Yeah, I get the concept, like I said though, once you think about it for a bit it's an idea that doesn't mesh with other parts of the story, whether it's a modern interpretation of it or not.

If the creation days aren't days but are instead eons capable of letting evolution take place. Then creating plants eons before the sun makes no sense. If we came from aquatic life, but humans and land animals were created either days or eons after aquatic life, that doesn't make sense. If things were getting tweaked along the way and the ability to directly intervene exists or is needed then there's little point in waiting on the long process in the first place and indirectly defining the laws of physics to do their thing. It also raises questions about being all-knowing or all-powerful. And if the answers to these are based on problems with how the Genesis story is told, why trust the rest of the book?

I mean, this sounds more enlightened at face value, but does it even mesh with Biblical Christian lore? At what point is man created in God's image during his development? At what point is a homosapien ancestor considered an animal that doesn't need salvation vs a man that does? How do Adam and Eve and the birth of sin fit in with man developing gradually from other species? If it's just a fanciful allegory or one of the things that got lost in the game of telephone, then why take anything the book says seriously?

This meeting in the middle just seems like an admission that the older views aren't supported by evidence paired with an unwillingness to walk away completely. The things once attributed to be in the direct control of God have now been relegated to be what he's indirectly in control of. Seems to me God is just the ever-shrinking bubble of ignorance we slowly chip away at.