The Framework Hypothesis
Maggie L. Jones
CRST290: History of Life (B09)
October 3, 2024
1
Abstract
The chosen topic of discussion in the various views of Creation is that of the Framework
Hypothesis. This interpretation sees the days of Creation in Genesis 1 as symbolic instead of
literal. Instead of being historical evidence and taking only six days, the Framework Hypothesis
suggests that the Genesis 1 account was written to describe what took place but not to provide an
accurate timeline. According to this view, Genesis was written to present theological truths rather
than accurate evidence or descriptions of the chronology of Creation. By illustrating the
symbolic nature of Genesis 1, a more serious consideration is encouraged when viewing the
timeline of Creation. By challenging the traditional view of Creation, the Framework Hypothesis
has garnered the attention of many and is essential in understanding the Christian belief system.
Overview of Non-traditional View
“And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the
seventh day from all His work which He had done” (Genesis 2:2, NKJV). On the seventh day of
Creation, God almighty rested from His work. This seventh day provides details as to what
happened before God rested; He was resting from His prior six days of work to create the
entirety of Creation. However, this narrative, the Bible’s first book, is often refuted. Many
scholars would like for people– believers and nonbelievers– to see the six days of Creation as no
more than a figment of what occurred. This “Framework Hypothesis,” as it is called, first came
into practice, as Herman Hanko writes, after a proposal “by Dr. Noordzij of the University of
Utrecht in the Netherlands in the early 1950’s.”1 Later scholars such as Dr. N. H. Ridderbos and
Meredith Kline furthered the argument for the Framework Hypothesis. What first began as a way
to avoid the truth of the Bible continues as a tool for arguing that the Bible is true while
1 Herman Hanko, The Framework Hypothesis and Genesis 1, Last modified 2001,
https://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_83.html.
2
including evolutionary characteristics. The Framework Hypothesis interprets the Hebrew word
“day” as an element of figurative language, concluding it was a simple way to show what all was
created while excluding a gap in time. As for the whole of Creation week, the Framework
Hypothesis widely suggests it is a literary week, a metaphor for the more significant time
Creation took. The Hypothesis does agree with the Scriptures that God existed and played a role
in Creation. Still, the view sees the Creation days as “not chronological, but theological,”2 as
Robert McCabe and Tim Chaffey state. The Framework Hypothesis does not make specific
claims about the timing of the beginning of Creation. However, it is essential to note that this
view sees the creation days as extended, therefore dating the earth in its view. With all of this, the
Framework Hypothesis does not require a belief in an Old Earth or universe. It also does not
specify which days correlate to the history of the Earth. Instead, the Framework Hypothesis
requires Creation Week not to be considered literal 24-hour days in a consistent pattern but more
as a literary metaphor or symbol, as a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.
Response to Non-traditional View
The Framework Hypothesis interprets the “day” in Genesis 1 as a literary device rather
than strictly a chronological viewpoint. Shaun Doyle discusses the aspect of the Framework
Hypothesis called the “two triads,” called Days 1-3 and Days 4-6, paralleling events. Doyle
concludes his argument on the topic, an opposition at that, saying, “Whatever the function of the
‘two triads’ pattern, it does not relativize the stated seven-day chronology of Genesis 1 in a way
that evinces non-historicity in that chronology.”3 This means no matter how similar the “triads”
3 Doyle, Shaun. Creation.com. 2021. “Word use patterns in Genesis 1: evidence against the
Framework hypothesis.” https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p160/c16084/j37_1_55-58.pdf.
2 McCabe, Robert, and Tim Chaffey. 2011. “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/.
3
are, Genesis should not and cannot be viewed as anything except a chronological cannon of a
historical event. For young Earth Creationists and those who follow the Framework Hypothesis,
there is no middle ground on beliefs. However, the two beliefs agree that God is real and that He
existed outside of time and space. Another agreement comes with that of the age of the earth.
