The Framework Interpretation holds that the six days of creation are not intended to be taken literally as a chronology of how God made the world. That’s what they seem to be on the surface, but there are clues in the text–such as the creation of the sun three days after the day/night cycle has been established–that tell us that this is not meant to be taken literally.
The Framework Interpretation holds that Genesis 1 tells us what God did without attempting to tell us in a literal fashion when God did it. Instead, the facts of creation have been fitted into the framework of a single Hebrew week. (The week being a characteristic measure of time among the Hebrews; prior ancient cultures didn’t have weeks.)
The Fourth Day sun problem that other interpretations have (and have typically solved by introducing things the text does not mention, like atmospheric conditions that clear up, allowing the sun to be seen, or days that overlap each other chronologically) is of itself significant evidence for the Framework Interpretation.
But the interpretation could be strengthened if we could sketch out the specific way in which the events of creation have been fitted into a framework–in other words, if we could point to the framework itself. It’s a fair question, after all: "If this isn’t organized chronologically, how is it organized?"
A careful reading of the text reveals this, and we can see not just that the author has arranged things out of chronological order in a way detectable to the ancients, we can see specifically how he has organized them. We know what his organizational criteria were.
For centuries it has been recognized that the six days of creation are divided into two sets of three. In the first set, God divides one thing from another: He divides the light and the darkness on Day One (giving rise to day and night), he divides the waters above from the waters below on Day Two (giving rise to the sky and the sea), and he divides the waters below from each other (giving rise to the dry land) on Day Three. Classically, this is known as the work of division or distinction.
In the second three days, God goes back over the realms he produced in the first three days by division and then populates or "adorns" them. On Day Four he populates the day and the night with the sun, moon, and stars. On Day Five he populates the sky and sea with the birds and the fish. And on Day Six he populates the land (between the divided waters) with the animals and man. Classically, this is known as the work of adornment.
That this two-fold movement represents the ordering principle of Genesis 1 also is reflected at the beginning and end of the narrative. At the beginning we are told that "the earth was without form and void" (Gen. 1:2). The work of distinction cures the "without form" problem, and the work of adornment cures the "void" (empty) problem. Likewise, at the end of the narrative we are told "the heavens and the earth were finished [i.e., by distinction], and all the host of them [i.e., by adornment]" (2:1).
People have recognized for centuries that these are the ordering principles at work in Genesis 1. This is not something modern Bible scholars came up with (e.g., see Aquinas, ST I:74:1).
I don’t fault anyone who has a different view of the text (particularly the Ordinary Day Interpretation), but this one seems to me to be the most plausible view if you give the text a careful reading.
The dislocation of the creation of the sun thus tells us that the text is using a non-chronological ordering, and the recognition of the two phases of creation (distinction and adornment) proceeding through the same three spheres (day & night > sky & sea > dry land) tells us what ordering system is being used.
And none of this is predicated on modern science. It was all there "in the beginning."
Thank you, Jimmy, for taking the time to explain and offer an opinion on these different interpretations of Genesis 1. It was very interesting and informative.
Does it have to be “either/or”? Couldn’t it be a combination of interpretations?
I certainly think there is a lot to the framework interpretation, but such things as the light being created on day 1, while the source of the light (the sun) being created on day 4 can also be explained as the “light” created on day 1, as a poetic way of describing the angels. ‘Separating the light from the dark’ could have been expressing the separating of the fallen angels, and their being cast into hell. This is the explanation given in Jewish Midrash.
I think Genesis 1 & 2 are multifaceted, and we can look at them in a myriad of ways.
This really, really good stuff.
Ditto that. Like I say, this is why God created JA.org.
Quite so. And yet, having said that, once you do bring modern science into it, with the problems it raises for some or all of the other interpretations, it makes this reading even more compelling.
Jimmy,
I have a question for you pertaining this particular interpretation of Genesis. It seems that in all sets of theories, the one contending difficulty lies in the source of light for each day, since the sun isn’t created until the 4th day. However, if you look at Job 38-19, God, in chastising Job, says, “Which is the way to the dwelling place of light, and where is the abode of darkness, that you may take them to their boundaries and set them on their homeward paths?”
It is interesting that God would ask Job if he knew the “dwelling place of light”. The normal answer would be, “well, the sun of course,” but God is being highly sarcastic with him by stating that “Job knows all, so therefore he may surely answer these tough questions as well.” If the obvious answer to the question about the dwelling place of light is not so obvious, then that should cast a more literal “light” on the existence of day and night before the creation of the sun.
