1. an excerpt from Christian
Views of Science and Earth History by Rich Milne and Ray Bohlin:
Another view of the account of
creation according to Genesis that has become popular with progressive creationists
as
well as theistic evolutionists is the structural framework hypothesis. {8}
This literary framework begins with the earth formless and void as stated in
Genesis 1:2. The first three days of creation remove the formlessness
of the earth, and the last three days fill the void of the earth. On
days one through three God creates light, sea and sky, and the land. On
days four through six, God fills the heavens, sky, sea, and land.
There was a pattern in the ancient
Near East of a perfect work being completed in six days with a seventh day
of rest. [editor's note: This supports a claim
that the six-day framework is a worldview-related
literary structure.] The
six days were divided into three groups of two days each. In
Genesis chapter one we also have the six days of work with a seventh day of
rest,
but
the six days are divided into two groups of three days. So
maybe this
was only meant to say that God is Creator and His work is perfect.
8 (footnote):
Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary
on the Book of Genesis: Part 1: From Adam to Noah, trans. Israel Abrahams
(Jerusalem Magnum Press, 1978), 12-17.
Henri Blocher, In
the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis, trans. David G. Preston
(Leciester Press and Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1984),
49-59.
2. an excerpt (with extra ideas added)
from an FAQ about Creation, Evolution,
and Intelligent Design by
Craig Rusbult:
One interpretation of Genesis 1 is based on the literary framework formed by the six days. This framework describes the history of creation in a logical structure that is defined by two connected problems in Genesis 1:2 — the earth was "formless and empty." The connection between these two problems is accentuated by the rhyming phrase used for them in the original Hebrew, tohu wa bohu. The two connected solutions are to produce form, and to fill, with a parallel relationship (shown in the "paired colors" below - blue for 1/4, green for 2/5, purple for 3/6) between three aspects of their solution. The first 3 days produce form by separations that produce light and darkness (for day and night), waters above and below (in sky and sea), and land (with plants); the second 3 days fill these forms with sun for day and moon for night, birds for sky and fish for sea, and land animals that eat plants:
| produce form by separation | fill each form | |||
| 1 | separating day and night | 4 | sun and moon for day and night | |
| 2 | separating sky and sea | 5 | sky animals, sea animals | |
| 3 | separating
land and sea, land plants are created |
6 | land
animals and humans, plants are used for food |
Days 1 and 4 describe
two related aspects of what happened in creation history — there
was a separation of light from darkness (Day 1) due to God's creation of
our sun (Day 4). But there could be no literal physical separation (Day 1) until
the sun was created (Day 4). If this causal relationship is correct,
the "form
and fill" description
in Days 1 and 4 is logical but is not chronological. In another "form
and fill" relationship, Days 2 and 5 describe two historical aspects of creation
(for creating a sea filled
with
sea
animals, and sky filled with sky animals) and the actions in Day 2 occur
before those in Day 5. In a similar way, we see two pairs of related
creations in Days 3 and
6 (for
creating land filled with land animals including humans). {note: The separation in Day 2 is compatible with either of two interpretations for raqia, either as an "expanse of sky" with the water in clouds that can produce rain, or as a "solid firmament" that separates the waters above and below, with the space between these waters becoming the sky.}
When we see
the histories combined — when we view God's work in groups of threes
(1-2-3, 4-5-6) and also twos (1-and-4, 2-and-5, 3-and-6) — the six
days describe God's creation as being orderly and complete, in
both structure (the forms) and content (the fillings).