John Morris shares, “Every honest attempt to determine the date, starting with a deep
commitment to the inerrancy of God's Word, has calculated a span of just a few thousand years,”4
saying the most significant number he has seen has been 15,000 years. There is much
disagreement on the literality of the word “day” between Creationists and those who practice the
Framework Hypothesis. They debate whether the “days” represent literal 24-hour periods or are
metaphors. As Dr. Don Batten and associates write, the Framework Hypothesis practices that the
Creation account found in Genesis “recognizes ordinary days but takes them in the context of
one large figurative whole.”5 Rather than conforming to a strict historical Biblical timeline, such
as the age of the Earth being relatively young or Adam being made out of dirt and breath. It is
important to note that Genesis does not focus on the chronological timeline but rather on the
importance of the events. The Framework Hypothesis is the opposite of this because it
emphasizes how long or in-depth Creation was. Because of this desire to put time gaps between
creation days, another gap is placed between Creation and the creation of Adam in the
Framework Hypothesis. The Framework Hypothesis presents significant changes to the
traditional view of the conventional view of Genesis according to critical Christian doctrines.
Such doctrines of Christianity related to the altered view of Genesis would include the nature of
5 Don Batten et al., “Is Genesis Poetry / Figurative, a Theological Argument (Polemic) and Thus Not
History? Critique of the Framework Hypothesis,” Creation.Com | Creation Ministries International, Last modified
August 31, 2017,
https://creation.com/is-genesis-poetry-figurative-a-theological-argument-polemic-and-thus-not-history.
4 Morris, John D. “How Old Is the Earth According to the Bible?” How Old Is The Earth According To The
Bible? Institute for Creation Research, February 1, 1995. Last modified February 1, 1995. Accessed September 12,
2024. https://www.icr.org/article/how-old-earth-according-bible/.
4
time, God’s creative work of creating something from nothing, and the relationship between faith
and science.
Conclusion
The Framework Hypothesis directly opposes what the Creation account of Genesis 1
teaches. In reading, Genesis 1 should be viewed as consecutive, literal 24-hour days, not as a
metaphor. Steven Boyd extensively researched whether the Creation account can be considered
literary. However, he concluded that it is not defensible to read Genesis 1 as poetry, by the
entirety of the Bible, should be read as a narrative, and finally, being read as a narrative can only
be explained as being six literal days.6 By recognizing the divine nature of the Biblical texts,
scholars should be able to conclude that the Scriptures are a historical document. Hebrew
language in other passages shows that the Bible is not a reference to what could have happened,
nor are they imaginative. The Bible, specifically the Creation account of Genesis, gives
understanding to religious and scientific exploration for truth.
6 Boyd, Stephen. 2004. Review of The Biblical Hebrew Creation Account: New Numbers Tell the Story.
Institute for Creation Research. Acts and Facts. October 1, 2004.
https://www.icr.org/article/biblical-hebrew-creation-account-new-numbers-tell-.
5
Bibliography
Batten, Don, David Catchpoole, Carl Wieland, and Jonathan D. Sarfati. “Is Genesis Poetry /
Figurative, a Theological Argument (Polemic) and Thus Not History? Critique of the
Framework Hypothesis.” Creation.Com | Creation Ministries International. Last modified
August 31, 2017.
https://creation.com/is-genesis-poetry-figurative-a-theological-argument-polemic-and-thu
s-not-history.
Boyd, Stephen. 2004. Review of The Biblical Hebrew Creation Account: New Numbers Tell the
Story. Institute for Creation Research. Acts and Facts. October 1, 2004.
https://www.icr.org/article/biblical-hebrew-creation-account-new-numbers-tell-.
Doyle, Shaun. Creation.com. 2021. “Word use patterns in Genesis 1: evidence against the
Framework hypothesis.” https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p160/c16084/j37_1_55-58.pdf.
Hanko, Herman. The Framework Hypothesis and Genesis 1. Last modified 2001.
https://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_83.html.
McCabe, Robert, and Tim Chaffey. 2011. “What’s Wrong with the Framework Hypothesis?”
Answers in Genesis. June 21, 2011.
https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/whats-wrong-with-the-framework-hyp
othesis/.
Morris, John D. “How Old Is the Earth According to the Bible?” How Old Is The Earth
According To The Bible? Institute for Creation Research, February 1, 1995. Last
modified February 1, 1995. Accessed September 12, 2024.
https://www.icr.org/article/how-old-earth-according-bible/.
NKJV Journal the Word Bible. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1982.