Barbara,
The angels being the light and the seperation of the fallen angels from the unfallen is also an idea, if I recall correctly, supported by Augusine in The City of God. I distinctly remember him saying something to that effect as well.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120111.htm
CHAPTER 9 — WHAT THE SCRIPTURES TEACH US TO BELIEVE CONCERNING THE CREATION OF THE ANGELS.
At present, since I have undertaken to treat of the origin of the holy city, and first of the holy angels, who constitute a large part of this city, and indeed the more blessed part, since they have never been expatriated, I will give myself to the task of explaining, by God’s help, and as far as seems suitable, the Scriptures which relate to this point. Where Scripture speaks of the world’s creation, it is not plainly said whether or when the angels were created; but if mention of them is made, it is implicitly under the name of “heaven,” when it is said, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” or perhaps rather under the name of “light,” of which presently. But that they were wholly omitted, I am unable to believe, because it is written that God on the seventh day rested from all His works which He made; and this very book itself begins, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” so that before heaven and earth God seems to have made nothing. Since, therefore, He began with the heavens and the earth — and the earth itself, as Scripture adds, was at first invisible and formless, light not being as yet made, and darkness covering the face of the deep (that is to say, covering an undefined chaos of earth and sea, for where light is not, darkness must needs be) — and then when all things, which are recorded to have been completed in six days, were created and arranged, how should the angels be omitted, as if they were not among the works of God, from which on the seventh day He rested? Yet, though the fact that the angels are the work of God is not omitted here, it is indeed not explicitly mentioned; but elsewhere Holy Scripture asserts it in the clearest manner. For in the Hymn of the Three Children in the Furnace it was said, “O all ye works of the Lord bless ye the Lord;” and among these works mentioned afterwards in detail, the angels are named. And in the psalm it is said, “Praise ye the Lord from the heavens, praise Him in the heights. Praise ye Him, all His angels; praise ye Him, all His hosts. Praise ye Him, sun and moon; praise him, all ye stars of light. Praise Him, ye heaven of heavens; and ye waters that be above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the Lord; for He commanded, and they were created.” Here the angels are most expressly and by divine authority said to have been made by God, for of them among the other heavenly things it is said, “He commanded, and they were created.” Who, then, will be bold enough to suggest that the angels were made after the six days’ creation? If any one is so foolish, his folly is disposed of by a scripture of like authority, where God says, “When the stars were made, the angels praised me with a loud voice.” The angels therefore existed before the stars; and the stars were made the fourth day. Shall we then say that they were made the third day? Far from it; for we know what was made that day. The earth was separated from the water, and each element took its own distinct form, and the earth produced all that grows on it. On the second day, then? Not even on this; for on it the firmament was made between the waters above and beneath, and was called “Heaven,” in which firmament the stars were made on the fourth day. There is no question, then, that if the angels are included in the works of God during these six days, they are that light which was called “Day,” and whose unity Scripture signalizes by calling that day not the “first day,” but “one day.” For the second day, the third, and the rest are not other days; but the same “one” day is repeated to complete the number six or seven, so that there should be knowledge both of God’s works and of His rest. For when God said, “Let there be light, and there was light,” if we are justified in understanding in this light the creation of the angels, then certainly they were created partakers of the eternal light which is the unchangeable Wisdom of God, by which all things were made, and whom we call the only-begotten Son of God; so that they, being illumined by the Light that created them, might themselves become light and be called “Day,” in participation of that unchangeable Light and Day which is the Word of God, by whom both themselves and all else were made. “The true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” — this Light lighteth also every pure angel, that he may be light not in himself, but in God; from whom if an angel turn away, he becomes impure, as are all those who are called unclean spirits, and are no longer light in the Lord, but darkness in themselves, being deprived of the participation of Light eternal. For evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name “evil.”
Could the creation of light before the crreation of the sun refer to the “Big Bang”? If the “Big Bang” occurred, I would think that it produced a whole lot of light.
The framework interpretation is the approach Ratzinger takes in his book, “In the Beginning…A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall.”
In the book he expands on it and proposes reasons why Genesis was written this way. In doing so, He reveals Genesis as a work of apologetics. Its very interesting reading.
Brian,
That is a very interesting way of determining at which point the angels were made, however I would dispute that the angels are the light for one very good reason.
The name of the highest angel ever created was Lucifer, whose name means “Bearer of Light”. If Lucifer is the “Light Bearer”, then he cannot be the light itself.
