The opening chapter of Genesis has long been a battleground between competing worldviews: divine revelation versus human speculation, biblical authority versus scientific naturalism. Yet for the Christian committed to Scripture as the infallible, inerrant Word of God, Genesis 1–3 must be treated not as poetry to be molded to modern theories, but as history spoken by the God who was there. While the account may carry literary symmetry and beauty—as with other inspired narratives—such form is never license to depart from the foundational truths revealed within.
This article offers a thoughtful examination of how one might affirm the six-day creation account as literal and historical, while also recognizing that God often communicates through structured, even poetic patterns. It defends the orthodox pillars necessary for any faithful doctrine of creation and critiques naturalistic assumptions that too often masquerade as objective science. It also explores how the structure of Genesis 1—perhaps even chiastic—reveals the majesty and order of the Creator, not the aimless process of evolution. This approach is not an attempt to accommodate modern science, but to appreciate the artistry of God’s revelation without denying its plain meaning.
We begin with the theological non-negotiables.
The Theological Preconditions for a Faithful View of Creation
Before exploring Genesis 1’s structure or the possible poetic features it may contain, certain doctrinal pillars must be firmly established. These are not optional add-ons; they are foundational to any Christian understanding of creation that is consistent with orthodoxy and the witness of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation.
1. Macroevolution Is Rejected
We reject the idea that life evolved from simpler forms over millions of years through naturalistic processes. Macroevolution, the belief that all species—including humans—descended from a common ancestor by random mutation and natural selection, is fundamentally incompatible with biblical theology. While speciation or microadaptation within kinds is observable and acceptable within a biblical framework, macroevolution contradicts the creation of distinct “kinds” (Hebrew: minim) as stated in Genesis 1:11–25. The claim that man evolved from non-human ancestors strikes at the heart of biblical anthropology and Christology.
2. The Bible Is Inerrant and Infallible—Even in Its Account of Origins
We affirm that Scripture is without error in all that it affirms, including the account of creation. Genesis 1 is not a myth, allegory, or mere theological reflection. It is reliable historical narrative, recorded by Moses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is not beholden to modern scientific theory, and attempts to make it say something other than what it plainly declares undermines both the authority of Scripture and the character of God who spoke it.
3. Adam and Eve Were Real, Historical Individuals
Genesis 2–3 is not a symbolic account of human development. Adam and Eve were real persons, created directly by God, and through their disobedience, sin and death entered the world. This is essential to Paul’s theology in Romans 5:12–21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45, where Christ is presented as the “last Adam.” Denying the historical Adam undermines the historical Jesus and the gospel itself.
4. God Is Not a Developing Deity Who Needed Evolution
We deny any notion that God “learned” through evolutionary trial and error or that He used evolution to improve His work. Such ideas—common in liberal theology—project an anthropomorphic weakness onto the all-wise, omnipotent Creator. God did not “need” time, mutation, or extinction to achieve His purposes. He created by divine fiat—He spoke, and it was so (Psalm 33:6,9).
5. The Creation Week Was Unique and May Have Involved Non-Uniform Processes
We do not assume that the natural laws and processes observable today were fully active or identical during the creation week. The idea that God may have supernaturally accelerated certain physical processes—such as the formation of fossil fuels, the aging of starlight, or the hardening of rocks—makes perfect sense within a biblical worldview. This rejects the uniformitarian assumption that “the present is the key to the past,” which is more a philosophical commitment of naturalism than a scientific necessity.
Poetic Structure, the Framework Hypothesis, and Historical Integrity
Some Christians—eager to uphold biblical authority but also to appreciate the beauty of God’s Word—have observed that Genesis 1 bears literary elegance. That observation is not without merit. God’s Word is often both theologically rich and literarily structured, and it is no compromise to recognize this. The danger comes not in acknowledging the presence of structure or rhythm, but in allowing those features to override or nullify the historical claims of the text.
Let’s first examine some of the poetic features that scholars have proposed.
📖 Narrative Poetry or Literary Structure?
