How do proponents of the “Framework hypothesis” hold to their view when God used the word “Yom” instead of “Olam” in Genesis 1?

Upvote:1

I know young earth creationists often claim the word "yom" refers only to literal 24-hour days, but this isn't true. This is the usual usage, but it is also used metaphorically to refer to a time period, much like the word "day" in English. Indeed, in Genesis 2:4, the same exact word "yom" is used to refer to the entire period of creation. If we believe that the Bible does not contradict itself, then we must say that at least one usage of "yom" in Gen 1-2 is not referring to a 24-hour period.

I haven't really decided for myself where I stand on this question. I'm a firm believer in the historical accuracy of the Bible. I'm not really sold on the framework hypothesis, but I would not say it's obviously wrong either.

I would also point out that modern science has proven that the length of a period of time is not absolute, but rather is determined by the reference frame of the observer. Even if we are to take Genesis 1 as absolutely historical, there is no human reference frame, and thus no reason to assume the timescale is amenable to a hypothetical human observer who didn't exist yet. Even if we take it as given that "yom" in Genesis 1 is always meant to refer to a 24-hour period, who is measuring that 24-hour period? There is nothing in the text to say that, if we had taken the measurements from an earth-based reference frame, we wouldn't have said the creation period took billions of years. The text doesn't say, nor even have details to imply, what reference frame the 6-day timeline is meant to be measured against. Whether we take the framework hypothesis or not, claiming the universe is billions of years old (from a certain reference frame), does not contradict the text. It only contradicts some assumptions that we commonly use to fill in details which God decided to omit.

More post

Search Posts

Related post