We've discussed this on other threads. Genesis 1 is a sequence, and Genesis 2:4 IS ALSO A SEQUENCE. Gen 2 demonstrates it is a sequence by making claims such as A happend, before B happened. It uses languages such as B had not happend, because A was not there.
This is a sequence of creation, and a sequence that does not agree with Gen 1.
And then we have the light problem in Genesis 1 where light was created on day 1, but the sun/moon/stars was created on day 4. I suppose it could be talking about glowing matter, but still it is unclear on the issue.
The bottom line is that litteral translations are not possible, unless you assume some wierd exceptions. Perhaps the animals that didn't fit on the Ark were floated in the air for the duration, stuff like that.
It just becomes so much easier if you will accept that Genesis is a parable, like Jesus told, with meaning beyond exact word-for-word litteralisim. It becomes easy to decide that there neednt be any conflict with science. Evolution is a detail that God created, but just didn't tell about it in Genesis because that wasn't what He wanted to tell.
I'm not sure that any translation of any work, from any language to any other, can be said to be literal. Individual languages have their own shadings and concepts that don't easily translate, if at all.
In the case of the Bible, the problem is the words in Hebrew hold certain implications, some of which may not even be known to modern Bible scholars.
One that I've mentioned on other threads is that Genesis 2: refers to God "forming" Adam. Only the Hebrew word translated as "formed" specifically refers to pottery-making. Thus, I read it as man was formed, as pottery is formed, through intermediate forms to a final state. My reading of that is that the Bible says evolution occurred.
Larger point is the Bible may be literally true. But the Bible in English -- King James, NIV, JPS, Kaplan, whatever -- is not literally true, because translations from Hebrew to English cannot maintain all the implications in the original language. Commentary helps, but still...
Regardless of what has been discussed on other threads....I am speaking to someone that has grip on scripture and the details. Again go to www.answersingenesis.com or take a precepts course on THE BOOK OF GENESIS. I guess it would be easier for those that don't take the time to study to just accept that it is "parable like" even though the two have nothing to do with each other. What do you do with the rest of Genesis.....like the GLOBAL FLOOD, I suppose God meant a local flood, not a world wide flood.