Here is a summary of my 'strange' teachings. They are 'strange' relative to most YECs. They are not strange to the text.
1, Creation week was about local things and was recent, possibly excepting the age of the lifeless earth. It is a distinct event from 'the spreading out' of the lifeless universe, which is what produced the water-covered rock, earth. Gen 1 just barely mentions the distant, lifeless universe.
2, The time of the earth's existence must be connected to the spreading out. This, in turn, is to be calculated by the amount of time Sirius light would need to reach earth to mark the start of Day 1 plus the amount of time needed for the universe to spread out. This event (the spreading out) is the lifeless distant universe, not Creation Week. Creation Week is the specific, creative placement of the related objects as the neighbors of earth so that it is no longer an isolated water-covered stone, but a thriving planet, full of life and mankind. They are even protective placements, as Jupiter protects earth twice a year from asteroids. Some locally-bright stars (from earth's POV) also mark and signal things; they are all objects that can be seen in common observation.
Note: as you may know, in Rogan's interview of Meyer about this, secular science has come 180 and said that the Big Bang start of the universe is a physical miracle. This is so disturbing to them that there are now alternate explanations, such as 'sheets' of form to the universe which collide with each other. But this avoids explaining the existence of material to begin with, which was the redemptively logical thing about the BB.
3, evolution is nowhere in the universe
4, the text is consistently local in its POV, not omniscient, not reporting from all over the universe. Also there are only a few custodians of the text, and they verbally transmit it until Joseph and Hebrew writing happen.
5, 2 Peter 3's finalization of cosmology shows a disconnection between the start of the universe and Creation Week. The key grammatical point here would be the use of a contrastive 'kai' in v5 (the universe is from long ago, while the earth was more recently formed from water and through water...). It does not put the universe in the category of creation when referring to Genesis nor when describing the delusion of the 'stoicheian' skeptics. This has a way of capturing the detached phrase about stars in Gen 1:16 (it is also detached in the LXX). They wanted to regard the earth as old and sacred as the universe. Peter said no, it was a recent intervening act by God, the same kind that caused the Cataclysm and that will disrupt things in the future. (This similarity of activity intrigues me because of difficulty in Ps 104 of separating creation of earth from the Cataclysm). Thus the score ends: Peter 3, stoicheians 0.