Genesis 1 is certainly not poetry in the strict sense of Hebrew parallelism (like in the Psalms or Proverbs), but it does exhibit repetition, rhythm, and ordered symmetry:
- The repeated phrases:
- “And God said…”
- “And there was evening and there was morning…”
- “It was good…”
- The structure of the six days appears to unfold in two matching triads:
- Days of Forming (1–3)
- Day 1: Light/Darkness
- Day 2: Sky and Sea
- Day 3: Land and Plants
- Days of Filling (4–6)
- Day 4: Sun, Moon, Stars
- Day 5: Birds and Sea Creatures
- Day 6: Land Animals and Man
- Days of Forming (1–3)
This framework of realms and rulers is elegant. Some see it as theological instruction: God first prepares the canvas (Days 1–3) and then fills it with life (Days 4–6).
For example, Day 1 reflects creation of the realm of light and darkness. Day 4 reflects the filling of the realm with the Sun, Moon and stars. Day 2 reflects the creation of the realm of the Sky and Sea. This realm is populated with the birds and sea creatures. Day 3 reflects the creation of the realm of the Land and Plants. This realm is populated by land animals and man.
But does this symmetry mean the days are not literal? Not necessarily.
The Framework Hypothesis: What It Is and What It Gets Right (and Wrong)
The framework hypothesis is a view that sees the six days of creation not as a chronological sequence, but as a literary framework—a topical or theological structure used to present the creation in a structured, non-literal way. It was popularized by Meredith Kline and others who sought to preserve theological orthodoxy while distancing Genesis from “scientific” timelines.
What It Gets Right:
- Recognizes real literary beauty and structure in Genesis 1.
- Affirms God’s intentional order and design in creation.
- Often maintains Adam and Eve’s historicity, and the reality of the Fall.
Where It Falls Short:
- Treats the “days” as metaphorical or symbolic, not chronological.
- Weakens the connection between the creation week and the Fourth Commandment:
- “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth…and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11).
- Opens the door—whether intentionally or not—to reinterpretations influenced by naturalistic assumptions, even if it does not itself affirm evolution.
- Undermines the straightforward reading of the text as historical narrative (Hebrew narratival prose, not poetic allegory).
A Conscientious Christian View: Structure Without Symbolism
It is entirely possible—and, I would argue, biblically faithful—to recognize the structured, even poetic symmetry in Genesis 1 while still affirming:
- Literal 24-hour days
- Chronological sequence
- Historical persons and events
- A divine pattern for Sabbath observance
The framework view attempts to rescue Genesis from modern “scientific” embarrassment. But if we believe the Word of God is true, we don’t need to rescue it. Instead, we proclaim it—structure and all—as truth.
Even those who are open to the “day-age” or “analogical day” views must hold the line where it matters: God created directly and purposefully, not by chance, not by evolution, and not by bowing to the intellectual demands of a world that hates its Creator.
The Use of the Hebrew Word Yôm (“Day”)
It is true—and worth acknowledging—that the Hebrew word yôm can refer to more than a 24-hour period:
- Genesis 2:4 – “in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens” uses yôm as a summary term for the entire creation week.
- Psalm 90:4 – “For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday…” uses poetic contrast.
- Hosea 6:2 – speaks of “two days” and “the third day” as periods of divine action.
Even within Genesis 1–4, we see yôm used flexibly. But that does not nullify the fact that in Genesis 1, yôm is:
- Modified by ordinal numbers (first, second, third…)
- Paired with the phrase “evening and morning”—an unmistakable reference to a literal day-night cycle.
These contextual clues strongly favor a literal 24-hour day, which aligns with Christ’s own references to “in the beginning” and to the order of male and female creation (Mark 10:6, Matthew 19:4), without any indication of long epochs.
Naturalism, Uniformitarianism, and the Presumption of “Science”
One of the greatest obstacles to a faithful reading of Genesis in our time is not a lack of literary understanding or exegetical skill. It is the philosophical pressure to reinterpret the Bible in light of what has been called “science”—more accurately, naturalistic assumptions posing as science. Nowhere is this clearer than in the doctrines of uniformitarianism and macroevolution, both of which have shaped the public imagination and undermined confidence in Scripture.
