I’m not going to contest the specifics of your reading, which looks like a legitimate one. What I’m surprised at is your claim that you can just read a biblical text and immediately deduce an interpretation that is “unencumbered by 2000 years of Christian theology”, and that this is the “only reasonable interpretation of the bare facts”. This comes off as a rather hubristic claim, especially given that
- You didn’t do any exegesis of the original Hebrew of the text, or relate it to its ANE cultural context. Instead you use an English translation originally published in 1611. I also don’t remember you demonstrating competence in these areas.
- Most people on this forum, including both you and I, have been involved in many discussions regarding origins, creationism, and Genesis for quite a while. Is it really realistic to think that one is not influenced by the theology of our interlocutors at all due to this experience? By “influence” I mean both pro- and against. (Some people become more antagonistic towards an idea the more they are exposed to it, while others can become more persuaded. But the point is that exposure will result in some influence, whether we like it or not.)
- Even if you’re not influenced much by Christian theology, how are you sure you’re not influenced by the philosophical and cultural assumptions inherent in being a Canadian atheist psychiatrist living in the 21st century? How do you know these factors are not coloring your interpretation of the text? It would be more convincing if you actually wrote some self-reflection of your inevitable biases and the efforts that you have made to question them. But you haven’t.