I see no problem with the first sentences from a strictly theistic
viewpoint. For the latter part, there seems to me to be an obvious
answer: If God is speaking to us of time, he is using our normal view.
Since the message was given long ago, the "clock" has to be in terms of
sunrise and sunset, new moon and the annual cycle of the seasons.
But there is a problem with the days of Genesis 1, if we approach them
from what I understand Glenn's view to involve. If the week presents
God's declaration of purpose, and chapter 2 the sequence of creation,
then the days have to somehow refer to divine time. But how can there be
time of any sort with the I AM, who, as Creator is outside of space and
time? I see this as a reductio ad absurdum of the notion.
As a consequence, I see two possibilities in the temporal references of
Genesis 1. The one is that the sequence of days is used as a convenience,
like the I, II, III, etc. of an outline, with essentially the same
meaning (or lack thereof). The other is that they are literal days of a
sequence of revelations. This allows them to be a veridical description
in human terms as well as serving the function of the view noted just
above. IMO, the popular day-age interpretation does not work, because
both days 3 and 4 are messed up by it, as are the birds of day 5. To
argue that some things were created in essence before they appeared in
fact may do with plants and birds, though I am not Aristotelian enough to
buy it. But that is then incompatible with arguing that the fact of the
heavenly bodies came before their essential function. Glenn is right that
day-age doesn't work.
Anyway one encounters it, I think that temporal references in revelation
are to what human beings recognize as time. By the way, Gen. 2:4
specifies the day of what follows. The Hebrew is _beyom_, same structure
as "in the beginning" of 1:1.
Dave