What Is Uniformitarianism?
Uniformitarianism is the idea that natural processes observed today have always occurred at roughly the same rates throughout Earth’s history. As the old saying goes, “the present is the key to the past.”
This view assumes:
- That geological strata and fossil layers were formed slowly over millions of years.
- That there have been no significant global catastrophes (such as Noah’s Flood).
- That everything can be explained by natural law, with no appeal to miracles or divine intervention.
Why This Is Not a Neutral View
Uniformitarianism is often presented as “just science.” But this is misleading. It is not a proven fact—it is a philosophical commitment rooted in naturalism and often atheism.
Consider:
- Charles Lyell, the father of modern geology, deliberately tried to “free the science from Moses”—meaning he wanted to reinterpret Earth’s history apart from the Bible.
- Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution depends entirely on uniformitarian assumptions; it needs millions of years of slow change to make the theory plausible.
- Modern textbooks rarely distinguish between observable facts and the philosophical framework used to interpret them.
What’s more, uniformitarianism rules out biblical events a priori. If you start with the assumption that the supernatural can’t happen, you’ll never arrive at the truth of creation, the Flood, or the Resurrection—no matter what evidence you encounter.
Fossil Fuels and the Speed of God
The presence of coal, oil, and fossil layers is often used as supposed “proof” that the earth is billions of years old. But this conclusion depends entirely on uniformitarian timelines.
A Christian who affirms a young earth and global Flood does not need to accept this assumption. In fact:
- The Genesis Flood would have involved massive upheavals, rapid burial of plant and animal life, and enormous pressure—exactly the conditions needed to form fossil fuels quickly.
- God is not bound by natural laws or present processes. Just as He created mature trees, stars visible from Earth, and a full-grown Adam, He could have formed fossil fuels instantaneously or by means of supernaturally accelerated processes.
It is not only plausible but biblically consistent. God created by fiat—He spoke, and it was done. There is no need to posit deep time to account for these features if we affirm the Creator’s power and purpose.
Naturalistic Assumptions to Reject
To remain faithful to Scripture, we must consciously reject the following:
- That science is religiously neutral
Science is a method, yes—but it is often used as a worldview weapon. When science begins with anti-supernatural assumptions, it will always lead away from Scripture. - That long ages are the only possible explanation
This is false. There are creationist models, such as those promoted by Answers in Genesis, ICR, and Creation Ministries International, which interpret the evidence within a biblical timeline. - That we must “reconcile” Scripture with scientific consensus
No—Scripture must stand over science, not under it. “Let God be true, and every man a liar” (Romans 3:4). - That Genesis 1 is a theological myth or parable
This is the oldest lie in the book: “Did God really say…?” (Genesis 3:1). We must not surrender the opening of God’s Word to modern speculation.
🚨 What This Does Not Mean
Rejecting uniformitarianism and deep time does not mean:
- That we dismiss scientific inquiry.
- That we must believe everything was created with “apparent age” (though some hold that view).
- That we deny the existence of variation or “speciation” within created kinds.
Instead, we acknowledge that:
- God created a fully functional, mature universe.
- Major geological features can be explained by catastrophism, especially the Genesis Flood.
- God may have accelerated certain processes to accomplish His purposes rapidly.
- The evidence must be interpreted through the lens of revelation, not secular philosophy.
Chiasms and the Symmetry of Genesis 1
One of the most striking features of Hebrew literature is its use of chiasm—a literary structure that emphasizes meaning through symmetry and mirroring. While not poetry in the conventional sense, chiasm is deeply artistic and intentional, and often appears in both prose and poetry across the Old Testament. Recognizing such a structure in Genesis 1 does not diminish its historicity. Rather, it may enhance our appreciation for God’s ordered design and the literary craftsmanship of Scripture.
📚 What Is a Chiasm?
