Understanding Genesis: the Framework Hypothesis
Is Genesis history, fiction, or something else?
There are many different ways of interpreting Genesis. One list divides different theories into "concordist" ("God made the earth using the sequence of events described in Genesis 1") or "non-concordist" ("God created the earth using a different timing and order of events than those described Genesis 1") interpretations.
"concordist" interpretations
"non-concordist" interpretations
Exegetically based interpretations
If you combined the two lists you'd end up with about a dozen different ways to view Genesis, but there are still more.
"The Framework Hypothesis was first proposed by Dr. Noordzij of the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands in the early 1950’s. His defense of the Framework Hypothesis never became very popular. The later popularity of the view could be explained by the fact that the idea was picked up by Dr. N. H. Ridderbos, a prominent figure in the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands. He wrote a book in which he spelled out his view of the Framework Hypothesis and defended it. The title of the book is, Is There A Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science? That book has been translated and is available in this country, though only as a used book. But even that book did not really make much progress within Reformed and Presbyterian circles until this same view was picked up by theologian and Old Testament scholar Meredith Kline. He has popularized the theory. He has had remarkable success in promoting it and has succeeded in gaining many to his views, especially in more conservative circles. He has put it on the agenda of the church. Collaborating with Dr. Lee Irons, he has set down his views in a book called The Genesis Debate." [The Framework Hypothesis & Genesis 1]
The framework hypothesis arranges the six days of creation into two triads. "Differences exist on how to classify the two triads, but Meredith G. Kline's analysis is suggestive: the first triad (days 1-3) narrate the establishment of the creation kingdoms, and the second triad (days 4-6), the production of the creature kings. Furthermore this structure is not without theological significance, for all the created realms and regents of the six days are subordinate vassals of God who takes His royal Sabbath rest as the Creator King on the seventh day. Thus the seventh day marks the climax of the creation week." [The Framework Interpretation: An Exegetical Summary]
The first day is related thematically to the fourth, the second to the fifth, and the third to the sixth. This thematic framework explains why you have light, days, evening and morning before the creation of the sun.
But the Framework Hypothesis does not appeal to science. "We emphasize that the Framework View is simply about the Bible, not about science. The Earth and the universe can be as 'young' or 'old' as anyone wishes to claim, because the literary form of early Genesis leaves this an open question. The 'days' were probably meant to be understood 'literally' as ordinary days, but only in the context of a literary form that was not meant to be understood literally, when taken as a whole." [Science and the Bible: The Framework View]
One does not have to be influenced by modern science to conclude that the days in Genesis 1 were not normal days. Augustine wrote, "What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say! .... We see, indeed, that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting, and no morning but by the rising, of the sun; but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day." [THE WORKS OF AURELIUS AUGUSTINE, BISHOP OF HIPPO]
However, Framework Hypothesis proponents do not challenge the historicity of Adam and Eve. "...by interpreting the days of creation in a nonlinear manner, we do not, in any way, deny their historicity. We affirm a historical creation, a historical Adam, and a historical Fall. Genesis 1-3 is a historical narrative of events that actually took place in space and time with the angels of God as 'eyewitnesses' of everything but the initial ex nihilo creation event." [Lee Irons and Meredith Kline, The Genesis Debate, p. 220, (in Part Three: the Framework View)]
The Framework Hypothesis does not try to answer all of the questions one might have about the book of Genesis.
I don't think the Framework Hypothesis insists on there being death before the Fall. However, one does not have to appeal to science to see that a) God created carnivores who by design kill and consume other animals, and b) God made the animals to reproduce ("be fruitful and multiply") so if they never died eventually there would be serious population problems. It is, in fact, very good that animals die. Otherwise, there would be so many of them that you could not move without stepping on one (or getting stepped on... perhaps by a dinosaur). If you've ever seen the videos of mouse plagues in Australia in 1993 you know what I'm talking about. If you think that's bad, imagine a plague of immortal mice!