Hardcore adherents to the other theories would view much of this as a straw man setup. While I appreciate Jimmy’s choice and his lack of space and time for a devotion to a more formal argument we all should do some reading on the other theories to get a wider understanding of the issue. Fer’ example the “waters above” are often used as a justification for the obscuring of the sun in a model that views the individual days as ages or gaps.
I will agree that the literal days is the most honest reading, though I don’t agree with it.
The Jewish cosmology is quite interesting when you consider what happened with the flood.
According to Scripture, Adam and Eve, and their subsequent children all the way down to Noah, lived for hundreds of years. Cain and Able are mentioned by name as being the direct offspring of Adam and Eve, however, after Cain received the mark from God, Cain fears for his life, claiming that if he were to enter into a city, he would be stoned to death for his crime. Not much information prior to the flood is mentioned in Scripture, except for a list of names, their life-span, and some of their offspring.
As I said before, I believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted. For one thing, a simple cruise through the Internet will bring you to several sites devoted to footprints: dinosaur and human footprints. Many of these prints have been found in the same strata as dinosaurs (which cannot be explained away in and of itself), quite a few have been found near dinosaur tracks, and a few have been found actually INSIDE dinosaur tracks. Now, I didn’t simply acquire this information from the Internet. I have spoken with archeologists who have gone on some of these digs, I have examined molds of these tracks first hand, and I have several impartial books which have sited such anomalies.
For one thing, fossilized animal tracks could not occur simply through dried mud. The tracks would have to have been buried rapidly, as with any fossil. Rapid burial is the only way organic remains could be encased (on a massive scale) in rock, be it skeletal, imprint, dung, or what have you. It is my contention that the flood changed the climate, preventing dinosaurs from growing to their massive size. They weren’t wiped out, they simply didn’t grow to be as big, and since another such widespread cataclysm has not occurred, the remains of whatever species these dinosaurs were simply have not been found.
Here’s the thing … what is a dinosaur? A dinosaur, essentially, is a giant reptile. The skeletal remains, imprints of scales, and basic shape indicate that they were rather large lizards. But if they are lizards, how did they get to be so big? For one thing, dinosaur eggs are fairly small, in comparison to the relative size of the dinosaurs laying them. A simple fact about reptiles may explain their enormity … reptiles never stop growing. From the time they are conceived to the minute they die, reptiles never cease to grow. This would indicate that dinosaurs were not only very large, but also very old. Another interesting bit of information is that dinosaurs could not survive in today’s world climate. If one were to plunk a dinosaur down, anywhere on the planet’s surface, it would eventually suffocate. The atmosphere is too thin. I’ll get to that in a second.
Many scientists today (both creationist and evolutionist alike) agree that the “world of the dinosaurs” was lush and moist. Here is the contention. I posit that the earth’s atmosphere was about 2.2 times denser back then than it is today. But what could cause the atmosphere to be so dense? There are several theories about that, but I tend to side with the possibility that there was a vaporous canopy surrounding the atmosphere. This canopy would create a dense atmosphere, which in turn would create a “greenhouse”, providing a lush, rich environment. More on that in a minute.
In the science of aging, there are two prime components that scientists have been able to point to as major factors in aging; ultraviolet radiation, and a slow regeneration rate. It has been shown in laboratory experiments that ultraviolet radiation breaks down cellular regeneration at a very rapid rate. Too much exposure to that radiation will cause burns. We call this a sunburn. As for the slow regeneration rate, science has also shown that a denser atmosphere, heavy in oxygen (approx 2.2 atmospheres is ideal) drastically increases the body’s healing and cellular regeneration rate. In fact, many burn victims will be placed in pressure chambers in order to speed up the healing process.
So, we have 2 primary aging factors which would have been eliminated by a vaporous canopy. Not only that, but a denser atmosphere would have provided greater support to a larger frame, which would allow the dinosaurs to move about without being crushed under the weight of their own bulk. So, if these two aging factors were eliminated, and allowed dinosaurs to live for hundreds of years (which is why they grew to their incredible size), and dinosaurs and man coexisted, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that these same factors would drastically increase the human life-span as well. Incidentally, some insects do not stop growing for as long as they live as well. Take the Meganeura monyi, for instance. This prehistoric dragonfly had a wingspan of up to 70 cm. That is almost 14′!!! As any physicist or biologist will tell you, giant insects (such as those found in the movie “Them!”) could not exist because they would not be able to breathe, nor would their structure be able to support their mass … unless the atmosphere were denser and oxygen rich (if the greenhouse effect were the cause of a more lush environment, then the climate would be richer in oxygen due to the large amount of plants).
