Moses passes onwards to the fourth day, on which the stars were made. God had before created the light, but he now institutes a new order in nature, that the sun should be the dispenser of diurnal light, and the moon and stars should shine by night. And He assigns them this office, to teach us that all creatures are subject to his will, and execute what he enjoins upon them. For Moses relates nothing else than that God ordained certain instruments to diffuse through the earth, by reciprocal changes, that light which had been previously created. The only difference is this, that the light was before dispersed, but now proceeds from lucid bodies; which in serving this purpose, obey the command of God.

The question being asked is still ‘can we believe what the Bible is saying?’ It isn’t a question about understanding or interpreting what the text is saying. That much is clear… it is saying that God created light on Day 1, and then created the Sun to make light on Day 4. You quoted the authors as then saying this is a significant problem and illogical.

I do not grant that it is false that the Framework view was formed out of extra-textual concerns. I grant that the text does have literary elements that teach theological truths about God’s creative work… in fact, I don’t think there’s anyway to deny this. I reject, however, the dichotomy drawn between that and a literal, historical reading of the text. And, again, I believe that this is only attempted in order to align the text with extra-textual ideas.

The result of God’s creative fiats on both days one and four is the production of light. On day one, God said “Let there be light, and there was light”. The result of the creative fiat on the first day was the production of light. Similarly, on day four, the result of the creative fiat is the production of light (the Hebrew verb is a hiphil infinitive construct with a causative force). The point is this: the luminaries are created for the purpose of producing light. This means that identical functions of light production seem to be in view on days one and four. The Hebrew won’t allow that light was “created” on Day One and then the luminaries are merely put into place to “rule” the light on Day Four. It is clear that light is created (ontologically originated) on Day Four just as it is said to be on Day One.

Additionally, the result of God’s creative fiats on both days one and four is the separation of light and darkness. Gen. 1:18 teaches that God created the sun and moon (and stars) to “separate the light from the darkness” (hiphil infinitive construct). However, the same Hebrew verb (in wci form) appears in Genesis 1:4: God divided the light from the darkness. Again, identical functions pertaining to the separation of light and darkness appear to be in view on days one and four.

My point is that the charge that the Framework view (which sees the Days of Genesis 1 as a literary framework designed to teach theological truths about God’s creative work rather than a literal, sequential account) was formed out of extra-textual concerns is false. Quite the contrary, the reasons behind it arise out of the plain, bold-faced reading of the Hebrew text. Even worse is the charge that Framework supporters formed their view out of “unbelief” in God’s Word. The major supporters whom I’ve read all uniformly and clearly affirm the inspiration and inerrancy of the whole Bible, including Genesis 1.

So where’s the something?

Actually, I think I can guess what the something would be. Just be aware that that example was not meant to set off a “days of Genesis” debate. It was merely used to show that there are orthodox interpretations that don’t necessarily conform to a so-called “plain reading” of the text.