"The Bible passages that teach about sin and death are clearly referring to the death of humans. Do these passages also refer to animals? Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) didn’t think so. He believed that God’s original creation included animals that killed each other, writing that 'the nature of animals was not changed by man’s sin.' Pastor Daniel Harrell makes a logical argument for animal death, writing that 'there had to be death in the Garden, otherwise Adam would have been overrun by bugs and bacteria long before he took that forbidden bite of fruit.' Animal death is also necessary to maintain population levels in a balanced ecosystem (see below for more). Some Bible passages portray predatory animals as part of God’s original plan for creation (Job 38:39–41, 39:29–30, Ps. 104:21, 29). Other passages speak of the 'wolf laying down with the lamb' instead of killing the lamb (Is. 11:6–7, Is. 65:25), but these verses refer to the future kingdom of God, not the original creation [and I think they are figurative]. While animal death and suffering raises other theological questions, it does not contradict Biblical teaching about death as a consequence of sin." [Did death occur before the Fall?]
Young Earth creationists cannot read the word "day" in chapter 2 literally because they insist on reading these passages about death as a literal physical death and therefore they are forced into an inconsistency in how literally they take the word "day".
But clearly these passages cannot be talking about a literal death, and you do not have to appeal to science for this answer but only common sense. As with animals, God made the humans to reproduce ("be fruitful and multiply"). Eventually if humans never physically died they would have filled up the Garden of Eden and then eventually overran the entire planet. It might take thousands of years but it would have happened eventually if nobody ever died. So, that leaves us with the obvious conclusion that the death that Adam's sin brought on humanity was a spiritual death.
"If Adam had not sinned, humans would still have died like we do today, but without 'the sense of loss, uncertainty about an afterlife, … and regret for unfinished work' that comes with spiritual death. Agemir de Carvalho Dias, Presbyterian pastor and teacher of the Evangelical College of Parana, Brazil, writes that 'the death that entered the world with Adam is understood as something that takes man apart from God, a spiritual death, in the sense that the access to God is now closed and can be restored only through faith.'" [Did death occur before the Fall?]
Of course, it is not a "point of faith" for most Christians even if the Westminster Confession says so. [Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems] "Drawn up by the 1646 Westminster Assembly as part of the Westminster Standards to be a confession of the Church of England, it became and remains the 'subordinate standard' of doctrine in the Church of Scotland and has been influential within Presbyterian churches worldwide." [Posing Problems in the Westminster Confession of Faith]
Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) published a position paper in 1999 stating their opinion that "... the phrase in question in the [Westminster] Standards functions to oppose the error, longstanding at that time, of instantaneous creation. Though the framers of the Standards for the most part held personally to the 24 hour day view, that view, to the exclusion of all others, is not the point of their confessional affirmation.... Here we must follow Calvin's great motto that where God makes an end of teaching, we should make an end of trying to be wise. With Augustine and E. J. Young, the revered teacher of our senior faculty members, we recognize that the exegetical question of the length of the days of Genesis 1 may be an issue which cannot be, and therefore is not intended by God to be, answered in dogmatic terms. "[Westminster Theological Seminary and the Days of Creation: A Brief Statement] [Westminister Seminary Statement on Creation]
It should be noted that in a 2012 interview, Sproul back-pedaled when asked about the stand he "...took in favor of a six-day creation and a young earth." Sproul said, "Well, that’s kind of a complex question because when I took the stand, I took the stand on a six-day creation. I didn’t take a stand on a young earth. I don’t know how old the earth is. I didn’t know then. I still don’t. And what do we mean by 'young earth'? If you’re thinking six thousand years, I doubt that. If you’re thinking 12 billion years, I doubt that, too. All I was speaking about was the understanding of what the Scriptures teach regarding the six days of creation. And I’m not even sure it’s correct to say that I took a stand. I said that’s what my view was. When you say you have a view, it’s one thing to say, 'I think that this is the way it is.' It’s another thing to take a stand where you say: 'Here I stand. I’m going to die on this mountain.' I could be wrong in my understanding of Genesis. It’s a very difficult to deal with the literary genre in the opening verses of the beginning chapters of Genesis. I think there has to be some room for some flexibility on it." [Famous evangelical apologist changes his mind]
Pat Robertson said, "Look, I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this, but Bishop [James] Ussher wasn't inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years. It just didn't. You go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas. They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible . . . If you fight science, you're going to lose your children, and I believe in telling it the way it was." [The Age of the Earth]
For centuries Christians argued from the Bible that the Earth is flat and stationary, but science long ago proved this to be wrong. Quoting from Robertson again, "To say it all dates back to 6,000 years is just nonsense, and I think [it’s] time we come off of that stuff, and say this isn’t possible.... Let's be real; let's not make a joke of ourselves.” [Pat Robertson rejects 'young earth' creationism. 'Nonsense,' he says.]
