“I propose no deception. Just an inadequacy of the written language of the time to convey the idea perfectly.”
The deception seems inherent, if Genesis is not relaying accurate information about actual events. Genesis presents itself to us as a historical account, indistinguishable by context from any other historical section of the Bible. If it’s not a historical account, but something else, then that is deceptive.
As to inadequacy of language, I think that is a very weak argument. Obviously, we wouldn’t expect Genesis to try to talk about dyoxyribonucleic acid, or complex concepts that nobody at the time would have understood. However, what you are saying is that an inadequacy of language led the Bible to describe one act of creation, followed by a long period of descent and adaptation, as multiple acts of creation in short succession. This doesn’t make sense. There is no known shortcoming in Hebrew that would force one to describe those things so inaccurately.
Deception implies intent. There is no deception if they described it the best they could with the words they had to work with. Even today we struggle with accurately conveying ideas with written and spoken word, even when we're honestly trying to convey it the best we can.