How can Genesis be taken literally by what is said in Genesis?

There are those who insist we take Genesis very very literally, but from reading the text itself, I struggle in how - just from the text, let’s ignore the Dinosaurs and everything else for now - one can take it literally when there are contradictions both from the text itself and what is in “observable science.”

Let’s start with Genesis 1.

For one, we have the creation of night and day as completely separate from the the creation of the moon and the sun, which are described as “lights.” (Genesis 1:1-19)

However, we know based on “observational science” that the Earth is simultaneously both light and dark as a result of the Earth’s rotation relative to the Sun. How can God create light and dark as separate from the Sun, when it’s known that the Sun is the source of light?

Even Origen recognized that this made little sense and argued that the 7 Days had to be symbolic, and argued for instantaneous creation on the basis that the first chapter couldn’t be reconciled with what was known of the world.

Also, while the Sun can be classified as a “light,” how is the Moon a “light”? Doesn’t Genesis suggest that the Moon is just a weak light like the Sun, even though the moon merely reflects the light of the Sun?

For two, we have Genesis 1:6-8, where the creation of a firmament which contains the waters is made. What is this firmament? Men have been to outer space and there is no visible firmament of the waters above. Rain apparently comes in when this firmament opens, but we know based on meteorology that water comes from the cycle of evaporation and condensation.

Now let’s look at Genesis 2:4 onwards.

There are very clearly two contradictory Genesis stories that have been combined together. From Genesis 2:4 onward, we have an introduction about the origin of the world which gives an account of creation that is different than what we understand from Genesis 1.

So, we read in Genesis 2:5-7 that before there were any plants, God allowed water to spring into the ground, and from the slime God formed man and then planted a Garden.

But according to Genesis 1:11-31, the plants were made before man. If it were the case that the plants were already made, why does Genesis 2:5-7 say that there were no shrubs that had yet appeared on the Earth?

Then, we have the fact that God forms all the animals and brings them to Adam (Genesis 2:19-20), yet according to Genesis 1:24-26, God formed all the animals before he made man and woman.

Now, the verb “formed” in Hebrew from what I can understand can be Pluperfect and understood to mean “he had formed”, but considering that Genesis 2:4 clearly has an opening line like the beginning of a story, and the fact that there is already a major contradiction in the timeline of Genesis, I think that this should be seen as another contradiction of the timeline as there was no mention of animals yet.

Finally, look at the Hebrew texts themselves. Up till Genesis 2:4, there is clearly one type of literary structure - one type of Hebrew poetic structure - and then it changes drastically from Genesis 2:4 onwards. Genesis 1:1-2:3 refers to God as “YHWH,” whereas Genesis 2:4 onwards refers to Him as “Adonai” or “Lord.” Moreover, in Genesis 1:1-2:3, God created everything out of nothing, whereas Genesis 2:4 onwards has God with anthropomorphic characteristics and has Him form everything out of something that already exists.

So then it’s argued - “Well, okay, there’s some contradictions and the Book of Genesis is framed from a Semitic Mythological framework of how the world was and came to be, so there’s some parts that should be flexible.”

Okay, but the question is this - if how literally we take Genesis is open up to interpretation, why should we believe Adam and Eve even interacted with a Snake at all? That there was a Garden? In a 7 Day Creation? That there was a literal Adam and Eve? That there were Dinosaurs with Adam and Eve?