First of all, I don't think that understanding Genesis 1 as some kind of Caananite diatribe is necessarily antithetical to the chronological, solar day view. That hasn't been demonstrated and until it is, will remain a red herring (not intentionally however).

Second, the structure that Richard (aka AV1611) outlines for us regarding the days also does not necessitate a rejection of the chronological, solar day view. Others (such as Bavinck) also point out the progression of the days as they find fulfillment in the apogee of creation (man) and his intended goal (Sabbath rest) as indicative of a clear chronological perspective.

In the end Bob V's objection cannot be overthrown. Where in the text, outside of naturalist presuppositions, can it be demonstrated that the days were not intended to teach a chronological, solar view? We can rearrange them all we want, but until we demonstrate clear warrant from the text aside from speculation, we are left with the ordinary view.

And if it could be (plausibly) demonstrated, how would one explain this to the ordinary man of Moses time, let alone the man in the pew today?

I think any other view does violence to the perspicuity of scripture.

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA
Church Blog

"there is no creature, either in heaven or on earth, who loves us more than Jesus Christ"
Belgic Confession, Article 26