As an outgrowth of my own recent two-part study of the framework hypothesis in volumes 10 (2005) and 11 (2006) of the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, I have observed that this view of cosmogony is rapidly growing in popularity among evangelical educators and students in the western world. An article recently posted at Creation on the Web makes this very point. “The ‘framework hypothesis’ is probably the favourite view among respectability-craving seminaries that say they accept biblical authority but not six ordinary days of creation.”
Authors Drs. Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Jonathan D. Sarfati, and Carl Wielande provide a reason for the current popularity of this myopic interpretation of the creation account: “It is strange, if the literary framework were the true meaning of the text, that no-one interpreted Genesis this way until Arie Noordtzij in 1924. Actually it’s not so strange, because the leading framework exponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, admitted that their rationale for this bizarre, novel interpretation was a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged ‘facts’ of science.”
This critique is a modified extract from chapter 2 of the The New Answers Book: 25 Top Questions On Creation/Evolution. Because of the increasing popularity of the framework hypothesis, I highly recommend that you read the concise and helpful “Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history?” If you desire to do a little more reading, you can also ready my “A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Week (Part 1 of 2)” and “A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Week (Part 2 of 2)” (also if you have a chance check out my regularly updated current creation news, which is found on my “resources” page).