UP

Six Days of Creation:  Six Aspects

July 7, 2017
Copyright © 2012, Ronald W. Leigh

Bible quotations are from the New International Version

————————— Contents ————————— A. Introduction B. Narratives, figures, and sequence C. The structure of the six days D. The transition: evening to morning E. Evening and morning F. Unconvincing argument for sequence G. Difficulties avoided H. Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 I. The framework hypothesis rejected J. Conclusion ——————————————————————

A.  Introduction

We believe that Genesis was written by Moses under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  This position has been successfully argued by many conservative Bible scholars and needs no repetition here.  (Also see the section entitled Author in the paper Genesis 1-11.)

The usual questions

Genesis 1 describes God's creation of the heavens and the earth in terms of six days.  This raises many questions, such as:

• Are these days literal or figurative?
• How long are the days?  24 hours?  eons?
• Are there gaps between the days?  Do the days overlap?
• Do the days suggest a young earth (a few thousand years) or an old earth (a few billion years)?
• Do the days require us to set aside the theories of modern science?  Or vice versa?

Such questions are very old and very complex, and are raised by both friends and foes of the Bible.  Among friends, various views of the length of the creative week range all the way from nothing (instantaneous creation), to 24 hour days, to billions of years.

Some claim that Augustine (A.D. 354 - 430) believed that creation was instantaneous, but that claim is misleading.  He actually thought that creation took place both seminally (before time) and physically (in time).  The seminal creation, of course, could not take any length of time since time did not exist then.  Regarding the actual physical creation described in Genesis 1, Augustine wrote

What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!  (Augustine, City of God, Book 11, chapter 6)

Ephrem the Syrian (A.D. 306-373) combined instant creation with a literal 24 hour day.

Although both the light and the clouds were created in the twinkling of an eye, still both the day and the night of the first day continued for 12 hours each.  (commentary on Genesis 1)

A common view among the Church fathers was a literal 24 hour day.  For example, Victorinus (died A.D. 304), stated that

God produced that entire mass for the adornment of His majesty in six days … In the beginning God made the light, and divided it in the exact measure of twelve hours by day and by night.  ("On the Creation of the World")

This 24 hour day view is also widespread today.  For example, The Master's College of Santa Clarita, California, says in its doctrinal statement:

We teach the literal, grammatical-historical interpretation of Scripture which affirms the belief that the opening chapters of Genesis present creation in six literal days (Genesis 1:31; Exodus 31:17).  (section on the Holy Scriptures, paragraph 2)

Similarly, the "Affirmations and Denials Essential to a Consistent Christian (Biblical) Worldview," signed originally by sixteen evangelical scholars, states in article 7:

We affirm that the days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six, consecutive, literal (essentially twenty-four hour) days of Creation.
We deny that the days of creation are symbolic of long ages or that millions of years can be placed between the days or before the six days of creation.
(Printed as the second appendix in Coming to Grips with Genesis, edited by Terry Mortenson and Thane Ury, Master Books, 2008.  Also found online at www.answersingenesis.org/articles/affirmations-denials-christian-worldview.)

Other Christians claim that the creative days are long eons.  For example, Hugh Ross believes that the earth has a history extending back at least "four billion years," and claims that

a literal reading of the Genesis creation chapters integrates perfectly with the established scientific record  (The Genesis Question, NavPress, 1998, p. 86, compare p. 27)

It is important to note that, among those who respect the biblical account of creation, nearly all understand the creative days as a sequence, no matter how long each day might have been.

A different question

But there is a different question that we must ask.  This question belongs near the top of the above list of questions and will take us down a different path of inquiry.

• Are the creative days of Genesis 1 intended to describe a sequence?  Or are they intended to describe something else?

