Perhaps a better question is what would the original writer have written if living today with our current understanding of the universe’s origin? I presume it would read quite differently as far as the description language inherent in it goes, but still would have every single bit of the monotheism, judaeo/christian anthropology, anti-idolatry (and more) in it.

The theology, etc. of Gen 1 comes to us with in the wrapping of an ancient cosmology, but the theology was what was being wrapped, not the other way ’round

No one here has suggested that an original writer would have said anything about a ‘literal’/’metaphorical’ distinction, so thanks

??! I’m lost, sorry.

The rhythm and structure of the text places it beyond question in the poetry genre, and the main point is that the writer(s) would have held the theological convictions expressed in the text as more important than the ‘this is actually what happened’ understandings which may or may not have been in mind.

It’s not that the lines between science and art and poetry and philosophy and theology back then were blurred. It’s that they didn’t exist.

I think that the people of the day [when genesis was written] believed genesis to be literally true because I think it absurd to believe that, if a person of the day was asked, he would respond “Oh, no, it’s not supposed to be taken literally”. In a time where the brand of mould on the wall was written into theological books, of course the physical world was believed to be under the control of god(s)! And so their physical descriptions of the world were subservient to their theological ones.
To be sure, this is a rather less useful/correct model of the world than we have today. It is towards the Theological Occasionalism end of the scale – and that is a bad thing. Which is why I find any manifested theology to be….well, potentially dangerous.

I find Simon’s statement and your response to be interesting. I know Dennis O’Lamoureux regards Genesis as playing the role in Jewish society of giving them an understanding about the natural world around them and where they as a nation came from. He regards Genesis as the “science of the day” in that it contains “ancient science” as much as it reflects their understanding of the world at that time. All societies around them had similar, yet theologically very different, stories. Wether they thought it to be factually true, or even found myth and fact to be useful or separate categories… I dunno? Jesus and Paul seem to refer to Adam and Eve as historical characters, perhaps simply because that was societies understanding of the world in their day. I think what it does mean is that even if they did, or did not regard Genesis as factual, we do not need to regard it as scientifically or historically factual in order to still learn the same theological lessons that they used the narrative of Genesis to convey. In fact, I feel that more profound theological lessons can be learnt from the text by acknowledging its poetical/artistic/philosophical aspects. Treating it solely as a scientific text can lead to dry and irrelevant lines of inquiry such as speculation and argument surrounding the possibility of a layer of water in the sky above the firmament being released by the windows in heaven as the source of water for the flood.

You, I feel, are more of an expert in this regard than me! Besides, I don’t wear the title of “proper expert” too comfortably

I (and not a few commentators – ancient/modern – who would know better than I – and I presume you too?) see every reason to see the text as a mix of poetry/art/theology/philosophy. What isn’t debatable is that the original author(s) were certainly doing poetry and certainly doing theology. What is debatable is whether or not they were also intending to create a ‘factual’ account of historical events (the first 5 days of which no humans were around to witness). And btw, it’s more than a little anachronistic to suggest that people thousands of years ago were concerned with the ‘factual’ nature of a text?