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 logical framework formed by the six days. Genesis 1:2 describes two problems: the earth was "formless and empty." The two solutions are to produce form, and to fill. 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); and 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 |
A coherent form-and-fill structure
seems clear. After recognizing this, we can ask whether the six days
are also chronological. 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).
A
major difficulty for chronological interpretations is the creation of the
sun in Day 4, after three 24-hour days (that were not normal solar days) if
a young earth, or following a long period with plants (but without the solar
energy used by plants) if an old earth. {note: Advocates
of young-earth and day-age views have responsed to these questions, but are
their proposals adequate? also: Most criticisms of a framework
view focus on "extras" that don't need to be associated with the
view, instead
of simply asking
"Is there a framework?"; the obvious answer is "yes" so
their
evasion is understandable, but it isn't intellectually honest.}
It is important to recognize that nonchronological
does not mean nonhistorical. In a framework interpretation,
Genesis 1 describes historical events that actually occurred. These
real events are just described in a way that is logical, not chronological. This
is consistent with the fact that history is often written (now and in the
past,
in the Bible and elsewhere) with a topical structure in
which topics are arranged in a logical framework,
not in a chronological
sequence.
In Genesis 1, for example, Days
1 and 4 describe two related aspects of what actually happened during history — there
was a
separation of light from darkness (in Day 1) due to God's creation of our
sun (in Day 4) — even
though there was no separation (Day 1) until the sun was created (Day 4). When
combined, the "form and fill" description in Days 1 and 4 is historical
and logical, but not chronological. Similarly, Days 2 and 5 describe
two historical aspects of creation for the sea (filled with
sea animals)
and
sky (filled with sky animals), as do Days 3 and 6 (for the creation of land
with land plants, and land animals that ate the land plants).
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 complete and orderly, in
both structure (the forms) and content (the fillings).
All options for interpreting 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 not divine. God
declared the creation to be "very
good" so we can reject any idea that physical things 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.