<<Last time I checked Genesis 1 was still part of the Bible. As such the
claim the Bible makes for itself as the inspired word of God applies equally
to it.>>
Agreed.
<<Thus, I have real theological difficulty having God tell us things that are
not factually true without clearly marking it as a parable.>>
As I've explained, you must take the text as it is, and Genesis 1 is "clearly
marked" as different in style from the rest of the Bible. You don't deny this.
But, inexplicably, you do deny that one's hermeneutic must be flexible as a
result. This is inapt.
<<Under the interpretation I see you pushing, the conclusion would be that God
might not have done something about plants on the third day. To believe that
might be straining it through my own gauze.>>
Incorrect. We must ask what this "third day" might be, and what the activity
described might mean. But we don't have to ask this as your proverbial fly on
the wall, because God isn't writing fly paper. He's writing mytho-poetry.
<< My point is, if the account doesn't bear any connection whatsoever
with something God did in a specified order, then the account can mean
anything I want it too.>>
I never said it doesn't bear "any connection whatsoever with something God did
in a specified order." I only said that your idea of interpretation here is
arbitrarily limited. As in:
<<Genesis 1 is a series of statements of fact. These statements are either
true or false.>>
Your Aristotilean mind is playing tricks on you. You set up "fact" as
objective/verifiable, and then apply the law of "either/or." The fallacy is in
your major premise, as I've explained.
I guess this discussion gets put on hold while you hound potential publishers.
Good luck.
Jim