A chiastic structure is a pattern in which ideas are presented and then repeated in reverse order. It often centers on a pivotal idea placed at the center, with mirrored elements on either side. A simplified model might look like this:
- A
- B
- C
- B′ - A′
Chiasms are found throughout Scripture:
- Genesis 6–9 (The Flood narrative)
- Leviticus 24
- Psalm 8
- Matthew 6:24–34
- Entire books, such as Daniel and Revelation, contain chiastic patterns.
These structures are not artificial impositions; they are intentional, inspired, and often deeply theological, used to emphasize central truths and tie themes together.
Chiastic Possibilities in Genesis 1
Several theologians and biblical scholars—while holding to a historical six-day creation—have noticed potential chiastic structures in Genesis 1. One such reading frames the six days of creation as a mirror pattern centered on Day 4:
Chiastic Reading:
- A: Day 1 – Light and Darkness
- B: Day 2 – Sky and Waters
- C: Day 3 – Dry Land and Vegetation
- D: Day 4 – Sun, Moon, and Stars (governors of time and light)
- C′: Day 5 – Sea Creatures and Birds (fill sky and waters)
- B′: Day 6 – Land Animals and Man (fill land) - A′: Day 7 – God’s Rest (culmination and completion)
In this model:
- Day 4 becomes the theological center—God’s rule over time and seasons.
- The days build outward and inward from this centerpiece.
- The symmetry underscores the order, intentionality, and authority of God as Creator.
This is not the only way to structure Genesis 1, but it is a helpful lens through which to observe the literary beauty that complements the chronological reality.
Does Chiastic Structure Undermine Literal Days?
Not at all. Recognizing a literary structure does not necessitate a figurative interpretation of the content. Consider:
- The book of Revelation is filled with literary structure, yet we do not deny its theological and eschatological substance.
- The Psalms are poetic, but their truths are concrete.
- The Gospels contain chiastic arrangements within narratives, yet we affirm their historicity.
Likewise, Genesis 1 can contain both literary symmetry and historical truth. The presence of structure is not a substitute for reality, but a reflection of God’s nature as a God of order (1 Corinthians 14:33).
Moses as Theological Author
Some Christians fear that recognizing literary structure might elevate Moses’ skill above divine inspiration. But Scripture affirms that:
- Moses was inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21)
- His writings were divinely authoritative (John 5:46–47)
- The structure and form of his writings are part of God’s perfect design
Therefore, to note a chiastic or literary feature in Genesis is not to impose something foreign, but to observe something intended—without denying that these days were also real, sequential, and calendrical.
Summary
- Chiastic structures are common in Hebrew Scripture and often serve theological purposes.
- Genesis 1 may contain such a structure—perhaps highlighting God’s sovereignty over time (Day 4).
- These patterns do not require a non-literal interpretation. Rather, they elevate the message without negating the historicity.
- Christians can affirm the six literal days of creation while marveling at the symmetry and artistry God inspired in the text.
Final Synthesis – Literary Structure, Literal Days, and Unyielding Loyalty to Scripture
Throughout this article, we have walked carefully along the path that many believers in our time find themselves navigating: honoring God’s revelation as true and authoritative while also recognizing the literary sophistication He ordained in its presentation. Genesis 1 is not just a chronicle of origins; it is a deliberate, divinely crafted declaration of who God is, what He has done, and how creation reflects His glory.
But the structure never overrides the substance. The text’s form is the canvas, but truth is the content. And that truth includes six days of divine activity, culminating in a day of rest, all pointing to God’s perfect design for time, worship, and human vocation.
Let us now address several final issues that tie together our affirmations of biblical fidelity, literary observation, and theological integrity.
The Hebrew Word Yôm (“Day”): What It Means—and Doesn’t Mean
The word yôm in Hebrew is flexible—yes—but it is not ambiguous. Its meaning is governed by context.
Uses of Yôm That Refer to Extended Time:
- Genesis 2:4 – “…in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens…” refers to the entire week of creation as a unit.
- Psalm 90:4 – “For a thousand years in Your sight are but as yesterday…” uses poetic contrast to highlight God’s eternity.