I do feel after learning of the Framework Hypothesis I found it to be an interesting solution to many of the difficulties people encounter with Genesis. It's a theory that I wouldn't be embarrassed to share with a well-read atheist or a Bible-believing Christian. It doesn't try to "...interpret every Bible verse to match the current scientific picture...", nor does it "...interpret every Bible verse that appears to disagree with science as figurative without first studying the text."
There are many different ways of interpreting Genesis. One list divides different theories into "concordist" ("God made the earth using the sequence of events described in Genesis 1") or "non-concordist" ("God created the earth using a different timing and order of events than those described Genesis 1") interpretations.
"concordist" interpretations
- Gap theory (proposes a long time gap between the first two verses of Genesis)
- Day-age theory (the days in Genesis 1 actually represent many years)
- Young Earth (science should agree with Genesis)
- Appearance of age (God made the Earth appear old)
"For concordists, the temptation is to interpret every Bible verse to match the current scientific picture. The meanings of particular phrases can be bent out of shape to match a particular scientific finding.... By focusing on trying to match the details of the ancient text to twenty-first century knowledge, the concordist may miss meanings in the passage that were clear in the original cultural context, including important spiritual insights."
- Creation poem (the number and ordering of days is structured on poetic considerations)
- Proclamation day (God is outside of creation and time, so his proclamations made from his "throne room" do not operate according to Earth days)
- Kingdom and Temple (the text is to be understood spiritually as describing God's Kingdom or Temple, not the physical realm)
- Ancient near east cosmology ("De la Torre concludes that Genesis 1-11: '... appears to be a reformatting of motifs and characters from four Mesopotamian myths: Adapa and the South Wind, Atrahasis, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the Enuma Elish.'" [Comparing two creation stories: one from Genesis and the other from Babylonian pagan sources])
"For non-concordists the temptation is to interpret every Bible verse that appears to disagree with science as figurative without first studying the text. By interpreting a text that was intended to be understood literally as metaphoric, they may bend the meanings of particular phrases to refer to purely spiritual ideas and ignore the historical meanings they had in the original cultural context. At one extreme non-concordists can apply the same strategy to all Bible passages and even interpret Jesus’ miracles and resurrection as spiritual symbols simply because they think that miracles are scientifically impossible."
[Comparing Interpretations of Genesis 1]
Another list splits up the different interpretation methods into science based vs. exegetically based methods.
Science-based interpretations- Theistic Evolution (Adam and Eve were created through evolution)
- Gap Theory
- Day-Age Theory
- Apparent-Age Theory
- Punctuated 24-Hour Theory (adds gaps between the six days of creation)
- Scientific Creationism (tries to prove young Earth based on science)
- 24-Hour Interpretation
- Framework Interpretation
- Historical Creationism ("the six creative days refer not to the establishment of the universe, but rather, God's preparation of Eden for His people")
If you combined the two lists you'd end up with about a dozen different ways to view Genesis, but there are still more.
- “days of revelation” interpretation - "The days are six consecutive 24-hour days in which God revealed the narrative to Moses."
- Expanding time theory - An innovative approach by Gerald Schroeder which uses Einstein's theory of relativity to propose the 6 days of creation are a normal day from the perspective of God outside of creation but add up to 15 billion years from Earth perspective.
