Hide Comments] | Printable Version |
| BACK TO COLUMNS | ©2026 http://www.houtz.tv by Wyatt Houtz | LOGIN |