- Ecclesiastes 7:14 – “In the day of prosperity be joyful…” refers to a season or period, not a 24-hour span.
So yes, Scripture does sometimes use yôm to refer to more than 24 hours.
But in Genesis 1:
- Yôm is paired with ordinal numbers: first day, second day, third day, etc.
- Each day is defined with the phrase “evening and morning”—a clear boundary marker.
- This pattern is repeated six times, establishing the rhythm of the creation week.
In every instance in the Old Testament where yôm is modified by an ordinal number (over 100 times), it always refers to a normal, literal day. Genesis 1 is no exception.
Jesus’ Testimony and the Creation Days
Jesus refers to the creation of mankind with these words:
“But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’”
—Mark 10:6
He places Adam and Eve at the beginning, not millions of years after animals or long ages of proto-human evolution. He affirms Genesis as historical truth and refers to the creation account without any hint that it was allegory or an era-spanning metaphor.
Christ treated Genesis as the foundation of His moral and theological teaching. So must we.
The Danger of Accommodating Modern Scientific Claims
I have indicated that my positions do not attempt to accommodate science. Recent events demonstrate plainly that so-called science affirms abominations like “genderaffirmation treatments”. Instead, I am defending Scripture on its own terms—recognizing the dangers of:
- Naturalistic worldview smuggled into science
- Uniformitarian assumptions pretending to be neutral
- Evolutionary mythology posing as settled fact
The church must not attempt to “harmonize” with unbelieving systems of thought. Rather, we must call them to repent and believe the truth revealed by God.
To do otherwise is to surrender the authority of Scripture and give modern man the final word.
An Integrated View of Genesis 1
Let’s now summarize the view I have articulated—one that this article defends as both faithful and theologically robust:
- The days of Genesis 1 were literal 24-hour days, defined by “evening and morning,” arranged in chronological order.
- There is room to acknowledge literary structure (e.g., chiasm, symmetry) in how the creation week is presented—without denying its historicity.
- God may have used supernatural acceleration of natural processes (e.g., fossil fuel formation), rejecting the atheistic philosophy of uniformitarianism.
- The word yôm can mean more than 24 hours in other contexts, but in Genesis 1, it clearly means normal days.
- I reject macroevolution, affirm Adam and Eve as historical persons, uphold the Fall as a real event, and deny that God “learned” over time.
- I affirm Scripture as inerrant and sufficient, especially on matters of origins.
- I am not seeking to make peace with modern science, but to submit to the plain teaching of God’s Word.
- I realize that a precise understanding of the events of Genesis 1 is not a precondition of salvation, and assume a posture of humility in this regard.
A Final Word of Encouragement
In an age of compromise, confusion, and cowardice, the Christian who holds fast to the truth of Genesis stands in the company of faithful saints throughout history. From Moses to Paul, from Augustine to Calvin, from the Reformers to today’s creationist scholars, the church has always testified: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
We are not embarrassed by that truth. We rejoice in it.
The same God who spoke light into existence has also spoken to us through His Son (Hebrews 1:1–2), and we await the day when the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption (Romans 8:21).
Until then, we trust the Word, we proclaim the truth, and we resist the urge to reshape Scripture to suit the whims of man.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
MMXXV
christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com
RELATED CONTENT
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
If I have listed the content, I think it is worthwhile viewing to educate yourself on the topic, but it may contain coarse language or some opinions I don’t agree with.
Realize that I sometimes use phrases like “trans man”, “trans woman”, “transgender” , “transition” or similar language for ease of communication. Obviously, as a conservative Christian, I don’t believe anyone has ever become the opposite sex. Unfortunately, we are forced to adopt the language of the left to discuss some topics without engaging in lengthy qualifying statements that make conversations awkward.
The opinions expressed in this article reflect my thoughts on the matter at hand. I do not claim inerrancy and emotional detachment at all times and on all topics. I strive towards reflection of a balanced Christian worldview.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots. You can always send me an email at christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.
I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.