OK, I hear you, AV161. Now let me ask you a question: Gen. 1 says first animals, then man and woman. Gen. 2 says first man, then animals, then woman. Now how is that anything but a serious contradiction in chronologies? Now let me ask you another question: How many wives did Adam have? If you say one, you are dead wrong according to Medieval Christianity. The latter attempted to fuse these two conflicting accounts into one. This lead to a major problem in accounting for all the personnel. You had to account for a woman created with Adam (Gen. 1) and then a second woman created in the Garden, namely, Eve. Hence, the myth of Lilith. The woman in Gen. 1 was named Lilith and assumed to be Adam's first wife. The problem was that she wanted to ride on top of Adam during sex. Adam didn't like it, so God gave him a second wife, more submissive, Eve. Lilith ran off and terrorizes children, so that many cribs had "God save us from Lilith" on them. I mention that to show it is impossible to fuse these accounts into one. For example, there is the ever-popular pluperfect theory. This is very prevalent among self-styled online apologists. The argument is that gen. 2 has been seriously mistranslated. Well, that's nice to know. Too bad the translators didn't have one of these apologists, who generally cannot read Hebrew, on their staff. The argument goes that Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect. The line should read, "So God had created the animals." That way, you can easily square the chronologies of 1 and 2. Only problem is, there is no pluperfect tense in Hebrew. Any use of "had" here is totally wrong. Furthermore, in terms of language, there are sharp differences between 1 and 2. That has led biblical scholars to point out Gen. 2 was written by a separate author long before Gen. 1. Hence, 2 is a separate account, not a further exposition of 1.
You point to Rev. as a motive for God creating. That is totally irrelevant here, as the focus is on Gen. 1, which says nothing to that effect.
You claim Gen. 1 says out of nothing. As I pointed out above, that may be obvious for you, but certainly not to many biblical scholars.
You say Gen. 1 says how God creates. It does not. It does not make it clear whether God creates out of nothing or out of a preexistent chaos. Any serious student of the Bible can tell you that. You say it explains how God creates just because it says God spoke. OK, but just how does that work? How is it the case that just by speaking, God cerates?
You say that "yom" here means a 24-hour period. Well, that might be OK for you, but it is certainly not OK with many biblical scholars, who point out key ambiguities in the meaning of yom in the first place. Remember, the Bible says that a thousand years are but a day to God.
