PMW 2021-001 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
In my last blog article I began presenting my latest book, As It Is Written, which is on creation. Creation necessarily impacts consummation because of the linear progress of history under God’s sovereignty. Therefore the postmillennialist should be interested in creation issues. And Six-day creation is a strong foundation stone for the postmillennial hope.
A rehearsal of the Framework argument
In that last article I pointed out the three exegetical foundations to the Framework Hypothesis, a major evangelical re-interpretive approach to the Creation narrative. I will quickly repeat those here, then provide a brief rebuttal to each. My book should be consulted for a thorough response.
The Framework Hypothesis argues that:
(1) Genesis 1 is structured around a literary triad of days that are not intended to be understood as chronological and historical, but theological and literary. For instance, Framework advocates argue that the creation of light on Day 1 parallels the creation of the sun on Day 4 and are therefore not successive days, but two ways of saying the same thing. The same is true of Day 2 (waters and sky) paralleling Day 5 (fish and birds), as wells as Day 3 (land) paralleling Day 6 (land animals and man).
As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?
Book by Ken Gentry
Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com
(2) Genesis 2:5 sets forth the providential nature of creation which rejects any need for “unnecessary supernaturalism.” In the Framework understanding this verse requires that we recognize the operation of slow, normal providence in creation week. They believe this verse is teaching us that there were no plants until it rained, which is the way the world operates today.
(3) The six-days of creation are presented by way of analogy when we recognize a two-register cosmogony (God’s eternal realm v. man’s temporal realm). They see Moses as using man’s seven-day work week as an analogy of God’s altogether different creation work. The six-days of creation are simply a symbolic, not literal, presentation of the fact that the world was created by God.
A rebuttal to the Framework Triad argument
My book, As It Is Written, should be consulted for a detailed rebuttal with full documentation. But just quickly I would note the following problems with the three-fold Framework argument.
Regarding the so-called triad of Genesis 1, with days 1, 2, and 3 paralleling days 4, 5, and 6, we must note that the triad lacks expected symmetry. And if Moses is presenting creation as a literary flourish as if it took God six days, then he failed.
We must recognize that the waters of Day 2 which correspond to the fish of Day 5 were actually created on Day 1 (note Gen 1:2). The seas in which the Day 5 fish swim, are not named as “seas” until Day 3. The seas specifically named on Day 3 have no corresponding agent on Day 6. The birds of Day 5 are associated with both the sky (of Day 2) and the land (of Day 3) according to Gen 1:20 and 22.
Furthermore, the alleged “literary” beauty is marred by God “blessing” on Days 5, 6, and 7, but not on Days 1, 2, 3, and 4. It is also marred by each day being declared “good,” except for Day 2. And Day 3 has two such benedictions.
Should Christians Embrace Evolution?
by Norman Nevin
Thirteen scientists and theologians offer valuable perspectives on evolution for concerned Christians.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com
We should also ask whether these occasional elements within the triad can overthrow the majestic march of days in Gen 1. The days of creation are emphasized as sequential with the clear numerical adjectives (first, second, third, etc.) attached to each of the six creation days.
In the final analysis, why would a literary beauty necessarily stand against a literal reality? God is a God of order and beauty. He surely could create the world in the order of the narrative while allowing for such a parallel between the first and second triad of days.
In my next article I will highlight the problem with the Framework view of Gen 2:5. But again, my book presents these matters in great detail.
Postmillennial Worldview 
I am concerned that you would not take Genesis as a literal creation, as written. The light in the early days could be from the light of God, the only light we require on the New Earth.
The light there cannot be God’s own light, because the light here is created: “let there be light.”
First of all, I want to thank you for your ministry and your research on revelation. I have benefitted greatly from your scholarship. I have always believed that the gap theory best fit the facts of creation. I’ve been influenced by Genesis Unbound by J. Sailhammer & The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walton. While I’ve read several books by Hugh Ross, The day age theory does not seem to fit the proper exegesis of Genesis. While I can agree that some dating methods are in error, the universe is clearly much older than the Young Earth Creationist present (Ussher’s chronology can’t be correct) – Even Septuagint shows difference (longer) in ages of patriarchs. My point is not to argue with you, (I see creation as six literal days as well), but rather to get your opinion.
In the final analysis, it is a matter of God’s revelation in his word. Which is why I accept Six-day Creation. Thanks for reading. But we will have to agree to disagree. You might want to check out my book: <em>As It Is Written.