A coherent form-and-fill structure
seems clear. After recognizing this logical structure, we can ask
whether the six days are also chronological. The
meaning intended by God could be only logical (not chronological,
not making statements about the sequence or duration of creation), or both
logical and chronological (this would be compatible with
either young-earth or day-age views), or — if there is no framework — only
chronological (as in a young-earth or day-age view). { Based
only on the text, can we conclude that the framework
is non-chronological? Or, if we view scripture as having two levels of authorship, by humans and by God, we may get different answers when we ask "did the original human writers think their description was chronological?" and "did God intend it to be chronological?" }
It's
important to recognize that non-chronological
does not mean non-historical. In
Genesis 1 the literary framework is
a historical framework because it is used to describe
historical events that actually
did occur. These
real events are organized by topic, so the result is called topical history. This
is consistent with the fact that history is often written by arranging
topics in a logical
framework, not in a chronological sequence. For
example, a comprehensive history of the 1900s could be written using a chronological
organization, beginning at 1900 and including many aspects of history
(religious, cultural, political, military,
economic,
educational,...) and then doing this for 1901, and continuing in 1902 through
1999. Or
a historian could choose a topical organization by describing religious
aspects of the century's history, and then cultural
aspects, and so on. { note: In practice, written
history is often organized in ways that are less simple, that cannot be
so easily
categorized. }
QUESTIONS
Most criticisms of a framework view avoid the obvious
question — Is there a framework? — because the obvious answer is
YES, so instead the criticisms focus on "extras" that don't need
to
be
associated
with a framework view. / Is there a framework? You
can answer this for yourself by reading the text of Genesis 1 carefully, with
an
open
mind, and I think you'll see the framework with two logical patterns (123 456,
14 25 36) in the six days.
A
major difficulty for chronological interpretations is a creation of the
sun in Day 4. In a 144-hour creation this would require three 24-hour
days that were not normal solar days. And in a day-age view with each yom being
a long period of time in a creation process lasting billions of years,
plants
would have to exist for a long time without the solar energy
they need. Advocates
of young-earth and day-age views have responsed to these questions, but
are
their answers adequate?
AGREEMENT
All interpretations of Genesis
1 should acknowledge and emphasize the important theological statements
in Genesis 1: All
that we see in nature is a creation of God, subordinate to God. There
are no polytheistic "nature gods" so we should worship only the
one true God who created everything. Nature
is placed in proper perspective; God's creation is good but is not divine. God
declared the creation to be "very
good" so we can reject
any idea that physical things (in the creation) are intrinsically bad; our
problem is sin, not physicality. And
humans are special because God created us in his own image.
3. excerpts from a recent paper by Carol Hill — An
Alternative to Concordism and Divine Accomodation: The Worldview Approach — published
in Perspectives
on Science and Christian Faith, June
2007:
The basic premise of the worldview approach is that the Bible in its original text accurately records historical events if considered from the worldview of the biblical authors. .....
The most important aspect of the literary view is that it maintains that Genesis 1 was written following the convention and style of literary works prevalent in the ancient Near East about 4,000 years ago. And that is where the worldview approach comes in because in order to correctly interpret Genesis 1, one must understand the mindset of the people who wrote the original Genesis text.
Here is the worldview approach to Genesis 1. The whole chapter of Genesis 1 is based on a system of numerical harmony. Not only is the number seven fundamental to its main theme (God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh), but it also serves to determine many of its details. To the Mesopotamians, seven was the number of fullness and perfection, and thus the basis of ordered arrangement; also, particular importance was attached to it in the symbolism of numbers. It was considered a perfect period (unit of time) in which to develop an important work, the action lasting six days and reaching its conclusion and outcome on the seventh day. It was also customary to divide the six days of work into three pairs; i.e., into two parallel triads of days. So, a completely harmonious account of creation, in accord with other ancient examples of similar schemes in the literature of that time, and using the rules of style in ancient epic poetry and narrative prose of the ancient Near East, would be the parallel form of symmetry found in Genesis 1. In Genesis 1 the first set of three days represents a general account of creation, while the second triad is a more specific account of the first three days. [you can see this 3-and-3 structure in Table 1] .....
The Genesis author was simply writing in the ‘politically-correct’ cosmogenic
and prose-narrative style of that day. Thus, the Genesis 1 text was not
meant to represent a sequential order of creation or one that needs to fit
with modern science. It was simply the literary way that writers of that
day wrote down their narrative thoughts. In other words, God gave the
revelation to the people mentioned in Genesis, but then the biblical authors
wrote this revelation down in their own literary style.