Some theologians claim that the numbered days of Genesis 1 provide an easily perceived, self-evident sequence.  For example, Buswell states:

It seems obvious that the material of 1:1 - 2:4 is intended to be understood in chronological order … The enumeration, "day one," "second day," "third day," "fourth day," etc. certainly indicates chronological sequence, and no recognized criterion of interpretation or of hermeneutics can make these words mean anything less.  (James Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Zondervan, 1962, vol. 1, p. 141, italics added)

I feel that we must insist that, poetry or prose, formal, artificial, parallel, or otherwise, Moses, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is telling us of an order of events in the creative work of God.  (op. cit. p. 144, italics added)

However, the presence of a sequence must not be obvious to everyone.  When Hummel comments on day 1 (verse 4) and day 4 (verse 14) of creation week, he points out that

Our problem of how the earth could be lighted (v. 4) before the sun appeared comes when we require the narrative to be a strict chronological account.  (Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts between Science & the Bible, InterVarsity Press, 1986, p. 209, italics in original)

Mickelsen reminds us that

Biblical narratives about creation are written in the style and outlook of ancient people. … events are not necessarily recounted in chronological order. … Chronology was not as important to ancient writers as it is to us.

Poetic sequence, subject matter, logic, or some other factor often determined the arrangement rather than chronology  (A Berkeley Mickelsen & Alvera M. Mickelsen, Understanding Scripture: How to Read And Study the Bible, Hendrickson, 1992, p. 103-104).

… it appears likely that it [Genesis] is written within a literary framework rather than in a chronological or scientific framework. This in no way lessens the great truths the creation account teaches. … God moved in an orderly way from a chaotic situation to one of form and beauty.  (op. cit. p. 107)

The purpose of this paper is to show that the six days of creation recorded in Genesis 1 represent six different aspects of creation, not six strictly sequential stages of creation.  This view is not motivated by a need to adapt the interpretation of Genesis 1 to the opinions of modern popular science.  We are not trying to make room for billions of years because we do not feel that there is good evidence for billions of years.  Rather, this view comes primarily from the application of the important hermeneutical principle of context, as will be explained in the following sections.

It should be no surprise to anyone that the material recorded in the six days of creation can be characterized as both topical and chronological.  This same characteristic is easily observed when you compare the first account of creation in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 with the second account of creation in Genesis 2:4-25.  It is also easily observed when you examine chapters 3 through 11 of Genesis.  (See the section entitled Reiteration in the paper Genesis 1-11.)

The fact that historical narrative is not always in strict chronological order is also easily observed when Matthew's account of Jesus' temptation is compared with Luke's.  In Matthew 4:1-11 Satan's temptation to "throw yourself down" from the highest point of the temple (verses 5-6) is recorded before his temptation to "bow down and worship me" in order to receive all the kingdoms of the world (verse 8).  But in Luke 4:1-12 these two temptations are recorded in the opposite order (see verses 5-6, 9).  Here are two historical narratives where the recorded order does not necessarily follow strict chronological order.  The emphasis in both of these passages is, not the exact sequence of events, but the nature of the temptations and Jesus' sinless response to each one.  But, of course, in Genesis 1 we have "first day," "second day," etc. which most interpreters have taken to indicate obvious sequence.  We will attempt to show why we believe that the use of "days" (evenings and mornings) is intended to emphasize, not a strict sequence of six days, but a transition on each day.

Readers who are familiar with the arguments regarding the length of the creative days may be thinking about Exodus 20:11 and 31:17.  We deal with those passages in a later section.

One more introductory comment:  The view presented in this paper is not the same as the Framework Hypothesis, which will be discussed near the end of the paper.

B.  Narratives, Figures, and Sequence

Both of the Genesis accounts of creation, 1:1 - 2:3 and 2:4-25, are historical narrative, but there is an obvious contrast in their style.  The first account is highly structured with repeating phrases, while the second flows more like typical narrative.  Nevertheless, both accounts are historical narrative.  They are not myth.  They are not mere poetry.

But it is not enough just to state a broad classification of a section of literature.  It would be a mistake to generalize on the nature of a narrative account and assume that it cannot include figurative language.  Most narratives will include figures of speech.