Framework Hypothesis
The Framework Hypothesis is a variation on the creation poem concept. The theory suggests that "...the beginning chapters of Genesis are a mixture of historical narrative and poetry, with part of the poetic structure being the repeated refrain, 'So the evening and the morning were the first day' (Gen 1:5), and so on.... Genesis gives us not a historical narrative of the when or the how of divine creation, but a drama in seven acts.... Therefore, the framework hypothesis allows one to step into a Big Bang cosmology while maintaining the credibility and inspiration of Genesis 1-2." [What Is R.C. Sproul’s Position on Creation?]"The Framework Hypothesis was first proposed by Dr. Noordzij of the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands in the early 1950’s. His defense of the Framework Hypothesis never became very popular. The later popularity of the view could be explained by the fact that the idea was picked up by Dr. N. H. Ridderbos, a prominent figure in the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands. He wrote a book in which he spelled out his view of the Framework Hypothesis and defended it. The title of the book is, Is There A Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science? That book has been translated and is available in this country, though only as a used book. But even that book did not really make much progress within Reformed and Presbyterian circles until this same view was picked up by theologian and Old Testament scholar Meredith Kline. He has popularized the theory. He has had remarkable success in promoting it and has succeeded in gaining many to his views, especially in more conservative circles. He has put it on the agenda of the church. Collaborating with Dr. Lee Irons, he has set down his views in a book called The Genesis Debate." [The Framework Hypothesis & Genesis 1]
The framework hypothesis arranges the six days of creation into two triads. "Differences exist on how to classify the two triads, but Meredith G. Kline's analysis is suggestive: the first triad (days 1-3) narrate the establishment of the creation kingdoms, and the second triad (days 4-6), the production of the creature kings. Furthermore this structure is not without theological significance, for all the created realms and regents of the six days are subordinate vassals of God who takes His royal Sabbath rest as the Creator King on the seventh day. Thus the seventh day marks the climax of the creation week." [The Framework Interpretation: An Exegetical Summary]
The first day is related thematically to the fourth, the second to the fifth, and the third to the sixth. This thematic framework explains why you have light, days, evening and morning before the creation of the sun.
It's about the Bible, not science
The main objection to the Framework Hypothesis from Young Earth creationists is apparently that it doesn't contradict science (as if that is a bad thing). "Modern scientific opinion has seemingly been elevated to the status of being equal or superior to biblical revelation. Many nonliteral interpreters refer to 'science’s' opinion as general revelation. And with its elevation 'scientific opinion' has become a presupposition that influences many evangelicals to jettison the literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2:3 in favor of a nonliteral view, such as the Framework." [What’s Wrong with the Framework Hypothesis?]But the Framework Hypothesis does not appeal to science. "We emphasize that the Framework View is simply about the Bible, not about science. The Earth and the universe can be as 'young' or 'old' as anyone wishes to claim, because the literary form of early Genesis leaves this an open question. The 'days' were probably meant to be understood 'literally' as ordinary days, but only in the context of a literary form that was not meant to be understood literally, when taken as a whole." [Science and the Bible: The Framework View]
One does not have to be influenced by modern science to conclude that the days in Genesis 1 were not normal days. Augustine wrote, "What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say! .... We see, indeed, that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting, and no morning but by the rising, of the sun; but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day." [THE WORKS OF AURELIUS AUGUSTINE, BISHOP OF HIPPO]
Historic Adam and Eve
According to Young Earth creationists, "The Day-Age Theory and the Framework Hypothesis, both of which allow for an old earth, are problematic because they fail to do justice to the meta-narrative of redemptive history, to the sequence of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation as it is presented in Scripture. More specifically, they have difficulty accounting for the historicity of Adam and the Fall of Adam and Eve as the cause of death." [Al Mohler’s Literal Six-Day Young-Earth Creationism and the State of the Question]However, Framework Hypothesis proponents do not challenge the historicity of Adam and Eve. "...by interpreting the days of creation in a nonlinear manner, we do not, in any way, deny their historicity. We affirm a historical creation, a historical Adam, and a historical Fall. Genesis 1-3 is a historical narrative of events that actually took place in space and time with the angels of God as 'eyewitnesses' of everything but the initial ex nihilo creation event." [Lee Irons and Meredith Kline, The Genesis Debate, p. 220, (in Part Three: the Framework View)]
The Framework Hypothesis does not try to answer all of the questions one might have about the book of Genesis.
