The framework hypothesis

Much has been written on the 'so-called' framework hypothesis that evacuates Genesis of real-world meaning (and signficance).

For instance:

Russell Grigg's

Bob McCabe's

and

Joseph Pipa's

None of the really touch on the philisophical issues raised.

Those who support the FH are in a bind. They have to explain what really did happen, and how this unkown other thing underpins their theology. That is, if none of the events in the creation account are truly real, how can any of them support a theology that affects us in the real world? Either the creation is a unity from God's speaking to our experience of fellowship with God, or something else that we don't know, and therefore cannot study, creates that unity. They are left with a conncoction from silence, or some imaginary pagan 'creation'.

For many it seems that the FH requires a double reality: "God-reality" in the Bible, and 'real-reality' out here in the world. This ends up with the 'God-reality' being subservient to and deriviative of the 'real-reality', but failing to deal with the Almightyness of God, as Augustine sets out in his little talk on the Creed, and the integrated reality (or ontology) of the Genesis account.

The spiritual dimension is also disrupted.

The greatest theological flaw in the FH is that it breaks the intimacy of fellowship between Creator (God) and creature-in-his-image (man/humanity). In the Genesis account it is an intimate communion where God and man relate to each other in the real time-space in which and by which God created (e.g. creating in created time we are in over the six days, demonstrating that this is real in the commutative relationship of God and creature).

The FH pushes God off somewhere else and obscures the directness of his creation of his image-bearers. The creation account also underscores the real-ness of our relationship with God and the 'setting' of that relationship: the material creation.

The FH discounts this as a comparative triviality and brings into question, 'what is truly real'? This then goes to bring into question the reliability of our being-and-place and the significancy of anything we do.

It leads us to pagan conceptions of the creation, typified by platonic Idealism, for example, and given a modern outing in European Idealism. To the contrary, God created in a concrete reality in which he participated to relate to us: the days of creation a great example of him being and acting in our time-space, creating, demonstrating and underscoring the closeness of his fellowship. 

And on top of all this, if the FH denies the reality of  the contents of the framework, then it can mean nothing. The framework itself is just an empty fantasy.