Nature of Genesis - or What's Wrong with Tradition?

However the 6 day creation account of Genesis one is not an eyewitness account, neither is the whole of Genesis. It is in fact a historical review written by Moses or some other scribe. I am happy to accept Moses as the author, although most modern Biblical scholars think Genesis was written between 500-700 BC. If we accept a Moses or post-Moses authorship, then this account would most likely be sourced from oral tradition was passed down through generations before, and there are different stories. I am sure you would be aware of the change in name from the Elohim (God male-plural) of chapter 1 to Jehovah (God male singular) of chapter 2, which is a post Moses name for God.

Robin B in an exchange with Tas Walker, general discussion being soil formation:

Soil formation and the age of the earth
Published: 13 November 2010 (feedback)
https://creation.com/soil-formation-challenge

6 days are a prophetic account God gave Moses.

Adonai is Moses' name for God and the change is not invalidating the authenticity, but adding Moses' validation of them, like reworking of blessing on fertility back to Genesis 1:28, though it must have been available in Adam's account of days six from his perspective (main part of Genesis 2, after first few verses).

And with long lives, many overlappings in the concrete and few divisions one could term minimal overlap there were not all that many items on which it could go wrong.

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H.

From the Haydock comment to Genesis 3.
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/untitled-05.shtml#navPoint_6

H. means = Haydock himself, Father George Leo Haydock, a man who obviously didn't mistrust oral tradition, like "modern culture" has taken over a Protestant fetish of doing./HGL



By artist unknown - possible self-portrait - Source: a private collection, reproduced with permission., Public Domain, Link

PS, he also quoted earlier commenters. In a full Haydock Bible I think that systematically Ussher dates are given along the comments he made. This was a case in an earlier site with his comment and it fits Vulgate and Douay Rheims as well as King James. That site was taken down, here is the new one, where Novus Ordo's have taken Ussher away: HAYDOCK CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY/HGL