Now, here is where things really get interesting. According to Genesis, the flood began when the “wells of the deep erupted” and THEN it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Many scientists are in agreement that at one time all of the earth’s land masses were at one time, united. The soil of western Africa matches the soil of east, South America almost perfectly, not to mention the fact that pushing the pieces together, you can see that they almost fit. What is even more interesting, however, is an examination of the ocean bottom. If one were to examine the contours of the ocean’s bottom, they would see that there is a rift that travels from North all the way South, right in between the Americas and Europe and Africa. What is even more interesting is that the only interruption in ANY of the rifts on the ocean floor (there is one in the Pacific and the Indian Ocean) is in the North Atlantic. It is a tiny tropical island (the ONLY tropical climate in the Arctic Circle) called Iceland. An oceanographic chart of the ocean’s bottom clearly shows Iceland as a big splotch, resting directly on top of the Atlantic Rift. Could it be that Iceland is the meteor which caused the flood? Well, if one believes that the wells of the deep erupted to cause the great flood, then it makes all too much sense. Suppose, Pangea was in fact the shape of the earth’s surface. But then suppose that much of the earth’s oceans rested above and below the earth’s surface. If a meteor the size of Iceland were to rip through the atmosphere (disrupting the canopy) and smash into the earth’s crust, the crust would crack. Suppose the crack caused the “wells of the deep” to erupt, and a wall of ocean shot up into the sky, splitting the continents, as it spread all the way to the south pole. Then take another look at the map and examine the mountain and trench formations of the Americas. If America split away and moved across the earth’s surface to its current resting place, momentum would have caused the ends to crumple. Notice that the East coast has a wide shelf, while the west has a very short one. Also notice that the mountain range on the west coast spans from the top of Alaska all the way to the southernmost tip of Argentina. Also take note of the trench that sits on the other side of the western continental shelf.
Since we’re talking about the flood, let’s talk about Noah for a second. There are two very peculiar things about the account of Noah once he leaves the arc. First of all, Noah spots a rainbow … something he had never seen before. We know that he had never seen one before because God said that he placed it there as a sign of his covenant with man that he will never destroy the earth by such means again. Since we can explain the rainbow scientifically, we can also explain the reasons why one had never been seen before. Perhaps a vaporous canopy prevented the sun’s light from shining in such a way as to refract in such a manner. In any event, the second peculiar thing about Noah is his encounter with wine. Now, we are told that Noah and his family were saved because he was the only virtuous man left in the world, and God chose to continue the human race through him. If Noah were virtuous, then would it not stand to reason that his first action as a rejoicing man, praising God, would NOT be to drink himself into a stupor? Could it be that he did not intend to get drunk? If it was not his intention, then why did he get drunk? Perhaps he drank as much as he is used to drinking, but a less dense atmosphere caused the alcohol to affect him more strongly, as it does with us when we drink on an airplane.
In any event, we are told that after the flood, the life span of man drops drastically. In fact, Scripture tells us that God decided to reduce the life span of man in order to prevent his ability to commit such widespread evil as existed in antediluvian times. So much for non-literal ages.
If the flood of Noah did occur as I think it did, then that would explain the entire fossil record, it would explain the sedimentary layers of the strata (which today’s scientists mistakenly take for a time-line), it explains the artifact anomalies I have explained, such as human bones being found in layers attributed to dinosaurs, human footprints being found in the same layer as dinosaur tracks, and human artifacts, such as chains, tools, and the like being found in dinosaur-era strata. Just for the record, I do not believe that the dinosaurs were wiped out by the flood, as I believe Noah indeed took 2 of every species on the arc (not fully-grown). I believe that the reptiles we call dinosaurs were released from the arc, as were all other animals, but never grew to be the size of their parents due to a shortened life span, which in turn is due to a thinner atmosphere. There are many ancient depictions of dinosaurs in pottery, mosaics, weapons, statues, and seals. This could only have happened if someone had seen one at one time. Could it be that the legends of the dragons of old are in fact references to the lizards which would have been dinosaurs? Given the oddities of some modern species (electric eels, cyanide spraying caterpillars, etc), perhaps even the fire-breathing aspect may have been, in fact, reality. Considering the mention of Behemoth and leviathon in Job 40 and 41 (read it here http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/job/job40.htm).
That’s quite a lot of time to spend on a mythical creature, and pointless to discuss had Job never seen one. Behemoth sounds an awful like a Diplodocus or Apatosaurus. And what of Leviathon? God said that Leviathon breathed fire!!! Was he making it up? What did He mean?
