1.  an excerpt from Christian Views of Science and Earth History (1998) by Rich Milne & Ray Bohlin, writing for Probe Ministries:

Another view of the account of creation according to Genesis that has become popular with progressive creationists as well as theistic evolutionists is the structural framework hypothesis.   This literary framework begins with the earth formless and void as stated in Genesis 1:2.  The first three days of creation remove the formlessness of the earth, and the last three days fill the void of the earth.  On days one through three God creates light, sea and sky, and the land.  On days four through six, God fills the heavens, sky, sea, and land.

There was a pattern in the ancient Near East of a perfect work being completed in six days with a seventh day of rest.  [editor's note: This supports a claim, by Carol Hill & others, that the six-day framework is a worldview-related literary structure.]  The six days were divided into three groups of two days each.  In Genesis chapter one we also have the six days of work with a seventh day of rest, but the six days are divided into two groups of three days.  So maybe this was only meant to say that God is Creator and His work is perfect.

 
2.  a section (with additions & revisions) from an FAQ about Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design by Craig Rusbult:

One interpretation of Genesis 1 is based on the literary framework formed by the six days.  This logical framework describes the history of creation in a logical structure that is defined by two connected problems in Genesis 1:2 — the earth was "formless and empty."  The connection between these two problems is accentuated by the rhyming phrase used for them in the original Hebrew, tohu wa bohu.  The two connected solutions are to produce form, and to fill, with a parallel relationship (shown in the “paired colors” below – blue for 1/4, green for 2/5, purple for 3/6) between three aspects of their solution.  The first 3 days produce form by separations that produce light and darkness (for day and night), waters above and below (in sky and sea), and land (with plants);  the second 3 days fill these forms with sun for day and moon for night,  birds for sky and fish for sea,  and land animals (that eat plants):

Days 1 and 4 describe two related aspects of what happened in creation history;  there was a separation of day & night (Day 1) and (Day 4) a filling of each with sun & moon.  In another “form and fill” combination, Days 2 and 5 describe a separation sea & sky (Day 2) and (Day 5) a filling of each with sea animals & sky animals.  Similarly, we see a separation to produce land (Day 3) and (Day 6) filling it with land animals.  

 When we see both aspects of creation combined — by viewing God's work in groups of three (1-2-3, 4-5-6) and also groups of two (1-4, 2-5, 3-6) — the six days describe God's creation as being orderly and complete, in its orderly structure (the forms, 1-3) and complete content (the fillings, 4-6), so the two problems of "formless and empty" have been solved.  Let's examine four related aspects of the framework in Genesis 1, regarding...

The Logical Framework

Is there a logical framework?  Yes.  When we carefully study the text, in the days we see two logical patterns – in (123 456) and (14 25 36) – of the framework that clearly exists.  Most criticisms of a framework view avoid the obvious question – Is there a framework? – because the obvious answer is Yes, so instead the view is criticized in other ways.

A common criticism is a two-part claim that “Christians should believe the Bible” (I agree) and also (I disagree) “if the Bible is true, the earth is young” which is logically equivalent to claiming “if the earth is not young, the Bible is not true.”  The second claim seems un-wise for two reasons:  because it seems to be un-true (based on information from nature, with scientific evidence-and-logic leading almost all scientists to conclude that the earth is old, is not young) and truth is important;  and because when a person understands why “almost certainly the earth is not young” AND they believe the unwise young-earth claim, logically they will conclude “almost certainly the Bible is not true.”  This conclusion is unfortunate.  And it's not necessary because the second claim (“if the Bible is true, the earth is young”) is not biblically justifiable, based on information from scripture.     { Sections 3C & 3D of my FAQ for Creation and Evolution, with Design explain why the young-earth claim is not biblically justifiable & is unfortunate.  And reasons for “scientific evidence-and-logic ➞ old earth” are summarized in Sections 4A,4B,4C. }

Logical but Not Chronological?

The coherent logical framework in Genesis 1 (its form-and-fill structure) seems clear.  After recognizing this logical structure, we can ask whether the six days also are chronological.  If we restrict our focus to the text, its meaning could be only logical (not chronological, not making statements about the sequence of creation, or its duration), or both logical and chronological (in ways that might be compatible with either a young earth or old earth).  To help us decide what the intended meaning is, we can do...

