Compromising the Word of God: Day-Age, Gap, and Literary Framework

Beyond the Theistic Evolution Theory, which was covered in my previous blog, many evangelicals engage in other assumptions that are contrary to the word of God and His creation narrative. Unfortunately, these positions are veiled attempts to please men.

As such, the proposed compromises put forth different hypotheses, but they share many similarities. Most of all, they reject the historical narrative of Scripture. In this blog, I will highlight and review several theories that are akin to theistic evolution.

Day-Age Theory

Evangelical proponents of the Day-Age Theory indicate that each day in the creation account is an extremely long period of time. To support this position, many quote Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8, which state “one day is as a thousand years.” However, there’s a big issue with citing these verses; they do not even refer to creation. For example, 2 Peter is referring to the Second Coming. These verses are simply teaching that God is not limited by time. He is beyond the confines of His creation, not bound by it. But Hugh Ross, a major day-age advocate, states, “The day-age view upholds sola Scriptura, the doctrine that the Bible alone is the authoritative propositional revelation from God.”[1}

Evaluation

However, Ross disregards the details of Genesis’ historical narrative. The Hebrew word for time in Genesis 1:1–2:3, yôm (here translated as “day”), must be considered. When we examine how the word is used elsewhere in the Bible, we can logically deduce that it refers to a designated period of time. In Coming to Grips with Genesis, Trevor Craigen articulates, “However, elsewhere in the Pentateuch mention of creation does not mandate an immediate response, ‘Deep time is being revealed here!’ Instead, very quickly the reader grasps how day, month, week, and year are being used in their usual literal sense. They are words which cover a certain, definite span of time."{2}

Accordingly, we see the reference to the creation days in Exodus 20:11 coupled with the consistent meaning of yôm in the Pentateuch. How can confusion be generated?  The message of God’s meta-narrative is straightforward; however, the world will attempt to peel away at Scripture’s credibility. As such, the Apostle Paul states, “But I fear that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be corrupted from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.” (2 Corinthians 11:3).

The Gap Theory

Though it has similar traits to the other theories presented so far, the Gap Theory places a massive time gap (perhaps several billion years) between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. It puts forth that the world was destroyed and recreated in this gap. The theory was the first of its kind to attempt to reconcile Scripture with evolution, and it was promoted by a young Presbyterian minister, Thomas Chalmers. The popular ruin-and-reconstruction version claims that Satan rebelled and led creation in rebellion against God. As a result, God destroyed this original creation. Proponents believe that Genesis 1:2 describes the conditions of the world following the destruction.{3} The theory has several amended versions, and it displays some of the same characteristic flaws as the previously evaluated “old earth theories” of theistic evolution and day-age.

Evaluation

In Genesis 1:1-2, Scripture states, “1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2) And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.” Amazingly, the Bible defends itself! A key word demonstrates that time cannot exist between the creation of the heavens and earth and verse two. The Hebrew waw conjunctive is used in narrative sequence to denote consecutive actions, that is, actions occurring in sequence.{4} The English word “and” at the beginning of the verse is derived from the Hebrew waw. In context, Genesis 1 and 2 occur in sequence. In short, the earth’s initial form was formless and void. This does not support the destruction of an “original creation.” Furthermore, throughout Genesis 1, Yahweh refers to the different aspects of His original creation as good. Genesis 1:31 states, “And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Literary Framework

The literary framework interpretation suggests that Yahweh used the imagery of a normal week to serve as a figurative framework for God’s acts of creation. Likewise, it incorporates the notion that the creation days are not chronological while suggesting an

unending 7^th day of creation. Unfortunately, reformed scholar Meredith G. Kline invigorated the framework’s popularity.{5} Like other theories, literary framework basically tries to reclassify the genre of Genesis 1.

Evaluation

The literary framework notion overlooks the literal characteristics of Genesis, which include its structure, the Hebrew conjunctive waw, and the use of yôm as examples. It is very similar to the other theories pushed in many Christian circles. Proponents are victims of their presuppositions and ongoing indoctrination.

Conclusion

When it comes to the creation account in Genesis and many who profess Christ, perhaps Steven W. Boyd states it best,

"Were it not for the unproven and unprovable theories of evolutionary biology, geology, and cosmology, and the faulty but rarely challenged assumptions of radioisotope dating, no one would be questioning what kind of text this is or the age of the earth. This is a needless tragedy among evangelicals, needless because evangelicals do not have to adjust Scripture to accommodate science and a tragedy because by taking this stand, they unwittingly ally themselves with those who are trying to destroy the Bible."{6}

Ultimately, there is an inherent bias that many evangelicals cannot overcome, and unfortunately, their beliefs are derived from geologists and scientists who have substantial presuppositions against the Bible. Indoctrination via faulty science, public schools, social media, and yes, quite a few seminaries has compromised many an evangelical witness in Christ and the veracity of Scripture. The world loves this compromise, as many atheists and anti-Christian activists see it as an acknowledgement of defeat. Perhaps most sorrowful is the demonstrated lack of faith in the word of God by these professing Christians.

{1} Hugh Ross, “Old Earth (Progressive Creationism)” in Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, ed. J.B. Stump and Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 71. Kindle.

{2} Trevor Craigen, “Can Deep Time be Embedded In Genesis?” in Coming to Grips with

Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth, ed. Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury( Green Forest: Master Books, 2008), 202. Kindle.

{3} Ken Ham, The Lie: Unraveling the Myth: Evolution/Millions of Years (Green Forest: Master Books, 2024), 253. Kindle.

{4} Robert V. McCabe, “A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Week” in Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth, ed. Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury (Green Forest: Master Books, 2008), 217. Kindle.

{5} Robert V. McCabe, “A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Week, 211-239. Kindle.

{6} Steve W. Boyd, "The Genre of Genesis 1:1–2:3: What Means This Text?" in Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth, ed. Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury (Green Forest: Master Books, 2008), 18. Kindle.

---

1 Corinthians 3:19-20

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, “He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness”;  and again, “The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless.”

Ephesians 6:11

Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.