In any event, that’s my take on it.
RULE 3 WARNING, DiscoMike.
Whoah … sorry about that, Jimmy.
I tend to be a bit verbose from time to time.
My apologies.
Jimmy,
Long posts aside, I think it would be helpful to answer DiscoMike’s question regarding light being created on Day One. I fail to see the difficulty about the sun if light and darkness were already created on the first day.
In such a case, the sun is not needed for light and darkness.
I don’t adhere to the 24 hour day reading, but in the absence of modern science, I do think it the most plausible. According to the literary reading of the text, light is distinguished from the sun. Light exists without the sun.
To say that’s absurd, so we need to go to the framework reading, is to introduce implicit notions of modern science, namely what we know about light and light sources. That the ancients still held to the 24 hour day reading, and this after extensive thought, is indicative.
If we are removing all our empirical scientific knowledge, I don’t see an impossibility in day and night existing without the sun. Perhaps it’s less plausible, but then we’re straying from literary reading and balancing our own notions of scientific truth versus the reading of Genesis.
There may be nothing wrong with that, but to claim that the “framework” reading is more evident than the natural 24-hour day reading, based on the text alone, seems a stretch.
It isn’t a question of removing “empirical” knowledge. You can’t read a text without any empirical knowledge. Without empirical knowledge, you wouldn’t even know that light comes from the sun. It’s a question of prescinding from modern scientific evidence regarding the origins of the universe that’s at issue here.
And there is really good reason to say, as Augustine and others saw, that the description of morning and evening, day and night prior to the existence of the sun raises issues about what is actually going on in the text, that it does not sound like a straightforward account of chronological events. It sounds like a poetic way of framing certain larger points.
If you don’t know that light comes from the son, it’s hard to see why the creation of the sun is an issue at all then. Your claim seems to be going beyond Mr. Akin’s. Is it simply the mention of morning and evening that makes a non-literal event more plausible? I don’t see the nexus, unless we say that morning and evening without the sun is an incongruity the scriptural author was aware of, and which impels us to a poetical interpretation.
My bad, I misread you. I understand your point, but in that case, shouldn’t any miraculous occurence or hard saying in the Bible be interpreted allegorically? We seem to be approaching the Alexandrian school. For instance, people living 800 years in primitive conditions is irrational according to modern science, therefore we must explain it away? If I hear something marvelous, must the marvel be illusory?
But I’ll read what Augustine has to say, and get back to you.
DiscoMike,
Very interesting thoughts. I was wondering when you would jump into the discussion. Are you suggesting that Iceland is the remains of a meteor or caused by a meteor?
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
Inocencio,
The following comes from:
“The Blow That Gave Birth to Iceland?” New Scientist, 89:740, 1981
“The high concentration of iridium between the Cretaceous and Tertiary eras (about 65 million years ago) is widely interpreted as indicating a worldwide catastrophe caused by the impact of a comet or meteor. The increase of iridium concentration over normal levels is much higher in northern latitudes, suggesting that the impact point is in this region. But no impact scar of the proper size and age exists. However, if one looks for scabs rather than scars, one finds that Iceland is formed entirely of volcanic rocks younger than the Cretaceous. To Fred Whipple of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, these facts dovetail nicely. Iceland was form ed by magma welling up from a 100-km hole in the sea floor blasted out by a 10-km meteor.”
While I disagree with the understanding of the age of the rocks, I believe that the assessment of where Iceland came from is quite probable.
Discomike,
Again very interesting. Thank you for the source.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
I’m glad you find this to be so interesting. If it hasn’t become obvious yet, I am quite fascinated by this topic.
My theory regarding antedeluvian man, however, does not end with the mere idea that man and dinosaurs co-existed, and that man enjoyed the long lives attributed to them in the Old Testament.
I believe that, since man did NOT evolve, his mind was as cogent (if not more so) then as it is today. If that is the case, then man would be capable of marvelous technical feats (taking the average lifespan of man, adding a population growth model based upon about a 6 or 7 hundred year birthing age, and factoring in the notion of a single language). In other words, I think that if man had lived so long, then it is entirely possible that man could have acchieved the heights (if not beyond them) of technology that we enjoy today.
It’s kind of a funny thought, tearing down the common conception of a slope-browed spear-chucker who trembles at the sight of fire or the sound of thunger and replacing it with an ancient civilization which may have had powered flight and even possibly nuclear capabilities.
