A friend said he wanted to know why I reject the framework view of creation, opting instead for the literal view.

I suppose the answer to the question really boils down to one simple point: What does the text say?

Basically, I just don’t see anything in the text that would lead me to believe that the creation days are not literal, 24 hour days. I am convinced that one would only even attempt to understand the text in any other way if they start off with what Science declares from on high, and then come to the text in an attempt to reconcile the two.

The framework view recognizes a literary structure to the text, and I can only say amen to that. But I don’t see this as a reason to deny the narrative aspect of it. But that’s just what the majority of adherents of the framework interpretation that I have come into contact with do. They point out the literary structure in the text, and then say they don’t know whether or not the days are literal. They just know there is a structure there that teaches something about God, and that’s that.

But this is silly! If I may borrow an analogy from James Jordan, it’s like saying that a house cannot be yellow because it has a white picket fence. It’s a non sequitur.

Any honest exegesis of the text makes it strikingly clear that the author intended to convey ordinary, literal days. That’s what he was talking about, and that’s what he meant. And that’s what we ought to believe.