One of most commonly used figures of speech is the metaphor, which is an implied comparison in which one item (thing, person, event, etc.) is spoken of as if it were another item.  For example, saying that "Mr. Jones is a pillar in the church" borrows the characteristics of a physical pillar (say, a stone column) in a church building, such as strength, stability, support, or permanency, and applies similar notions to Mr. Jones.

Consider the first narrative following the creation accounts, the story of the fall of man.  After Adam and Eve ate the fruit, "the eyes of both of them were opened" (Genesis 3:7).  Here a person's understanding is spoken of as if it were that person's physical eyes.  And in the next narrative, about Cain killing Abel, we find such metaphors as "sin is crouching at your door" and "Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground" (Genesis 4:7, 10).  Such figures are readily recognized within the grammatical-historical interpretation of narratives in scripture.

So, even though we classify the two creation accounts as historical narrative, we must still allow for the possibility of figurative elements within those accounts.

Now consider the basic idea of a narrative – the fact that it tells a story that involves a sequence.  Of course, in the first creation account there is a definite overall sequence, as shown below.

Of course, besides the above overall sequence, everything that happened in Stage II occurred in a certain sequence when it originally happened.  But that does not require that it be described or reported in exact sequence.

For example, suppose you were writing a description of how an early homestead was constructed.  Because you want to emphasize the transition that the homestead site went through, you begin (similar to Stage I above) with a statement of the site in its natural condition and you end (similar to Stage III above) with a statement of how well the completed homestead served its intended purpose of being inhabited by people.  For the details (similar to Stage II above) you could create your description in two distinct forms.  One form would be a diary, a step-by-step report recording everything that took place every day over several months in exact sequence.  A second form could be a topical report, covering various aspects of the project such as the eight aspects listed below.

1. Removing many trees and boulders
2. Diverting the stream to bring water onto the land
3. Building the walls out of logs
4. Creating frames for the door and window openings
5. Making the door and windows and installing them
6. Building a fireplace for cooking and heating
7. Placing split shingles on the roof
8. Sealing the roof and walls against the weather

If your write-up was organized around these eight aspects, no one would assume that all the trees had to be removed before the stream was diverted.  Or that the walls were all completed before the fireplace was built.  Or that the door was installed before there were any shingles placed on the roof.  The report is obviously organized around aspects of the transition and is not intended to spell out the exact sequence.  Such a report would still be considered as narrative and would be factual and historical.

C.  The Structure of the Six Days

Regarding the first biblical account of creation, there is Stage I (introduction), Stage II (details), and Stage III, (conclusion) as described in the previous section.  Stage I and Stage III serve as the surrounding context for Stage II, so they are very important keys to the interpretation of the six days.

By the way, there is also the very first verse (1:1) which, according to some, describes the complete, original, perfect creation, with verse 2 implying some catastrophe calling for repair.  Others take the first verse as a title, or introductory summary, with verse 2 merely making it obvious that creation involved a process.  This latter view makes more sense.  There is also varied opinion on whether 2:4 caps off the account that precedes it, or heads the account that follows it.  But resolving these issues about 1:1 and 2:4 is not vital to the purpose of this paper, so we will leave both verses out of the present discussion.

Stage II, Genesis 1:3-31, contains the following obvious pattern.

• "And God said, 'Let …'"
• A description of what was said and what was done
• "And there was evening, and there was morning the [numbered] day"

The above pattern occurs six times.  In the third and sixth occurrence, "And God said, 'Let …'" appears twice.

A great deal of variation takes place in the middle section of each pattern, where different things are being described.  Some of the days are described briefly in as little as three verses, other days in greater detail using up to eight verses.

