I am not a hard line Young Earther, and we could say that God did not for a billion years advise Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. It stands to reason, the animals were procreating at the beginning, so Adam and Eve would likely have started early too.
Gen 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it."
Genesis 1 accounts for the creation in six days.
Genesis 2 recounts the seventh day as a day of rest.
Genesis 1:27 describes the creation of mankind, but not Adam.
Genesis 2:7 describes the creation of a man, presumably Adam, for the purpose of taking care of and working in the garden that was created.
Genesis 2:22 described the creation of a woman, presumably Eve, as a helper to Adam.
Adam and Eve were created to work and take care of the Garden of Eden, and were required to trust and obey their creator.
**********************
The passage you quoted has no instruction for Adam and Eve to subdue the Earth, to be fruitful and multiply. Adam and Eve were not yet existing or were not yet mentioned.
The passage that another poster quoted describing when Adam had his first child Seth at 130 years of age does not follow the instruction to be fruitful and multiply as having a first child at age 130 is hardly being fruitful.
This first child was born after the Fall, so it stands to reason that Adam and Eve were not fruitful while they were still inside the garden.
**********************
The point here is that people interpret what they want from these passages. And this leads to wild-eyed inferences.
I am going to resist to interpret these passages and I am not going to allow myself to be programmed by someone else’s interpretation.
What I see are two groups labeling themselves as evolutionists and creationists haggling about some 6000 year time point which is absurd on its face. The premises are not based on any fact but rather a wild assumption which is shaky. Both groups are engaging in folly and are wasting time. Both groups taint the wisdom of science and the wisdom of the Bible. Both groups are deleterious to science and Bible history.
**********************
What I do is to seek any biblical claim, declaration, sequence or description that directly and incontrovertibly contradicts scientific fact. I find nothing in biblical passages that contradict known scientific fact.
I have found statistical methods in maximum likelihood estimation used in error by proponents of evolution in positing evolutionary trees. So I know for a fact that evolutionary ‘science’ is riddled with error. And I have sat in many many university (big league) seminars as a PhD in Statistics listening to evolutionary trees, mutation events and rates, to point out the wrongful inferences and misuse of methods and sampling.
Although evolutionists acknowledge weaknesses in their methods they continue to use these methods in their publications because they don’t know what else to do and because statistical methods create a false aura of scientific credibility. Basically if it looks scientific, well then it must be scientific. Write an equation or two, grab a well-known published name and a publication sails through more often than not unchallenged especially in the more dismal sciences of evolution and economics which often resemble astrology more than science.
And to demonstrate the above criticism I am reminded of the experiment conducted covertly on a group of archaeologists and paleontologists who were given a set of fossilized bones found together and were asked to arrange them and identify the creature that the bones belonged to. Unbeknownst to this group the bones had been numbered, scrambled and renumbered preserving in secret the trace of the renumbering to the original numbering. This was repeated for a number of such groups and the results were all conflicting.
Often a subordinate scientist will look to his leader, a scientist of repute who is widely published and known to the field and the lesser subordinate will go along to get along unless he has a completely solid contrarian inference. In other words science can be very political especially in certain fields such as evolution, economics, sociology, psychology, political science and so on; all of it bordering on the astrological.
**********************
The Bible, as opposed to some error-prone scientific investigations, is not riddled with error but instead contains accounts which are not scientifically observable, which are referred to as supernatural.
A rod turned into a serpent, a sea parted, Lazarus brought back from the dead, a Savior resurrected and so on. These things do not contradict science; they are simply not observable or reproducible by means of the scientific method.
On the other hand, a six thousand year old Earth is subject to challenge and especially when it is based on biblical ancestral trees with ages at death that are shaky from the very beginning with uncertainty in the time of creation of Adam versus the time of Adam’s expulsion.
Both creationists and evolutionists engage in nonsense and folly. They are cut from the same cloth and each demeans the wisdom of science and of the Bible. A 6000 year old Earth meme provides target practice for the other bad actors, the evolutionists.
We would do well to tell both we are not interested in their ‘stories’.
Instead let the heart discover the infinite wisdom of Jesus and the wonders of his life on Earth and in heaven. This of course is the spiritual realm which is just as real as the physical realm.
If any is reading that tires of reading, thinking and analyzing but seeks a faithful rendition of the life of Jesus by way of film, without any Hollywood gimmicks or bad acting, without a blond Jesus, let them find Franco Zeffirelli’s ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ and view it multiple times in its entirety. It is one of those works we find in life that one can put a finger on and believe that God was participating in it.
And tell those hucksters in the 6000 year old camps, both creationists and evolutionists ‘NO SALE’.