John Frame, in his book The Doctrine of God, shares with the reader his belief about the days of creation; they were literal days. He also shares some ideas he thinks are important in resolving the questions around the days of creation. Here are his first two:
- This discussion concerns the interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. The question is not whether we should abandon the teaching of these chapters to accommodate secular science. The question is, What does this passage say? It is an exegetical issue. I am convinced that the main advocates of all three views [normal day, day-age, and framework] are seeking to be true to the teaching of the passage.
- I am not denying secular science has influenced this debate. The claims of scientists that the universe has existed for billions of years have certainly motivated theologians to go back to the text, in order to see whether these claims are consistent with Scripture, and that has meant rethinking traditional positions. In my view, that is entirely right and proper. We should not assume at the outset that the scientists are wrong. It is also possible that our interpretation of Scripture is wrong, though it is not possible for Scripture itself to be wrong. We must be humble enough and self-critical enough to reexamine these questions, even under the stimulus of scientific claims with which we may be initially unsympathetic. This is part of our apologetic mandate to bring every thought captive to Christ. In that sense, it is right for our exegesis to be "influenced" by science. (302-3)