Here is a brief summary of the aspects (topics) for each day of creation

Day, reference	Aspect of Creation		Day, reference	Aspect of Creation
Day 1, Genesis 1:3-5	• Light ("day") separated from darkness ("night")		Day 4, Genesis 1:14-19	• Lights in the sky, to give light, govern day and night, and mark seasons
Day 2, Genesis 1:6-8	• Expanse ("sky") separated the waters under it from the waters above it		Day 5, Genesis 1:20-23	• Living creatures in the water and birds in the sky
Day 3, Genesis 1:9-13	• Water under the sky gathered ("seas") and dry ground appeared ("land") • Land produced vegetation		Day 6, Genesis 1:24-31	• Land produced living creatures • Man created in God's image, to rule over all animals • Vegetation given as food for man and animals
Day 7, Genesis 2:2-3 Since the heavens and earth had been completed in all their vast array, God rested

Some commentators make a great deal out of the parallelism that they see between days 1 through 3 and days 4 through 6.  But it is not difficult to find within these six days examples of both parallelism and lack of parallelism.

Examples of parallelism:

• Structure — The phrase "And God said" occurs once on day 1 and day 2, then twice on day 3.  Similarly, the phrase "And God said" occurs once on day 4 and day 5, then twice on day 6.
  
• Content —
  • Light "holders" or "sources" on day 4 answer to light on day 1.
  • Fish and birds on day 5 answer to waters and sky on day 2.
  • Land animals on day 6 answer to land on day 3.

Examples of lack of parallelism:

• Vegetation — To be parallel, the land's production of vegetation should be on day 6 to answer to the land on day 3.
• Man extra — Man appears as an extra on day 6 (the land animals answer to the land on day 3).
• Man unique — Man's creation in God's image is unique and finds no parallel with anything in any of the days of creation.
• Rest — The fact that God rested on day 7 has no parallel.

While some parallelism can be observed, parallelism does not appear to be the controlling factor.  It is much more likely that the controlling factor is the overall transition, as well as each "daily" transition, as explained in the next section.

D.  The Transition: Evening to Morning

What is the main point of the creation account in Genesis 1:2 - 2:3?  There is a core idea in this passage, along with many subordinate ideas which all support the core idea.  Like a good lecturer who summarizes his central truth both near the beginning and near the end of his lecture, Moses states something both before the six days and after the six days which we must take into account.  In Genesis 1:2, before the first day, we find a repetitive description of the beginning condition, and at the end of the sixth day, Genesis 1:31 - 2:2, we find a repetitive description of the final result.  The six days fill in the details and support this main point.  We must allow this starting point and ending point to help us understand the main idea of the passage, which in turn helps us understand the contribution to the main point made by each of the days.  Creation involved an overall transition from confusion to organization, as shown below.

These beginning and ending descriptions are opposites.  We are looking at a total transformation.  Thus, the overall creation moves from a disorganized state to an organized and purposeful state.  And each day has its own transition, which is simply one aspect of the overall transition.  Thus, the phrase "there was evening, and there was morning," understood figuratively, summarizes very well both the overall transition as shown above, and each of the six aspects of the transition as shown below.  Of course, the description of "evening" then "morning" fits perfectly with the transition that took place on day 1.  Then that same motif is carried over for each of the following five days.  Just as Jesus described the spiritual transition of believers using the contrast between "death" and "life" (John 5:24), Moses described the physical transition of creation using the contrast between "evening" and "morning."

So the phrase "there was evening, and there was morning" is figurative, as is the word "day."  However, what is being accomplished each day is still historical narrative.  In other words, each aspect of creation happened literally as described.

E.  Evening and Morning

Consider the phrase "there was evening, and there was morning."  If these portions of a day (evening, morning) were merely being used to mark the beginning and the end of a work day, we might expect the description of each day to be worded differently.  For example, we might expect Genesis 1:3-5 to say something like the following.

• There was morning (when God began working)
• Then … God created the light and separated it from the darkness …
• Then there was evening (God had finished his work for the first day)

Here the morning and evening are marking the start and the end of a work day.  But the biblical wording is quite different.  Instead of finding a marker before the description of the day's creative activities, and another marker after those activities are completed, in the biblical account we find both "markers" after the description of the day's activities, so they are not really time markers at all.  And they are placed in a strange order, evening then morning.  This would also suggest that they are not being used as time markers.

