How about reading the creation-narrative as functional rather than simply informational—as why rather than what.
This functional reading of the text makes more sense to me. Here’s distinguished OT professor Eugene Merrill on the matter:
The tensions between light and darkness and the waters and dry land, while not in themselves and as natural phenomena indicative of any imperfections in the work of the Creator, play their role metaphorically in later revelation and are suggestive of the basic cosmic struggle between good and evil that will become apparent in the postfall world. The imagery is carefully chosen in that story, written long after the event, functions polemically against pagan mythological ideas of creation in which darkness and the deep are major elements, but also as a useful way of speaking of the life and death conflict between good and evil, which is a major theme in Scripture. (Everlasting Dominion, pp. 130-31, emphasis added)
When the creation-narrative is read as functional rather than as informational, questions of whether the days were solar or there’s a gap at 1:2—become irrelevant.