The Framework in Genesis 1 — Does it exist?
As part of his defense of a literal young-earth interpretation of Genesis 1, Todd Beall claims that the framework pattern in Genesis 1 does not exist. Here is the criticism, plus my comments [inside the brackets]:
The pattern itself does not hold. A few examples will suffice. First, the light of day 1 is not dependent on the sun, so the sun is hardly the “ruler” of it. [He is criticizing Meredith Kline's pro-framework ideas about "rulers" which are speculative and are not part of the basic framework, so criticisms of ruler-arguments, highlighted in purple, are not relevant when deciding whether or not the basic framework-pattern exists.] The light of day 1 is a special creation of God, distinct from the sun. If some have a problem with understanding light without the sun, then they should recognize that something similar will be true in the eternal state. According to Rev 21:23 and 22:5, the sun will not be needed at all, since the Lord Himself is the Light. So just as in the first three days of the creation week, in the eternal state there will once again be light without the sun. Second, the waters existed on day 1, not just day 2. [So what? The parallel is between the SEPARATIONS of water-and-sky in Day 2 and the water-and-sky creatures in Day 5.] Third, in v. 14 the “lights” of day 4 are set in the “expanse” created in day 2 (not day 1). [Again, the criticism is trivial, because here the parallel is between the SEPARATION of day-and-night in Day 1 and the day-and-night producers of light in Day 4.] Fourth, the sea creatures of day 5 were to fill the “water in the seas” which were created on day 3, not day 2, contrary to the chart above (see Gen 1:10) [This is another trivial criticism because it should be easy for Beall, and his readers, to understand that in the separation on Day 3 the LAND appeared, and this merely separated the sea-water, which was one result of the separations in Day 2, into different parts.]; and none of the sea creatures or birds or land creatures other than man were to “rule” anything anyway! Finally, man was created on day 6 not to rule over the land and vegetation (created on day 3), but over the land animals created on day 6 and the sea creatures and birds created on day 5! In other words, despite the nice chart, the patterns simply do not hold up!
These trivial criticisms don't weaken the support for a confident conclusion that the framework-patterns do exist. { Similar criticisms, which may seem strong until they are examined, are also made by other authors. }
On the other hand, I agree with Beall's claim that the framework does not PROVE the 6 days could not be chronological, as explained in my brief outline of the framework in Genesis 1: "The meaning intended by God for the six days could be only structural (not chronological, not making statements about the sequence or duration of creation), or both structural and chronological (this would be compatible with either young-earth or day-age views), or — if the framework is illusory — only chronological (as in a typical young-earth view)." Yes, the days could be "both structural and chronological," but they also could be "only structural" so the rigidity demanded by young-earth advocates (who claim Genesis 1 SHOULD be interpreted chronologically) is not justified.
CREATIONIST INTERPRETATIONS OF GENESIS 1
(a wide range of ideas from different authors)