Why does the repeated phrase "there was evening, and there was morning" mention evening before morning?  The more common order is to mention morning before evening, and to mention day before night.  Outside of Genesis 1, we find the phrase "morning and evening" several times in the Old Testament, but we do not find the phrase "evening and morning."  Similarly, we find the phrase "day and night" much more frequently than the phrase "night and day."  So the common mode of expression was to mention the morning or the day first.  If each day of Genesis 1 were intended merely to mark off one block of time (whether a 24 hour day or an eon), we might expect to find the more common order, day then night, or morning then evening.  So when Genesis 1 uses the order evening then morning, we immediately recognize its intent.  It is a figurative way of expressing the transition from that which is dark, formless, and empty to that which is light, good, complete in its vast array, organized, and purposeful.

Evening is placed first because there was a progress from a less to a greater brightness and order and beauty.  (R. Payne Smith, Ellicotts Commentary on the Whole Bible, Zondervan, 1959, comments on Genesis 1:5)

Notice that day 7 is the only day that lacks the "evening" and "morning" motif.  If the creation week were given to us as a sequence of time periods, then day 7, being one more time period, should be described similar to the first six days and we would expect to find the phrase "there was evening, and there was morning – the seventh day."  But that phrase is missing, and the reason is obvious.  The transition was complete.  There was no more movement from emptiness to completeness on the seventh day because everything was already complete.  In other words, there was no more evening to morning transition.  God simply rested, or ceased his work.  (As others have observed, this was the rest of completion, not the rest of exhaustion.  The Hebrew word translated "rested" is shabath, which means to cease, desist, or rest.  It is the word from which we get our English word Sabbath.)

F.  Unconvincing Argument for Sequence

Robert McCabe goes into great detail attempting to prove from the Hebrew that the six days of creation are sequential.  His condensed article appears as Chapter 8, "A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Week," in Coming to Grips with Genesis, edited by Terry Mortenson and Thane Ury, Master Books, 2008.  (The full version appears online at dbts.edu/journals in two installments entitled "A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account," Parts 1 and 2).

In both versions of his article, McCabe discusses the waw consecutive.  Waw (vav) is the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet and is frequently used as a prefix on a verb to govern its tense and its relation to other verbs.  The waw consecutive is a common feature of Hebrew narrative literature, and is very often found in passages describing a sequence of events.  However, McCabe does admit that there are exceptions.

My argument is not that waw consecutive always denotes sequence, for, within a narrative sequence, it may occasionally represent non-sequential action …  (McCabe, op. cit., p. 217)

In a chart McCabe classifies the 46 occurrences of the waw consecutive in Genesis 1:3 - 2:3.  He translates

• 37 occurrences with "then"
• 8 occurrences with "and"
• 1 occurrence with "thus"

Our interest focuses on those occurrences of the waw consecutive at the beginning of verses 3, 6, 9, 14, 20, and 24, where each of the six days begins.  In each of these six locations, McCabe translates the waw consecutive with "then" rather than "and."  This constitutes his basic argument that the six days of creation are sequential.

However, one must wonder if this argument is really convincing.  It seems to be an obvious case of too much reliance on a general rule.  We observe that many other translators differ.  Interlinears, literal translations, and many standard translations use "and" rather then "then" in these six locations, including those listed below.

• Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament, John R. Kohlenberger III (Zondervan, 1987)
• The Hebrew-English interlinear of Gregory Lint and Stanley Horton, The Old Testament Study Bible, World Library Press, 1994
• Young's literal translation
• Darby's literal translation
• American Standard Version, 1901
• Revised Standard Version
• English Standard Version
• New International Version

Could all these Hebrew scholars have missed this?  Our conclusion is that the use of the waw consecutive at the beginning of each of the six days of creation does not require those days to be sequential in relation to the other days.