I have a ton of reasons for thinking this way, which I am more than happy to share, but once you toss out the old earth model, and the evolution hypothesis … life must have been much different than what is commonly thought.
I would like to recommend the book “The Beginning of Wisdom”, by Leon Kass. Particularly the first few chapters, which deal with this topic extensively… and with diagrams! Hoorah for diagrams.
Perhaps the fact that most will relate to in these days is that, as Scott Hahn pointed out, God didn’t bless the 2nd day, which explains why nobody likes Mondays. 😀
I think it’s interesting that the Jewish Cosmology very much supports the hydroplate theory of the flood.
“The Beginning of Wisdom” looks interesting. I’ll have to check it out.
Just a quick note — one person above posted information about human and dinosaur tracks together. This refers to the Paluxy River formation near Glen Rose Texas, unfortunately the information is over 20 years out of date. Even the young-earth Institute for Creation Research has renounced claims about human and dinosaur footprints in this article by John Morris in 1986:
http://www.icr.org/articles/print/255/
The Paluxy formation contains only dinosaur tracks, no human ones, and even ICR states so.
Kindest Christian regards,
Rob in Memphis
Excellent site I have bookmarked your site and I will come back soon! http://spankzilla.spazioblog.it/
Enjoyed it. I have a similar article on my site. I put a trackback to this article but am unsure if it’s working properly at the moment…I’m new to wordpress. Ciao!
Sorry, that address is http://airtightnoodle.wordpress.com. Not sure if it showed up my previous comment.
Tramadol online.
Canine tramadol. Tramadol hcl. Tramadol. Buy cheap tramadol mg tablets only in us online.
Framework has been, thusfar, the view which persuades me of its glorification of the Creator, Redeemer, and Ruler as not only speaking to us in comprehensible fashion through the voice of His inspired Word, but in non-confusing ways through His marvellous creation, as well!
Paul Richard Strange, Sr.
Supply Pastor
Zion Valley Cumberland Presbyterian Church
Chico Texas
The tension requiring resolution arises from in part and crucially the view that scripture in all its parts is inspired such that every sentential assertion by a human author is an assertion of God and thus true in the sense of the correspondence theory of truth. A better approach is to one take St. Anselm’s view which IMO isn’t properly speaking a correspondence account of truth and see the parts of scripture as being true in coherence with the truth of the wholes of which they are a part. Under Anselm’s conception, a sentence in a work of fiction that says something contradictory to fact can nevertheless be true as the telos of a sentence in that context is not to conform to fact but would be to in harmony with the work of the human artist express some good or effect some good or be the vehicle in which some good inheres. Inspired by that conception, the doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy can be seen as expressing the fact that:
(1) What God inspires is without error
(2) All of the parts of scripture are inspired in the sense that they may be the vehicle for or constituent parts of a whole which is the vehicle for the inspired truth which is without error that God inspired the human author to put in writing.
So applied to Genesis, God may have inspired the human author to express accomodated to human language and understanding the truth that God is the ontological foundation of creation. Working to that inspired end, the human author may make erroneous assertions. The parts of scripture that contain these erroneous assertions are nevertheless inspired in relation to the whole and the inspired meaning of the whole of which they are a constituent part and to which despite their factual error integrally contribute to as the inspired truth is not concerned with such erroneous details but with the salvific truth that God is the ontological foundation of creation.
It’s only when one views each part of scripture as inerrant in isolation from any whole to which it may belong that a part may seem erroneous. The human author may assert erroneous things but any inspired assertion would be error free and the inspired assertion in most cases it seems to me is not captured in particular sentential pieces of human language but in the literary work of the human author as a whole. Again this still means all the parts are inspired and error-free — but they are inspired in relation to a whole and error-free with respect to the whole’s message of which they are a constituent and integral part.
addendum:
To illustrate it better, if you take the Anselmian notion of truth and take a work of fiction and take a part of it, a sentence that asserts something contrary to fact, then under Anselm’s view it would nevertheless be a true sentence. However if one were to artificially strip that part from its context, to consider each sentential atom of language separately, then of course it would under Anselm’s view be false. The same is true of scripture. The parts are true in the context of the whole of which they are a part to which whole inspiration is ordered; stripped of their context however, the sentences may be false. If the scriptures were not inspired but the content remained the same as it is today, many parts would indeed be false, but due to the fact of inspiration, namely the fact of divine authorship, the context and intentions of the divine and primary author are as important here in evaluating truth value per Anselmian truth as it would be in a work of fiction.