The Framework Hypothesis—Another Compromised View

The Framework Hypothesis—Another Compromised View

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, August 8, 2025 (Donate)

With the bombardment of the idea of “millions of years” in the 1800s and 1900s, many Christians didn’t know what to do with it. Some Christians (e.g., Scriptural geologists) fought against it and recognized that rock layers were largely from the Flood of Noah as opposed to slow gradual accumulations over millions of years. Good for them—they had it right!

However, a number of leading theologians decided to mix this origins story with the Bible (this is called syncretism or compromise). So, they decided to put millions of years of rock layers into Genesis 1 before Adam and deleted a global flood to a little local Flood. They knew they couldn’t fit millions of years between Adam and Christ.

Image from Presentation Library

One popular view was gap theory (Thomas Chalmers), another was day-age/progressive creation[1] (Hugh Miller) and another theistic evolution (Asa Gray). In this article, I want to discuss another compromised view that showed up later than these other three and is a little less known—Framework Hypothesis.

 

Compromised positions; Image from Presentation Library

The Framework Hypothesis was developed largely by Meredith Kline in the late 1950s. Since then, it is a view held by some theologians and scholars who attempt to reconcile the Genesis creation account with long-age or evolutionary interpretations of origins.

According to the Framework Hypothesis model, the six days of creation in Genesis 1 are not meant to be understood as literal, chronological 24-hour days. Instead, they are viewed as a literary framework or poetic structure that conveys theological truth, but not historical or scientific fact. This interpretation often divides the creation week into two triads of days:

• Days 1–3: Formation (light and darkness, sky and sea, land, and vegetation)
• Days 4–6: Filling (sun, moon, stars; birds and sea creatures; land animals and man)

Proponents argue that this literary parallelism is meant to be symbolic rather than literal history. And with this, they then argue that evolutionary origins are perfectly acceptable. Thus, it is simply a model to reject the plain and straightforward reading of Genesis 1 to try to justify accepting an evolutionary worldview with millions and billions of years of earth history before Adam and Eve.

Why Reject The Framework Hypothesis? The Framework Hypothesis should be rejected for several biblical, theological, and hermeneutical reasons.

It Undermines The Authority of Scripture

The plain reading of Genesis 1 indicates God created everything in six literal, consecutive 24-hour days. This is supported by the repeated phrase: “And there was evening and there was morning, the first day,” etc. as well as subsequent passages like Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17. The grammar and structure are written as a literal historical narrative, not poetry.

The Framework Hypothesis, by treating the text as figurative or literary, undermines the authority and clarity of the Bible. Furthermore, it elevates autonomous human interpretations and external ideas like secular humanistic interpretations of origins above the plain meaning of the text.

Lack of Church Support Historically

Just as powerful is that no subsequent Bible author, church father, or reformer ever held to the Framework Hypothesis. The whole reason the Framework idea was developed was to mix the secular religion with a Christian worldview by reinterpreting Genesis for an evolutionary worldview.

The lack of support from later Bible authors should be a noted and highlighted. Proper interpretation uses Scripture to interpret Scripture. Yet, Bible authors repeatedly held to Genesis as literal narrative, not a poetic view for an evolutionary origins account.

Framework Hypothesis Contradicts The Biblical Definition Of A Day

Genesis 1 clearly defines a “day” as an evening and a morning. The Hebrew word for day (yom) when combined with a number and the phrase “evening and morning,” always refers to a normal, literal day in Old Testament usage.

The Framework view disregards these contextual clues and reinterprets them based on modern secular assumptions rather than biblical ones. That should be a big red flag.

Framework Hypothesis Disconnects Genesis From The Rest Of Scripture

Genesis 1 is foundational to the rest of Genesis. Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible. So, Genesis 1 had better be interpreted correctly. Other parts of Scripture treat the creation account as historical truth. For example:

• Exodus 20:11 (part of the Ten Commandments) says (NKJV): For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. This command is based on the literal pattern of God's creative work.
• Jesus in Mark 10:6 references the creation of male and female as occurring “from the beginning of creation,” not after billions of years.

The Framework Hypothesis would require that these references are also metaphorical or mistaken, which creates more theological problems (e.g., violated the concept of a week) and greatly undermines the reliability of Scripture. Consider a major theological problem in the next section

Death Before Sin

The Framework Hypothesis has a firm belief in an old earth and evolutionary processes, both of which require death, suffering, and disease for millions of years before man appeared. This contradicts the biblical teaching that death entered the world through Adam’s sin (Genesis 1:29-31 coupled with the curse in Genesis 3, Deuteronomy 32:4, Romans 5:12 [human death] and Romans 8).