G.  Difficulties Avoided

When it is assumed that the six days are in sequence, rather than being six aspects of creation, various difficulties arise.  For example, there is the old problem of light being created before the light source, the sun.  Genesis records the creation of "light" on day 1 (verse 3) and "lights," including the sun and the moon, on day 4 (verse 14).

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning – the first day.  (Gen 1:3-5)
…
And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights – the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning – the fourth day.  (Gen 1:14-19)

A similar problem is seen with the creation of vegetation (which requires light) on day 3 before the creation of the sun on day 4.

Various solutions have been suggested for this problem.  Some point to passages such as Revelation 22:5 where the Lord gives light without using the sun.  Others claim that the sun was actually created on day 1, and only appeared (became visible from the surface of the earth) on day 4 due to a long period of cooling and clearing the air.  For example, Buswell states that

we are not to understand that the sun was created on the fourth day, but that on that day it became visible, due to the cooling of the earth and the clearing of the atmosphere. The light for the first three days was simply the light from the sun diffused through the cloudy atmosphere, the sun and other heavenly bodies being not yet visible.  (Buswell, op. cit. p. 144)

Buswell implies that such a view is clear from the wording.  However, the same Hebrew phrase is behind the words "And God said, 'Let there be'" in both verse 3 and verse 14.  The only difference comes after the identification of what was created.  Verse 3 says only that "there was light," while verse 14 adds the location of the lights along with their purpose.  Whether or not this addition is enough to shift the creation of the sun from day 4 to day 1 is very questionable.  It should also be noted that the same word for "made," found in verse 16 regarding the lights, is found on day 2 regarding the expanse (verse 7) and on day 6 regarding the wild animals (verse 25), and nobody suggests that the expanse or the wild animals were made earlier and only appeared on these days.

The point of our present discussion, however, is not to resolve this difficulty since it is a problem only for those who insist that the six days are a sequence.  We are merely pointing out that this entire difficulty is avoided when the creative days are seen as aspects of creation, rather than as a strict sequence.

H.  Exodus 20:11 and 31:17

Those who argue that the days of the creation week were literal 24 hour days often refer to passages about the Sabbath to support their view.  For example, in recording the ten commandments, Moses states that God said,

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. … For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Exodus 20:8-11)

Later, Moses records similar words from the Lord about the Sabbath.

The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.  (Exodus 31:16-17)

We can diagram the two basic elements in each of these passages as follows.

Here is their claim, which is very straightforward:  the basis and the resulting action must have the same sense, literal or figurative.  Since the resulting action (observing the Sabbath) is literal, the basis (the six days) must also be literal.

However, when we examine one of Moses' earlier statements, we see that it is possible for the basis to be figurative while the resulting action remains literal.

Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me." But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.  (Exodus 4:22-23)

Certainly Pharoah's "firstborn son" was a literal son.  However, Israel is not God's firstborn in any literal sense.  When God describes Israel as his firstborn, the word firstborn is being used in a figurative sense.

Remember that the individual Israel (formerly Jacob) was the second-born twin son of Isaac.  Later, through trickery he received the first-born's blessing from Isaac.  So Israel (Jacob) was not even Isaac's firstborn in a literal sense.  But, of course, Exodus 4:22-23 is talking about Israel as God's firstborn.  Even if we took this as referring to Israel the person, the figurative sense is obvious.  In addition, Israel in our passage certainly refers to the nation that came from Israel the person, so the figurative sense is even more obvious.  God favors, protects, and blesses the nation Israel like a father in that culture would favor, protect, and bless his literal firstborn son.

Thus, what we have in this passage is a figurative statement of the basis, and a literal statement of the result.  So it is possible that, in the two passages about the Sabbath, the six days are figurative while the Sabbath itself is literal.  In other words, neither of the passages about the Sabbath require us to understand the days of creation as literal 24 hour days.

