A number of questions about the interpretation of Genesis 1 and its famous six days. There are a truckload of different interpretations of Genesis 1 that have been offered, and I can't consider them all today. I can consider more (like Gerald Schroeder's relativistic interpretation) later on. Here's a list of the five interpretations I will consider today, ranked in order from what I consider the most plausible to the least plausible, along with notes on how plausible I think them to be: 1. The Framework Interpretation (most plausible from a careful reading of the text) 2. The Ordinary Day Interpretation (most plausible from a casual reading of the text) 3. The Gap Interpretation (almost completely without foundation) 4. The Revelatory Day Interpretation (virtually demonstrably false) 5. The Day-Age Interpretation (demonstrably false) Please note in how I treat these interpretations that I am coming at them here from a purely literary perspective. The question I'm asking is: "Given what the text says, how likely is it that this is the correct interpretation of the text?" I'm trying to arrive at the correct interpretation by considering the question of textual interpretation first, not rushing to square the text with the findings of modern science. My interest is in figuring out what the text most likely means taken on its own terms, not trying to harmonize it with modern science. In this discussion, I'll only present one significant point of a scientific nature, and it isn't a point of modern science. It is something that the ancients knew and commented on, making it fair to include in a discussion of what the author of Genesis 1 meant by what he wrote. (I will also include an additional few notes based on modern science, but these will be in parentheses as they are not part of my main argument. My main concern is just what the text would be read to mean on its own, without considering modern science.) Having said that, let's look at these interpretations, starting with the least plausible.