If animals and humans were dying for ages before the Fall, the gospel's foundation is compromised because death and suffering would be labeled very good and perfect (Genesis 1:31, Deuteronomy 32:4). Are we to believe that death and suffering—the punishment for sin—is actually good, wonderful, and perfect instead? No. Thus, death could not enter into creation until after sin—death is a repercussion and punishment for sin. This is why we have a sin-death problem that Christ needed to solve through His death, burial, and resurrection.

Death before sin undermines the Gospel of Christ coming to rescue us from our sin and the death we caused in creation; Image from Presentation Library

Framework Hypothesis Reflects Compromise With Secular Thinking

The Framework Hypothesis as an attempt to accommodate secular views of origins, particularly those involving deep time and evolution. Rather than allowing Scripture to interpret itself, this hypothesis imposes extra-biblical ideas onto the text.

Christians must begin with the Bible as their supreme authority, not reinterpret it to fit current secular models or cultural pressures. Secular humanism is a false religion and there is no reason for Christians to succumb to that religion and mix it with their Christianity.

Conclusion

The Framework Hypothesis is an unbiblical compromise that undermines the authority, clarity, and even the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

By denying the literal, historical nature of the creation week, it introduces confusion, misrepresents God’s Word, and opens the door to further reinterpretations of Scripture based on human reasoning rather than Christ’s revelation. It is not too hard for an all-powerful God to create the universe in six literal 24-hour days approximately 6,000 years ago, as plainly revealed in Genesis 1. 

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children. 

---

[1] Progressive creation is a later variation of day-age.

Are Biblical Creationists Divisive?

Are Biblical Creationists Divisive?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, May 6, 2025 (Donate)

Biblical creationists[1] are often accused of causing division in the church. It is claimed that their insistence on accepting Genesis as narrative history introduces dissension by majoring on a “minor” doctrine. However, as will be shown, quite the opposite it true.

Much of Europe have been devastated by divisiveness and compromise (my wife and I in Sweden)

Who Is Really Being Divisive?

Far too often people have the wrong impression about what it means to be divisive. Those who are divisive are those who are against the clear teachings of the Bible. Paul made this clear in his letter to the Christians in Rome.

Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple. (Romans 16:17–18, NKJV)

Jude also confirmed that unbiblical beliefs cause divisions:

But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts. These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit. (Jude 1:17–19, NKJV)

Jude wrote that these divisions are caused by sensual, or worldly-minded, beliefs. This should serve as a warning to those who accept man-made ideas that are opposed to the clear teachings of Scripture.

What are some of those clear teachings of Scripture?

·       Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin (Genesis 2:17, 3:17; Romans 5:12).

·       Man and animals were originally vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30).

·       The week is composed of seven normal-length days (Genesis 1:1–2:4; Exodus 20:11).

·       All people are descendants of Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:26–28, 3:20).

·       People began to wear clothing after sin entered the world (Genesis 3:7, 21).

·       Thorns and thistles resulted from the Curse God placed on His creation after sin entered the world (Genesis 3:18).

·       The Flood of Noah’s day was global in extent (Genesis 6–8).

These are not new doctrines—Paul, the other apostles, and Christ Himself accepted these teachings. They (and biblical creationists today) understood that Genesis is a record of actual historical events. As a corollary of this, biblical creationists accept, based on careful study of the Bible, that the earth is thousands of years old (not billions).

The questioning of these teachings by many in the Church began in earnest around two hundred years ago. This was not due to a reexamination of Scripture, but rather because the culture had begun to teach an earth history of “millions of years.”[2] The acceptance of the culture’s ideas about the past has led to the reinterpretation of Genesis to fit with these man-made ideas. Some of these reinterpretations are the framework hypotheses, gap theory, progressive creation, and theistic evolution.

Image from Presentation Library

Each of these views attempts to combine the secular/evolutionary view of millions of years with the biblical view of history. In doing so, these views reject one or more of the clear teachings listed above. For example, each view rejects that the Genesis Flood was a global event. Whenever one combines a man-made view with the Bible, something has to give. In most cases, this something is the Scripture. When one mixes the Word of God with another belief system, the result is doctrines that deviate from the Bible’s clear teachings.  

Sadly, these compromising beliefs have infiltrated many churches, Christian colleges, and seminaries. When a biblical creationist teaches people what the Bible plainly says, he is often told by adherents of these compromising views that he is being divisive. However, according to Paul, the ones causing division are those who deny the doctrines clearly taught in Scripture. The divisive ones are those who mix the Bible with secular views and refuse to heed the call to return to the clear teachings in the Bible. 

Wasn’t Jesus Divisive?

Some have claimed, based on the following passages, that Jesus was divisive.

For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. (Luke 12:52–53; NKJV, italics added) 

So there was a division among the people because of Him. (John 7:43; NKJV, italics added)

Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to “set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law”; and “a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.” He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. (Matthew 10:34–38; NKJV,  italics in original)

Carefully reread these passages and note that Jesus was not divisive! The people were divided because of the message. Jesus’s message conformed to the doctrines laid down in the Old Testament; He came to fulfill the Law, not abolish it (Matthew 5:17)! 

