I'm a bit surprised that this thread was not placed in "Bible Study" (under "Social and Religious Issues"), given that all the substantive discussion so far has been about
interpretation of biblical text, with nothing about
assessment of observable or verifiable evidence.
I think the points raised so far by johnfolten, AlphaOmegakid and Bambootiger all revolve around the same set of overlapping circles: the wording of the original text is open to several distinct interpretations; the various translations into English (whether directly from Hebraic sources or through various intermediate languages) introduce even more variables for deriving still more distinct interpretations.
The inescapable underlying fact is that the original language was not specific -- much was left to the imagination. (Yes, I will assert, without concrete evidence and solely on the basis of reasonable assumption, that the original wording in the original language was crafted particularly to stimulate the imagination of the listener/reader, rather than to dictate a rigid and limited inventory of literal "facts".) It doesn't matter what sort of authorship or inspiration you attribute to the text -- it is simply an incomplete explanation. Let's admit it: the text is vague.
If you limit yourself solely to the information provided in the text, and do not admit or accept any external evidence from objective, verifiable observation, you will never have a basis for establishing true consensus for one interpretation in preference to another -- it will always be a case of "your interpretation against
his someone else's". This is the fundamental problem of doctrinal schisms among all the branches and sects that have diversified ("speciated") from the single source ("common origin") of Moses and/or Jesus and/or Mohamed.
Clearly, when you do admit and accept external evidence that has been observed and verified repeatedly with honest objectivity, then the "truth" of the passages describing creation must be understood in some manner other than literal interpretation about physical facts.
For those who feel compelled to view the Genesis scriptures as unwaveringly true, I think the best frame of reference may be the one provided by Augustine, which receives a very clear presentation at the "talkorigins" web site:
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: February 2008
If you disagree with what Augustine says, the key point is: why do you disagree? Is it because he was a Catholic, and you are not? Do you really have any
objective basis for rejecting his view, or is it just another case of "your interpretation against his"?
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (minor change for clarification, indicated by strike_through
autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
™ Version 4.2