Have you read Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Gerald Schroeder? He proposes a method whereby scientific estimates of a 20 Billion year old universe, and the 6-day (24 hours, that is, "days" as men think of them) can BOTH be correct measurements of the TIME required for Creation. Thus, Genesis 1 & 2 are reconciled by considering Genesis 1 to be more general (universal focus) and Genesis 2 to be a more specific (global viewpoint -- i.e. closer to man).
I'm not saying I agree with the 20 Billion years, because I think that age requires too many unproven assumptions (pertaining to "red shift" and other cosmological hypotheses), but I do agree with the reasoning that flows from the ideas of Einstein and Hawking.
Actually, it didn't feel like twisting at all to me. What seemed like twisting has been to take away authorship of the entirety of Genesis from Moses with extremely little to no proof that such was the case.
Even if it can be demonstrated that Moses did not author all of Genesis, how is it proven he did not have complete editorial control over all of the material presented? Why would he allow "conflicting" accounts to be recorded for all future generations?
So far as "adding" material at some later date: were not our ancestors deeply religious, attributing great mystical significance to holy scriptures? If anyone dared add anything, would they not have feared eternal retribution from the Being honored in those writings? And if not eternal, what about societal injunctions of death to any who would act in such a blasphemous manner? And should someone who had no fear of that Being succeed in temporarily tampering with any of the words, would not others decry the "new" version, and "restore" the writings to their original meanings?
So I have trouble accepting scholarship which ignores the influence of a society's culture (its beliefs and practices) and the underlying ego of human authorship (which would preclude any single author from setting forth contradictory information).
I must admit that I have not properly considered the effects of an entire group of intellectual elite in a society coming along and "re-writing" (or perhaps "re-interpreting" is a more accurate term) portions of historical writings. But as they say, history is written by the victor in any conflict.
Similarly, I must admit that translations suffer. One language simply cannot perfectly capture the nuances of another language, and I doubt any of us knows the nuances of Anciet Hebrew, Chaldean or even Greek.
In summary, I've never felt comfortable with the idea that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 could be explained by different authorship. And for the reasons I discussed above, I've not embraced the idea that either account is mythical or allegorical.
What I find truly astounding is the notion that after several thousand years, the words contained in Genesis 1 can still provoke intelligent -scientific- debate. This flies in the face of everything I consider reasonable, since science has only made major strides since the Renaissance. The accounts of creation given by other major world religions have been completely debunked by science. Only Judasim, Christianity and Islam remain, by virtue of the robust (if not detailed) account given in Genesis.
Question: Does the twisting you experience when reading Schroeder's ideas extend so far as to critique him/them? Or do you accept that what he proposes -might- be valid?