Actually none of us are calling Genesis vague. Most of the people you are arguing with have a specific meaning of the literal words of Genesis in mind. For example, I understand that Genesis describes a global flood of water actually lifting the keel of Noah's ark above the highest mountain.
But you also are arguing that this "flood" is impossible and hence means that if the Bible writers were either dead wrond,... or that they meant that as a Simile.
Either the Bibke is wrong or the writers could not directly reported facts so unbelievable that they were setting down as such.
You are choosing to make the bible wrong.
But if one chooses to double check the idea, there is supporting factual evidence the they did this.
If one chooses to assume the writer used the Literary Arts to send forth this information into such a future tiime as our own, when we (the wise), would understand, he would also somewhere say that was the case:
4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
So if we were to believe your version of things, Pangea formed on the third day and Rodinia on the first? Does the bible talk of a third iteration of supercontinent?
If you don't believe my version then you opt to insist that the Bible does not correspond with scientific facts, while if you do accept my comparisons with what science says, tne scripture is amazingly correct about things like "all the water gathered together into one place" as part of the geological history of the Earth found in the six rock layers that corrpond to the six days of creation in Genesis.
Supporting that this first gathering together took place with Rodinia, during the late Archean and early Proterozoic eras is that this would correpond to the Third "day" in Genesis:
Neo-archean evening of the Archaean Era-
… and the Paleo-proterozoic morning of the Proterozoic Era/ = Third Day
What part of "the Linneus model is not employed whatsoever becuase it has been found to be in error and thus, useless to tell us anything about the natural relationships of living things to each other" don't YOU understand?
Not according to he scientists who say "ONE OR OTHER OF THE KINGDON-LEVEL CLASSIFICATIONS IS STILL WIDELY EMPLOYED AS A USEFUL WAY OF GROUPING ORGANISMS"...
... and who add "not withstanding problems with this approach, such as Bacteria,... which are rejected by the phylogenetic classification systems."
But the point is that the Bible writers were not electing which Kingdom applied to Genesis, but simply never mentioning anything but Plants and Animals which we therefore realize is using the Two Kingdom System, NOT CERTIFYING IT nor recommendeing it.
I haven't argued any such thing. Your two proposals are not the only options. I can easily think of several others. My personal belief, which I have not made any attempt to argue for, is that the flood story is meant to describe man's relation to God, and that the story need not be true to accomplish that goal.
Of course it is that too.
It is a divinely revealed piece of information that corresponds one-to-one with the extinction of all other kinds of men that os=ccurred 40 thousand years ago.
That coorespondence is no coincidence. The previous chapters in Genesis, 4, and 5, tell us of the 22 previous humanoids that actually correspond to those 22 now extinct humans which is also factually true.
This is no coincidence either.
Genesis tells us that there was hybridizations before the "flood of modern man Out-of-Africa." That too is true, since we all carry the genes of Neanderthal man today.
That is no coincidence.
The whole tale corresponds directly with what science is telling us today. The ONLY axiom needed in order to see the two stories are one and the same is to understand the necessity for writing the tale in analogy to water instead of people.
It is no coincidence that the mention of the Ark refers to the skull of Modern man which contained the visions of all the animals nd carried them into the New Heaven and New Earth that began 40,000 years ago for us, the sons of God to come.
The ONLY possible "Ark" that could carry all the animals into this new world of Modern man was our own skull: