Abstract:
The framework hypothesis came about in the early 1900’s and was primarily developed by Arie
Noordtzij. The view attempts to better classify the genre of the book of Genesis as something
other then history. It wishes to describe creation as a figurative narrative and not how it
happened, Dr. McCabe described the theory as “They make the claim that Genesis 16simply
reveals that6God6created everything and that He made man in His own image, but it gives us no
information about how or when He did this.” (McCabe and Chaffey 2011). The method by which
this is accomplished is through the reading and vocabulary of Genesis in the original Hebrew
translation. The goal of the view is to rationalize the first eleven verses of the bible as an
allegorical way to explain creation. The view will utilize the different “discrepancies” in the
Bible to prove the theory.
Overview of Nontraditional View:
The allegorical or framework view of the creation period is a methodology that Genesis is more
of a “figurative language” and is not historically accurate. The view argues that it is meant to be
a literary device that God employed to teach humans about His power efficiently. The theory
depicts how the creation period is separated into two three-day periods with similar activities.
For one of the parallel examples being how light was created on the first day and the sun and
moon was made on the fourth day of the creation period. This introduces the argument of the
appearance of the Hebrew term “Yom”. Some commentators say, “Those who argue that the
word ‘day’ means ‘long age’, point out that the Hebrew word,6‘Yom’, can have a number of
meanings, only one of which is ‘day of 24 hours’. They further seek to strengthen their position
with the use of Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8, comparing a day to a thousand years” (Stambaugh
1988). The appearance of the creation period in genesis depicts a more logical approach than to a
chronological one. Another point of the metaphorical view of creation is from genesis 1:2 which
quotes, “And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the
Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters”. The passage illustrates that God was in a dark,
formless, watery abyss of earth, and on each creation day, he molds the universe to His perfect
plan. On days one through three, God prepares the heavens and the earth for the animals to
thrive; examples of this would be separating light from darkness and making dry land for plants
to inhabit. On the second “Set” of creation days, the Lord makes creatures and places them in the
prepared world. By this association, scholars believe that “The Framework view is mainly
concerned with the Bible and not science; the view allows the universe to be as young or as old
as scholars want it to be” (Davis 2012). The outline of Genesis 1-11 leaves plausible doubt for
the days to be understood as literal and not figurative in the book of Genesis.
Response to Nontraditional View:
Most Christians believe that Genesis is a historical account and not a symbolic understanding of
how everything was made. Some argue that day could not be possible because of the absence of
the sun and moon, which were made on day four. The presence of days occurring and the
absence of the creation of day and night are among the most challenging issues to assess from a
historical account. Though there is no concurrent answer, there are many speculations, some
being that God created an “intermediate sun” to give light for day, and therefore, the absence
thereof would be night. Another idea is that God Himself was the light, which would make
sense, seeing how He was there at the beginning. However, scholars also discuss how the
twenty-four-hour day was determined before the Earth rotated around the sun. God said that the
light was divided into day and night therefore because of His character, Christians would have to
believe that what God says is true. According to some commentators, they argue, “Genesis
makes it clear that this initial light was divided, giving both day and night to the Earth. We
should also remember that the passage of time is not linked to the sun. We measure time in days
even when we cannot see the sun” (“How Was a Day Determined before the Sun? – Creation
Moments” 2021). The Hebrew term for day “Yom” is used 3,000 times in the Bible and almost
exclusively to mean an ordinary twenty-four-hour day cycle. On the few occasions where it is
used to mean an indeterminate period, it is always clear from the context that it means something
other than a 24-hour day (day of trouble, day of the Lord, day of battle, etc). Whenever it is used
with an ordinal (1, 2, 1st, 2nd, etc.), it always means a specific day, an ordinary 24-hour day. The
validity is vital to the bible because of the sanctity of the scriptures. If the inherent truth of the
Bible were to be flawed, then that would mean God is wrong, and that’s against the Christian
worldview. The creation period is intended to be interpreted as precisely what it claims
happened, the presence of how life as humans know it creation. “The debate over the Genesis
creation days involves issues of enduring significance to the evangelical Christian community. It
involves our doctrine of knowledge (epistemology), doctrine of man (anthropology), defense of
the faith (apologetics), and method of interpretation (hermeneutics), all of which are intertwined
with the Genesis creation account” (Kulikovsky 2002).
Conclusion:
The framework theory essentially attempts to justify how the Bible could tell a story for creation
and not historical truth. As stated by Dr. Kulikovsky, “It involves our doctrine of knowledge.”
This is crucial because of the sanctity of the bible. From a Christian worldview, whatever God
says is undisputable truth, and the Bible is God-breathed, so how could there be doubt about the
historical accuracy of the book of Genesis? The view of allegorical creation is one to consider
because there was no human there to see creation. The point of how the translation for the term
“Yom” as simply just a passing of time is a significant point. However, the counterpoint of how
context is important for vocabulary and how, in most instances, when it is used in the Old and
New Testaments, it’s congruent with the context. The Bible is very clear about its intentions and
how it intends to distribute knowledge. The evidence stated in not enough to support the
Framework theory and for good reason the Bible has had a determined historical value for over
two thousand years and for good reason. This is not a reason to ultimately cast it away; however,
it is more of an excuse to further humans’ understanding of the Bible and the truth it holds.
Bibliography:
2011c. “What’s Wrong with the Framework Hypothesis?” Answers in Genesis. June 21, 2011.
https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/whats-wrong-with-the-framework-
hypothesis/.
Stambaugh, James. 1988. “Creation Was 24/6 and Recent | the Institute for Creation Research.”
Www.icr.org. September 1, 1988. https://www.icr.org/creation-recent.
“How Was a Day Determined before the Sun? – Creation Moments.” 2021. Creation Moments.
2021. https://creationmoments.com/article/how-was-a-day-determined-before-the-sun/.
Kulikovsky, Andrew. 2002. “Sizing the Day.” Answers in Genesis. April 2002.
https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/sizing-the-day/.
Davis, Ted. 2012. “The Framework View: History and Beliefs - Articles.” BioLogos. July 31,
2012. https://biologos.org/series/science-and-the-bible/articles/the-framework-view-
history-and-beliefs.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