Interpretation using Scripture plus Nature

When we're trying to understand reality that is spiritual-and-physical, we should use “the two books of God” by combining information from scripture and nature.  Why?  Because (as stated by the 1978 International Council on Biblical Inerrancy) "in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations" and (from Sections 2C-2D of my FAQ) "our understanding of total reality (spiritual plus physical) will be more complete and accurate if we use both sources of information, from scripture and nature."  When we use only information from scripture by carefully studying the text of Genesis 1, we can plausibly conclude that it's describing either a chronological framework or a non-chronological framework.  But when we continue evaluating by also considering information from nature, using scientific evidence-and-logic we find extremely strong support for an old earth, and this result makes a chronological framework seem far less plausible.  Therefore, when "for clarifying what Scripture teaches" we "use both sources of information, from scripture and nature," it seems highly probable that a nonchronological framework is the correct interpretation, the interpretation that is true because it corresponds to what actually happened in history.     { in Part 3, Carol Hill describes additional reasons – because we should recognize & acknowledge how literary structure can be influenced by worldview – for concluding that the framework is nonchronological and also is historical. }

Non-Chronological and Historical

Yes, the framework can be nonchronological yet historical.  It's important to recognize that non-chronological does not mean non-historical.  In Genesis 1 the literary framework — whether or not it's chronological — is a historical framework because it's used to describe historical events that actually did occur.  In the logical framework, real events are organized by topic, so the result is called topical history.  Even if this history is non-chronological, it still is history.  This is consistent with the fact that authentic history can be written with ideas organized by chronology and/or by topics.  For example, a history of the 1900s could be written using a mainly-chronological organization, beginning in the early 1900's and continuing onward through 1999, but (of course) including topics.  Or it could have a mainly-topical organization, describing one or more aspects of life, religious and/or cultural, political, military, economic, educational,... but (of course) including times & chronologies.  Or instead of the organization being mainly one or the other (“either-or”), it can be more like the "and" of the "and/or" with a lot of both, with significant interactions between chronology and topics.

Logical and Theological
      All interpretations of Genesis 1 should acknowledge and emphasize the important theological statements in Genesis 1:  All that we see in nature is a creation of God, subordinate to God.   There are no polytheistic “nature gods” so we should worship only the one true God who created everything;  nature is placed in proper perspective, with God's creation being good but not divine.   God declared the creation to be "very good" so we can reject any idea that physical things (in the creation) are intrinsically bad;  our problem is not creation's physicality, it's our own human sin.   But despite our sin, humans are a very special part of God's creation because He created us in His own image.
 

 
3.  excerpts from a recent paper by Carol A. Hill — An Alternative to Concordism and Divine Accomodation: The Worldview Approach — published (2007) in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith by the American Scientific Affiliation.     [ editor's note:  If you read all of Carol's excellent article, you can learn more from it.  And she wrote an excellent book, published in 2019, A Worldview Approach to Science and Scripture. ]

The basic premise of the worldview approach is that the Bible in its original text accurately records historical events if considered from the worldview of the biblical authors. ..... 

The most important aspect of the literary view is that it maintains that Genesis 1 was written following the convention and style of literary works prevalent in the ancient Near East about 4,000 years ago.  And that is where the worldview approach comes in because in order to correctly interpret Genesis 1, one must understand the mindset of the people who wrote the original Genesis text.

Here is the worldview approach to Genesis 1.  The whole chapter of Genesis 1 is based on a system of numerical harmony.  Not only is the number seven fundamental to its main theme (God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh), but it also serves to determine many of its details.  To the Mesopotamians, seven was the number of fullness and perfection, and thus the basis of ordered arrangement;  also, particular importance was attached to it in the symbolism of numbers.  It was considered a perfect period (unit of time) in which to develop an important work, the action lasting six days and reaching its conclusion and outcome on the seventh day.  It was also customary to divide the six days of work into three pairs; i.e., into two parallel triads of days.  So, a completely harmonious account of creation, in accord with other ancient examples of similar schemes in the literature of that time, and using the rules of style in ancient epic poetry and narrative prose of the ancient Near East, would be the parallel form of symmetry found in Genesis 1.  In Genesis 1 the first set of three days represents a general account of creation, while the second triad is a more specific account of the first three days.  [you can see this 3-and-3 structure in Table 1]  ..... 

The Genesis author was simply writing in the ‘politically-correct’ cosmogenic and prose-narrative style of that day.  Thus, the Genesis 1 text was not meant to represent a sequential order of creation or one that needs to fit with modern science.  It was simply the literary way that writers of that day wrote down their narrative thoughts.  In other words, God gave the revelation to the people mentioned in Genesis, but then the biblical authors wrote this revelation down in their own literary style.