Animal Death Prior to the Fall
Hank Hanegraaff has said he thinks the Framework Hypothesis "... most closely corresponds to reality, though I cannot abide the idea of animal death prior to the Fall as consistent with a very good creation..." [What is the Literary Framework View of Genesis?]I don't think the Framework Hypothesis insists on there being death before the Fall. However, one does not have to appeal to science to see that a) God created carnivores who by design kill and consume other animals, and b) God made the animals to reproduce ("be fruitful and multiply") so if they never died eventually there would be serious population problems. It is, in fact, very good that animals die. Otherwise, there would be so many of them that you could not move without stepping on one (or getting stepped on... perhaps by a dinosaur). If you've ever seen the videos of mouse plagues in Australia in 1993 you know what I'm talking about. If you think that's bad, imagine a plague of immortal mice!
"The Bible passages that teach about sin and death are clearly referring to the death of humans. Do these passages also refer to animals? Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) didn’t think so. He believed that God’s original creation included animals that killed each other, writing that 'the nature of animals was not changed by man’s sin.' Pastor Daniel Harrell makes a logical argument for animal death, writing that 'there had to be death in the Garden, otherwise Adam would have been overrun by bugs and bacteria long before he took that forbidden bite of fruit.' Animal death is also necessary to maintain population levels in a balanced ecosystem (see below for more). Some Bible passages portray predatory animals as part of God’s original plan for creation (Job 38:39–41, 39:29–30, Ps. 104:21, 29). Other passages speak of the 'wolf laying down with the lamb' instead of killing the lamb (Is. 11:6–7, Is. 65:25), but these verses refer to the future kingdom of God, not the original creation [and I think they are figurative]. While animal death and suffering raises other theological questions, it does not contradict Biblical teaching about death as a consequence of sin." [Did death occur before the Fall?]
Sin Brought Spiritual Death
According to Genesis 2:16-17 "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” But when he ate of it, he didn't physically die that day, he lived an extraordinarily long life afterwards. So, either the word "day" should not be taken literally here or the death referred to is not a physical one (or both).Young Earth creationists cannot read the word "day" in chapter 2 literally because they insist on reading these passages about death as a literal physical death and therefore they are forced into an inconsistency in how literally they take the word "day".
But clearly these passages cannot be talking about a literal death, and you do not have to appeal to science for this answer but only common sense. As with animals, God made the humans to reproduce ("be fruitful and multiply"). Eventually if humans never physically died they would have filled up the Garden of Eden and then eventually overran the entire planet. It might take thousands of years but it would have happened eventually if nobody ever died. So, that leaves us with the obvious conclusion that the death that Adam's sin brought on humanity was a spiritual death.
"If Adam had not sinned, humans would still have died like we do today, but without 'the sense of loss, uncertainty about an afterlife, … and regret for unfinished work' that comes with spiritual death. Agemir de Carvalho Dias, Presbyterian pastor and teacher of the Evangelical College of Parana, Brazil, writes that 'the death that entered the world with Adam is understood as something that takes man apart from God, a spiritual death, in the sense that the access to God is now closed and can be restored only through faith.'" [Did death occur before the Fall?]
