Home > apologetics, creationism, interpretation > >Comparing the days of creation

>Comparing the days of creation

>The framework hypothesis claims Genesis 1 is a literary device not intended to teach chronology. It claims this is seen in the symmetry between the first 3 days and the second 3 days. Such symmetry would not deny a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. There are other examples of literal events that have symmetry (Numbers 7). There are also other arguments for a literal interpretation which I am not going to touch on here.

The argument is God created the environments on days 1 to 3, a different environment each day, and filled those environments on the next 3 days; day 4 corresponding to day 1, 5 to 2 and 6 to 3. So how symmetrical is Genesis 1?

Going thru Genesis 1 what is created when?

  • Day 1: Light, day(time), nighttime
  • Day 2: Expanse (sky, space, heavens)
  • Day 3: Land, seas, plants
  • Day 4: Sun, moon, stars
  • Day 5: Water animals, air animals
  • Day 6: Land animals, man

So we have day 4 creations residing in the expanse of day 2 while bearing the light that was created on day 1.

We have day 5 creatures filling the sea of day 3 and flying on the face of the expanse of day 2

And day 6 creatures live on the land of day 3.

While there is some correspondence between 1 and 4, 2 and 5, 3 and 6, it is neither exact nor compelling, and inadequate to override the several other evidences that Genesis 1 is literal narrative history.

  1. DuckMan
    2007 August 29 at 17:29

    >Wow. The only thing I got out of Genesis 1 which I wasn’t told when I was growing up is that without the sun and moon we aren’t really sure at all how long the first three days were. I’d never thought of trying to pair up the days or anything like that.

  2. 2007 August 30 at 19:04

    Okay, I know I made a comment here yesterday, so what happened to it?

  3. 2007 August 31 at 03:58

    Read the most recent post!

  4. 2007 August 31 at 17:11

    Okay. So long as I’m not being singled out for censorship.
    ;)

  5. 2007 August 31 at 19:34

    Anyway, my first comment was something about how I had never viewed the days of creation in pairs. I had noticed that the time periods for the first three days seemed to be pretty nonspecific given that the sun and moon don’t show up until day four.

  6. 2007 September 1 at 04:43

    I had noticed that the time periods for the first three days seemed to be pretty nonspecific given that the sun and moon don’t show up until day four
    No, it is very specific, the context of the passage and the ways the days are discussed give them that specificity. I have written a post and will try and put it up in the next month. If you can’t wait, here is a link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/framework-interpretation-critique-part-one

  7. 2007 September 1 at 18:48

    I believe that the six days of creation were literal days, with the proviso that “day” in the scripture is defined as evening followed by morning. My understanding is that the Hebrew used for evening is literally “sun setting” and that for morning is “sun rising”. If the sun and moon don’t come on the scene until day four, we aren’t given enough information to know how long the first three days were. (And I’m not convinced about how long the next three days were.)
    That’s what I was trying to say.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: