Creation in Six Days offers an exegetical, literary, and theological defense of the traditional interpretation of the Genesis account of six-day creation. Jordan’s account is primarily designed to answer any approach to the text of Genesis, such as the increasingly popular Framework Hypothesis, that pits the text’s literary features against its historical and narrative sense.
Beyond his exegetical critique of several prominent positions, Jordan offers a constructive reading of the early parts of Genesis and also seeks to uncover the assumptions which attract people to the Framework Interpretation and similar views. The explanation, he says, lies in the acceptance of many of the questionable assumptions of modern science on the part of most Christians today, coupled with the pervasiveness of a Gnostic or non-historical attitude toward the Christian faith.
“We can conclude that ‘shrubs’ probably includes all plants that do not produce food in the form of grain or fruit. Some are indeed edible, but they are not the staple form of diet, and they are not included as sanctuary food (bread and oil, and later, wine). These plants did not exist until after the six days of creation week were over. Their creation was suspended until after man was made, for a reason implied in Genesis 3:18. God waited until He saw whether man would sin or not. If man did not sin, the shrubs would have been one kind of plant; since man sinned, they grew up as ‘thorns and thistles.’” (Pages 53–54)
“Only one group of people has a problem with the biblical statements, and that group we may call ‘modern conservative Christians.’ The liberal or unbelieving expositor of Genesis has no problem with the text. It is obvious to him that Genesis 1 presents creation and world-building in 144 hours and that Genesis 5 and 11 provide a chronology of the world from creation to Abraham. The modernist and the unbeliever do not accept the Genesis account as historically true; for them it is a myth. But they perceive no problems or ambiguities in the text, nothing that indicates ‘gaps’ in the chronology or some odd kind of ‘days’ in Genesis 1.” (Page 18)
“Christianity, however, stands opposed to all gnosticism. If there were not an original Adam and an original Fall into sin, then there could not be a final Adam (Jesus) and a redemption from sin.” (Page 20)
“The Gap Interpretation, also called the Ruin-Reconstruction Interpretation, is based on a misreading of the phrase ‘without form and void’ in Genesis 1:2.6 Supposedly this phrase means that the world was in a condition of total chaos, an interpretation read back into the creation account from later passages that deal with sin and judgment. Thus, there is a time-gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Supposedly there was a pre-Adamite race, probably the angels, who governed the world and then wrecked it through sin, after which God rebuilt it in six days. There is absolutely no biblical evidence for this notion, and it flies in the face of the testimony of Genesis 1, which says that the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day of creation week.” (Page 23)