I am not sure I follow you at all. The sin of piety?

The easiest route out of this quagmire of whether the biblia sacra is true/false is to avoid objectivity completely. Objectivity doesn't tolerate inconsistencies - they're considered unmistakable signs of falsehoods and that messes up the idea of the Bible being the truth from the first page to the last page.

Treat the Bible as a subjective account spanning from Moses to Jesus and setting the stage for Mohammad (Islam) and inconsistency becomes moot!

The Bible, to my reckoning, had multiple authors and each one of them had their own take on God and faer prophets, Moses and Jesus. What should we expect to find in such a book? Inconsistencies! That's exactly what we find in the good book!

There are various approaches to interpreting the Bible, so I do no think I can agree with all of them. Instead of avoiding objectivity completely, lets avoid subjectivity competently. Let me make it clear what the subject is here: the text of the Bible, and specifically of the creation account in Genesis 1.

One approach to inconsistencies is to choose between them, the other is to seek to harmonize them. For the sake of argument, let us remove the self-inconsistencies in Genesis 1. That is, conflicting accounts within the text of an event, but taken in their natural sense. For example if God created the 'heavens and the earth' first, then the sun and the moon, the creation of the heavens did not include the sun and moon. I am not talking of Genesis 2, but if one chooses Genesis 1 over Genesis 2, this does not make Genesis 1 untrue. Of course one can claim unreliably of the Bible, but that is a separate matter.

I have read once again the first chapter of Genesis, and, although it has several things that I do not understand, like the 'vault', the statements are clear: the text says that God created the everything in the 'heavens' night sky - stars etc and the earth, all living plants, animals and human beings. The co-author of the text for which we believe God was the co-author (or maybe editor) has made sensibly made no specific claims of creation, and has produced an account that is self-consistent, in my opinion.

If the Biblical account of creation is self-consistent, then the next question, which might be raised in another discussion, is; "Is belief in a God consistent with the belief in a Creator-God"? I think it is not only consistent but necessary.

The next question is then how did God create the universe? Any answer to this question has to be consistent with the Biblical account of creation, the Biblical account as myth (which reflects on the truthfulness of the Bible and God's character. We speak of 'apparent age' what about 'apparent truth' and 'apparent revelation'?

The answer to the question of how God created cannot be answered by the scientific enterprise as these are ever - changing theories, none of which claim to be final, except in their intention, which is to exclude forever supernatural causes and interpretations.

Why would you trust aged paper instead of modern brains?

All history is written on aged paper. Is the United States Constitution inerrant and infallible? How do we know that it is what the Authors intended, whether it was written by men, and if it contains contradictions?

Modern theological brains are what are certifying that the Bible is trustworthy. Are you saying the human race did not evolve right? Maybe only evangelicals will be fit to survive.

What seems to be an excellent summary on interpretation options for Genesis is here:

https://biologos.org/articles/comparing-interpretations-of-genesis-1/

I would lean towards the concordist interpretations, out of which the "Gap" theory I would rule out, in agreement with the authors.

"The Gap and Day-Age concordist views would have baffled the original audience, since these ancients would have had no concept of geological ages; if they could not fathom time periods of millions or billions of years, the text must have meant something different to them. "

Assuming this is true, and that the gap theory extends the meaning of the text to unimaginable proportions, and that the day-age theory is untenable because any of the ages cannot correspond to any geological spans of time unless those specifically chosen to match the geological record in which case there is no difference between the geological day age and the Biblical one. I assume the original text did not anticipate this.

So I am left with the 'six day' creation and the 'creation poem' interpretation. Both of these are compatible with the Christian faith and are self-consistent.

"Moreover, concordists can be forced to regularly change and update their interpretations as modern scientific knowledge grows and changes. For instance, the Gap Interpretation twisted the meaning of Genesis 1:2 outside its original intent; later it failed to match new scientific evidence."

I would agree with the above.

It is worth pointing out that the statement that 'a scientific study' will confirm the six day creation account is really missing the point. Science will never confirm a six day creation account, or more to the point a Divine creation, the scientific enterprise is simply not moving in this direction and never will.