Day 1 and 4...

The "problem" according to the "framework" supporters is to the apparent confusion of the creation of light on day 1 and the creation again of light in the light agents on day 4. What is purposed as problematic (as far as I can tell at this point) is that the Hebrew expresses the verb "to give light" - you see the verb is in the causative stem in the infinitive construct form, which is claimed to prove that the "luminaries" are created for the purpose of producing light.

It is hard for me to see a problem here. Why should it be a problem to create light and separate it from the darkness without governing bodies and then later create governing bodies that actually are causal agents of light on the earth? The science of how God accomplishes the separations are not explicit on either day 1 or 4 - they are simply stated as fact. Nor can it be said that day4 addresses the full comprehension of created luminaries. Day 4 is therefore not an explanation - and if it were an elaboration of the greater detail of day 1 creation then we have a strange sequence marker, namely "evening and morning the first day" not to mention the Hebrew here is expressed with the verb "becoming" - so that you have literally 'he became evening and he became morning day one' and this can easily be seen as a time marker of God concerning a whole day that emphasizes redemption 'death and resurrection' creation and new creation' . But even if we find no symbolic significance in the light out of darkness, evening and morning we still must recognize a definite marker that refers to time and the progress of it - which could be called real history.

Now, the framework guys (which I would like to call the book binders, in that they bind God's creative fiats to the literary page and restrict it from real history) suggest that the reason for the construct of day 1 creation of light and day 4 creation of light governing bodies - is that God is communicating a kingdom to king relationship. They say that the day 1 event is descriptive of the kingdom while the day 4 event is descriptive of the king(s) of that kingdom. To which we might say Amen. It is not awkward to believe that God would declare such kingdom terms in both the description of creation and in the actual history. Again the book binders assert a problem, but as stated before I see none.

Next, I would like to consider a few things about the Sabbath day command. The book binders have already anticipated the difficulties that arise hear, but I think we should look a bit closer at the significance of the "timing" of the Sabbath. By that I mean that the Sabbath command is comencerate with a particular period of time - namely sunset to sunset (Jewish reckoning) why? Because God had rested from all his work evening and morning the next day. Now if the Sabbath is for sure a real 24 hr period - a whole day - and that is what is to be kept holy because of the creation event, and we understand a time correspondence here - How can we muddy our thinking concerning the other "days" as if they can not relate to the same period of time?