As the perfect God, He was the One who inspired the writings of the Old Testament in the first place. He wasn’t divisive; rather, those disagreeing with Him were causing divisions. Christ knew that His message would cause division among the people because many wouldn’t believe and wouldn’t adhere to the doctrines previously established.

The passages in Luke, John, and Matthew teach that the people were divided. There were those who received what Jesus taught (which is what the Scriptures taught, and thus was not divisive), and there were those who didn’t. The ones who were divisive were those not adhering to what Jesus taught.

How Should I Deal With Those Who Are Divisive?

Paul and Barnabas’ message divided the Jews. Some followed the apostle’s teachings and others didn’t. Remember, those being divisive were the ones opposed to the scriptural teachings.  

Therefore they stayed there a long time, speaking boldly in the Lord, who was bearing witness to the word of His grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. But the multitude of the city was divided: part sided with the Jews, and part with the apostles. And when a violent attempt was made by both the Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, to abuse and stone them . . . . (Acts 14:3–5, NKJV)

But notice what happened—those who were divisive found likeminded Gentiles (non-believers) to oppose Paul! Did Paul compromise like they did? No. Paul continued teaching the same message.

This is similar to what is happening in today’s church. Many readily adhere to secular millions-of-years teachings over the Bible’s teachings. They are opposing the Scriptures. They are being divisive. Biblical creationists will continue to defend the authority of the Bible in all areas, just like Paul did.  

Paul instructs us regarding divisive people:

But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned. (Titus 3:9–11, ESV)

We are to confront the divisive twice or answer them twice. If they refuse to heed the words of correction, we are to have nothing more to do with them. This confirms what Jesus taught to the disciples when they were ministering; they were to shake the dust from their feet as a testimony against those who refused to listen (Luke 9:5). They weren’t to get wrapped up in an argument for extended periods of time but were to continue preaching the truth.

This is an important message for us today. We need to be careful that we don’t get caught up in discussions with a divisive person for long periods of time (via email, message boards, letters, phone calls, etc.). Instead, we need seek the millions waiting eagerly to hear the message that the Bible’s history is true and the message of the gospel is likewise true.  

The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few (Matthew 9:37). And there are fewer still when the harvesters get caught up trying to harvest wheat from a thistle when ten heads of wheat are waiting. Answer a divisive person twice. If that person continues to be divisive, have nothing more to do with him/her. If that person is genuinely willing to learn, continue to answer him/her with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15).  

Unity Comes By Uniting Around What The Bible Clearly Teaches

Paul, as well as Jesus (John 17:22–23), makes it clear that there shouldn’t be divisions but unity.

Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1 Corinthians 1:10, NKJV)

This unity should not come at the expense of compromising the Scriptures, but should come by adhering to what the Scriptures say. This is why Paul exhorted the Roman Christians to take note of those causing divisions and avoid them (Romans 16:17). In other words, don’t learn from those causing divisions (those who have accepted fallible man’s ideas), but learn from those who adhere to the doctrines that have been laid down by Scripture.

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8, ESV)

Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were in complete unity with each other and with their Creator. After they sinned, disunity became the norm. Restoring that unity comes at a cost. The price has been paid by Christ. This is a call for all Christians to return to what the Bible clearly teaches, and obey Christ’s Word—starting in Genesis.  

The following points provide some practical ways that we can encourage unity among our Christian brethren:

·       Pray that the Lord would bring about unity among His people. Pray that He would turn the hearts of His children to the clear teachings in His Word and would keep them from being influenced by fallible man’s ideas (Ephesians 4:13).

·       Respond to those who are divisive (going against Scripture) twice, with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). If they are willing to learn, continue to help them. If they continue to be divisive, have nothing more to do with them.

·       Avoid those who are openly divisive (going against Scripture). Encourage others to refrain from following their divisive example (Romans 16:17–18).

·       Drop any pride of your own (Proverbs 16:18). Read and study the Word of God. Allow it to teach you, and be aware of bringing man-made ideas to it. Learn to love God’s Word, and ask the Lord to show you where you are being divisive. No one is perfect, and all are subject to the teachings of the Bible. When we make mistakes, we need to return to the authority of God’s Word with humility and a teachable spirit.

Originally here: https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/young-earth/are-biblical-creationists-divisive/; Republished by permission.

---

[1] Biblical creationists are often termed young-earth creationists (YEC). They adopt a “plain” or “straightforward” reading of the Bible; thus Genesis, which is written as historical narrative, is literal history and the days in Genesis 1 are ordinary days. A corollary to this is that the earth is young.  

[2] Dr Terry Mortenson’s book, The Great Turning Point (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2004) discusses this in detail.