But this does not mean that we agree with the framework hypothesis, as explained below.

I.  The Framework Hypothesis Rejected

The framework hypothesis is an approach to the creation account that has been around for nearly a century.  ("Hypothesis" is an unfortunate term, so we will use "approach.")  This approach sees the creative days as figurative, and not as a historical narrative.  It also sees the content of Genesis 1 as symmetrically and topically presented with two sets of three days, each set being parallel to the other set.  Day 1 and day 4 are parallel, so are 2 and 5, 3 and 6.  This is the "framework."

The claim is that day 1 and day 4 are describing the same event.  The same claim is made for the other pairs of days.  In addition, the days are not only figurative, they describe heavenly time rather then earthly time.  Thus the days represent long overlapping eons of earth time, compatible with modern scientific thinking about the development of the solar system.  Indeed, it seems obvious that a major motive of those promoting the framework hypotheses has been to make Genesis 1 fit the current scientific understanding, rather than letting the inspired passage speak for itself.

Our view rejects most of the above framework approach.  The only points of agreement are the notion that the days are describing topics or aspects, and the figurative use of "evening," "morning," and "day."  But there are important differences.  For one thing, we see Genesis 1 as historical narrative.  And, while there are some interesting connections between the pairs of days, we reject the idea that they are describing the same events.

One of the most basic differences between our view and the framework view is the fact that our view comes, not from an internal analysis of the structure of the 6 days, but primarily from the sharp contrast between the introduction to the six days (the emptiness and darkness of Genesis 1:2) and the conclusion (the finished product of 1:31 - 2:2).  In other words, we place a lot of weight on the context of the six days.

By the way, some who adopt the framework approach understand the evening and morning at the end of each day as referring to the evening of the present day and the beginning of the next day.  This arrangement is cited as a good reason why there is no evening-morning language included with the seventh day.  However, this arrangement also seems to deny any possibility of the days overlapping, as claimed by most who hold the framework approach.

J.  Conclusion

The view presented here, dealing only with the first Genesis creation account, favors neither a young earth nor an old earth.  The idea that each day is a different aspect of creation leaves the question of the length of the overall creation process entirely open.

• An instant creation could have these six aspects.
• A creation made up of six 24 hour days could have these six aspects.
• A longer creation could have these six aspects.

The basic point is this:  The six days describe the various aspects of God's creative activity, emphasizing that (1) God did it, and (2) in various ways God created the perfect environment for mankind, for, as we are explicitly told elsewhere,

he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited  (Isaiah 45:18)

Genesis 1 does not intend to spell out the exact sequence of God's creative acts, either its order or its length.  The question of the length of the overall creative process is best answered by other scriptural evidence.  And if other scriptural evidence is not conclusive, then the best answer will come from scientific evidence (as opposed to scientific theory).

Regarding other scriptural evidence, consider, for example, the fact that Jesus made several statements which can be taken to imply, not billions of years, but a relatively short time before the creation of man, the creation of the earth, and the first murder.

• at the beginning of creation, God 'made them male and female'  (Mark 10:6)
• the beginning, when God created the world  (Mark 13:19)
• the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel  (Luke 11:50-51)

Some consider these statements as strong evidence, from the Creator himself, that the earth and the universe are young.  See, for example, Terry Mortenson's "Jesus' View of the Age of the Earth," chapter 11 in Coming to Grips with Genesis, Mortenson & Ury, Master Books, 2008.  However, there is also the possibility that these passages are additional examples of adaptation, similar to the biblical references to vaulted heavens discussed in the section "Biblical Writers and Incorrect Models – the Vaulted Heavens" in the paper "Integrating Science and Theology."

Regarding scientific evidence, there is presently plenty of evidence for a short time frame.  The amount of real evidence for a very long time frame (billions of years) is greatly over estimated.

Regarding both of these lines of evidence, see the papers Cosmology and the Age of the Universe and Geology and the Age of the Earth.