And you bring that assumption to the text before you even begin reading it. You are saying that Gen 1 must be a parable because of the results of modern physics, not because the literary type is parable. The cart is before the horse in your interpretive scheme.
The material in Genesis is historical narrative ... this happened, then that happened, then this other thingy happened ... and so on. The entire book is like that. Whether Genesis is actual history is another question.
>>The material in Genesis is historical narrative ... this happened, then that happened, then this other thingy happened ... and so on. The entire book is like that. Whether Genesis is actual history is another question.<<
Who was the observer. I would suggest the only possible observer was God. And thus the retelling translating the billions of years into days and not going into the enourmous complexity makes it more or a parable.
But I’m open to another word - I don’t really like “parable” here but it seems closest. God knows how long it took for supernovas to explode and deposit iodine on earth and that supernovas are where iodine comes from. So when He told man the story - it really is a (parable or something) more than a history, IMO.