Calendar Day View:
I have already written enough on this view you can read it here, here, and here.
In some ways, I agree with the Gap-Theory because the core of Gap-Theory and day-age creationism are not mutually exclusive. The core is essentially that the first "day" of Genesis 1 did not begin at the creation of the universe, but began much later. Which makes sense as nothing in the text indicates that "day one" began at the creation of the universe.
The problems happen when you have Gap-Theorists who believe that the "days" actually were 24-hour periods, and that all of "deep-time" (dinosaurs, trilobites, etc.) just happened before the creation week began. Or more accurately, for them it is the "restoration week" where the angelic rebellion destroyed the earth and it had to be restored by God afterwards.
This is, of course, despite the fact that the text gives no indication of any of this. Nor is it ever said anywhere in the bible that the angelic rebellion happened before the creation week (or during it for that matter).
I think Gap-Theory is tempting simply because it's painted in a very good light. Basically, it's really cool. It would make a great movie, and generally is a really interesting idea. But there just isn't any good evidence that it's true to reality.
Time-Warp Creation View:
This is a view many of you probably have heard of, but at the same time do not recognize the name. That's probably because it's a name I just came up with, seeing as there is no "official" name for this view. It's similar to day-age creationism in that it assumes the days are not 24-hour periods...sort of.
You see, Time-Warp creationists believe that the days really were 24-hours from some perspective, just not from our perspective. Saying either they were 24-hour days from God's perspective, or from the perspective of the big-bang singularity (this is Gerald Schrodinger's view), or from the perspective of some heavenly realm.
Surprisingly, I actually used to take this view. As I was convinced that the Genesis days could not be 24-hour periods, but did not know about the nature of certain aspects of the text or the Hebrew word "yom". I simply took Gerald Schrodinger's view on Genesis 1. Essentially that time dilation from the expansion of the universe caused what would be 6, 24-hour days from the beginning looking forward to end up being billions of years from our time looking back.
The problem with this view is, for one, the original audience would have no idea about any of this. I mean, relativity was simply far beyond the scope of science 3000 years ago. I don't think our interpretations of the bible should require modern knowledge to understand. I do think (unlike some) that our interpretations should be consistent with modern knowledge, because the bible is, after all, a divinely inspired text.
As I said, it turns out there really isn't a need for this view, because the word "yom" can be literally translated to "age" or "epoch".
This is essentially a view that the entire creation account is non-literal. Stating that there is a pattern of three "days" of creation and three "days" of filling. Click this link if you want a more detailed description, as the idea is actually quite complex.
My problem with this view is that it makes two assumptions, neither of which can really be proven by its advocates:
1. That the pattern that is the core for the entire view "two triads, three kingdoms" is a real pattern and not an imaginary constellation come up with by an overactive imagination.
2. That the pattern, if real, is mutually exclusive with a literal interpretation of the text. In other words, why can't God simply have created in this pattern? Why can't a day-age creation model (or Gap-Theory, or Calendar-Day) interpretation still hold if the pattern is real?
If any Framework advocates *can* prove these two assumptions, please contact me.
Polemic View (or the Hebrew Myth View):
I mostly covered this on my article about concordism, but there are a few things that should still be said.
The polemic view is basically that Genesis 1 has nothing to say about the way in which God created, or anything about the creation at all. Instead, it's just teaching theology. That it is a polemic against other near-eastern religions.
Again, I'm not convinced of the connections that certain scholars say point to Genesis 1 being a polemic at all. But even if it is, that still doesn't contradict the notion that Genesis 1 can be a literal account of the creation of the world that is just styled in a way that smacks down other near-eastern religions.
Probably my biggest problem with the polemic view is that it takes an extremely important chapter of the bible (it is the very first chapter after all) and reduces it to a simple polemic that isn't even relevant to generations younger than 500 BC. This view has actually become more and more common of late and this honestly disturbs me.
Please, if you take this view, think about it's implications. I know it's a tempting carrot to take because it completely absolves you of having to defend Genesis in the face of modern science, but please, for the sake of the future of Christianity, don't take the easy way out.
Thanks for reading!