Moses was a well educated and bright individual lead by The Lord to ponder The Lord and His Work for years as a prince, highly educated rich man, rebel, shepherd, & reluctant leader - Focusing especially on the WHY of Creation & Humans and the role of humans in God’s Creation. Genesis 1 & 2 were written to answer the WHY and WHO of Creation but NOT the HOW or MECHANISM of Creation. Genesis 1 & 2 are written in the Concrete Picture based thought process of Hebrew and in Hebrew Poetic Logic Forms to place humans in creation as STEWARDS of The Lord’s Creation by The Lord of Hosts to clearly display The LORD’s character, purposes, creative heart and mind, and relational qualties and that humans were NOT a mistake of a capricious god[s], but that humans were carefully and intimately created as male and female for this responsibility of revealing the Lord God and to be responsible STEWARDS of Creation. This was the view of historical scientists like Pascal, Newton, and more. So, why do many contemporary Christians ignore the literary and linguistic form and logic and purpose of Genesis 1 & 2 and create and impose a greek abstract and mechanistic world view over these sections and create unnecessary confusion and distraction away from central intent of the sections which leadis many scientists to miss the intellectual integrity of these sections and literally miss the whole point of Genesis 1 & 2 and use this as their reason to write off a faith and relationship with the living Lord?
Since Hebrew is a Picture/Concrete Language Using Picture Related Poetic Forms - Why do people insist on viewing Genesis 1 & 2 Through a Greek Abstract Thought Pattern?
You make a valid point. The context, linguistic forms, and cultural environment must be taken into account if we are to apprehend a reasonable and accurate interpretation of Scripture. While you say correctly that the ancient Hebrew motif was substantially narrative, it shouldn’t be lost that it was also based in the linguistic construction (alphabet, grammar, morphology, semantics, and rhetoric) similar to what we use today in the West–our alphabet substantially derives from the ancient Hebrew, which derives from the Phoenician or proto-Phonecian.
My point is that ancient systems of thought (eg, subject, verb, predicate, etc.) were substantially similar to how we today in the West construct language, so we do have a strong basis for apprehending meaning even from ancient Hebrew, especially when we take context, etc. into account. I’m not suggesting you’re ignoring this observation, just making it obvious.
The short answer to your question is that we tend to want to get answers to our questions from the Bible whether they are actually there or not. This leads to what is called eisegesis where we read what we want to find into the text rather than reading it to understand what it is saying (exegesis). Since many of us in the West tend to be Greek in our way of thinking, we want to know all manner of things that Genesis was not intended to tell us. For example, how old is the universe? Lookie here…genealogies with numbers we can add up. Was that the point of that passage? Almost certainly not. But we want an answer, so we break out the calculator.