Compatibility with Westminster Confession
Conservative Presbyterian author and radio host R.C. Sproul says, "For most of my teaching career, I considered the framework hypothesis to be a possibility. But I have now changed my mind... One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1-2. The [Westminster] confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days." [What Is R.C. Sproul’s Position on Creation?]Of course, it is not a "point of faith" for most Christians even if the Westminster Confession says so. [Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems] "Drawn up by the 1646 Westminster Assembly as part of the Westminster Standards to be a confession of the Church of England, it became and remains the 'subordinate standard' of doctrine in the Church of Scotland and has been influential within Presbyterian churches worldwide." [Posing Problems in the Westminster Confession of Faith]
Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) published a position paper in 1999 stating their opinion that "... the phrase in question in the [Westminster] Standards functions to oppose the error, longstanding at that time, of instantaneous creation. Though the framers of the Standards for the most part held personally to the 24 hour day view, that view, to the exclusion of all others, is not the point of their confessional affirmation.... Here we must follow Calvin's great motto that where God makes an end of teaching, we should make an end of trying to be wise. With Augustine and E. J. Young, the revered teacher of our senior faculty members, we recognize that the exegetical question of the length of the days of Genesis 1 may be an issue which cannot be, and therefore is not intended by God to be, answered in dogmatic terms. "[Westminster Theological Seminary and the Days of Creation: A Brief Statement] [Westminister Seminary Statement on Creation]
It should be noted that in a 2012 interview, Sproul back-pedaled when asked about the stand he "...took in favor of a six-day creation and a young earth." Sproul said, "Well, that’s kind of a complex question because when I took the stand, I took the stand on a six-day creation. I didn’t take a stand on a young earth. I don’t know how old the earth is. I didn’t know then. I still don’t. And what do we mean by 'young earth'? If you’re thinking six thousand years, I doubt that. If you’re thinking 12 billion years, I doubt that, too. All I was speaking about was the understanding of what the Scriptures teach regarding the six days of creation. And I’m not even sure it’s correct to say that I took a stand. I said that’s what my view was. When you say you have a view, it’s one thing to say, 'I think that this is the way it is.' It’s another thing to take a stand where you say: 'Here I stand. I’m going to die on this mountain.' I could be wrong in my understanding of Genesis. It’s a very difficult to deal with the literary genre in the opening verses of the beginning chapters of Genesis. I think there has to be some room for some flexibility on it." [Famous evangelical apologist changes his mind]
The age of the Earth
I am not sure how R.C. Sproul and others can say "I don’t know how old the earth is." Again, the Framework Hypothesis does not have anything to say about this one way or the other, but we have, in fact, known the answer to this question for a long time. "Radioactivity offered not only a resolution to the puzzle of the earth’s energy supply but also a chronology independent of questionable geologic assumptions.... The resulting knowledge has led to the current understanding that the earth is 4.55 billion years old." [How Science Figured Out the Age of Earth]Pat Robertson said, "Look, I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this, but Bishop [James] Ussher wasn't inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years. It just didn't. You go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas. They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible . . . If you fight science, you're going to lose your children, and I believe in telling it the way it was." [The Age of the Earth]
For centuries Christians argued from the Bible that the Earth is flat and stationary, but science long ago proved this to be wrong. Quoting from Robertson again, "To say it all dates back to 6,000 years is just nonsense, and I think [it’s] time we come off of that stuff, and say this isn’t possible.... Let's be real; let's not make a joke of ourselves.” [Pat Robertson rejects 'young earth' creationism. 'Nonsense,' he says.]
Conclusions
When I first started I was going to blog about the Gap Theory, because for years that is the interpretation I embraced. However, in the process I found this to be a much larger topic than I thought. I felt that I needed to settle a few things in my own mind before I continued. I still think the Gap Theory is somewhat plausible, but while it accommodates an old Earth and enough time to the for the dinosaurs it still leaves a lot of open questions and creates new problems.I do feel after learning of the Framework Hypothesis I found it to be an interesting solution to many of the difficulties people encounter with Genesis. It's a theory that I wouldn't be embarrassed to share with a well-read atheist or a Bible-believing Christian. It doesn't try to "...interpret every Bible verse to match the current scientific picture...", nor does it "...interpret every Bible verse that appears to disagree with science as figurative without first studying the text."
Comments
Post a Comment