Hi Marty,
Anyone can look at Genesis 1 as they please, and I’m not going to wreck someone’s faith by trying to prove them wrong, but knowing you, I don’t think there’s much of a risk of that! So, here goes.
Verse 1
Serious believing scholars make a good case about verse 1 not meaning that, but I’ll let that go and concede it to you, since I like to think it refers to the Big Bang as well.
Verse 2
It was at least 100 million years before water covered the earth, and it was not, “deep” at that point. The surface of the earliest earth was hot and molten with volcanoes spewing lava everywhere and meteors crashing into it.
Day 1
Yes, I believe that the light mentioned is from the sun, or more accurately from the sun and moon (from day 4). However, we know that the sun came into being and was alight before the earth formed.
Day 2
Now THAT is a modern, 21st century scientific world view forced into scripture! As Jon has said, they didn’t have a concept of an, “atmosphere” in those days, so it wouldn’t have made sense for God to inspire that. I’ll have more to say on this below, but what is being explicated is a structure (solid or not), that separates the, “above” and, “below” waters.
Day 3
Could be continent formation, but that was a process that lasted about 1.5 billion years.
Day 4
This is fashionable to say these days, but it creates timeline problems.
Day 5
The Cambrian Explosion didn’t have any of the things that are mentioned in the text. Body plans developed, yes, over the 20 million years of the Early Cambrian.
Day 6
This is the least problematic aspect of your concordance, but since the rest of Genesis 1 seems to be a phenomenological view of the world, it would make sense for the most complex biological beings to come last.
I happen to feel strongly that we are not to concord Genesis 1, that is to attempt to harmonize science with it (or the whole bible really), since an honest and plain reading of the text won’t allow it.
There was much more I could have pointed out in your concordance quest, but you could read about it in my recently presented 39-page paper on Genesis 1, which compares the Framework Theory and the Day-Age Theory, but is really about why concordance attempts at Genesis 1 fail at every turn. If you, or anyone reading this is interested, that paper can be found here.
I’ll provide for you a little trailer: people have been making serious attempts at concording Genesis 1 and science for about 300 years now, and no two concordance attempts are the same, partly because scientific interpretations of the data constantly change. But even concordance attempts created at around the same time and using the same data don’t agree with each other, one of the reasons why believing geologist Davis A. Young gave up on it.