You’re still conveniently avoiding the point.  Adam and Eve were created.  There’s no such thing as the first two homosapiens.  H. sapien evolved as a population not as two individuals.  The fact that they were created and were part of the first set of species contradicts Evolution.  You conveniently avoided all of the other points as well.  I’m not asking for the Bible to be a science book, but if it’s going to wander into scientific territory, it better be right when considering that it’s the “word of god.”  Nonetheless, your all knowing god makes the Earth  before the stars; yet you claim that he was right about the Big Bang!  That is a scientific matter and it’s completely wrong.  I know for a fact Adam and Eve didn’t exist and my assertion is well based.  Your willful intransigence will not change facts and your false analogies are fallacious to say the least. We aren’t speaking of a personal journal. We’re speaking about the “word of god” — a compilation of books that fail at accurately representing the reality of our current knowledge.

“Long before cosmology or astronomy even existed, Genesis 1:1 has stood
by the claim that the universe had a beginning, even against
‘scientific’ claims that the universe is infinite without a beginning.”

Long before science, the Qur’an, the Vedas, the Enuma Elish, and many other religious scriptures made the same claim.  Your point?  You have none.  Of course humans will perceive beginnings and ends.  We are finite.  Thus, most religious scriptures make this claim.  The Vedas are older than the book of Job, which is the oldest book in the Bible.  Is Hinduism the correct religion because it made the claim before the Bible?  Is the Babylonian myth correct because it made the claim before the Bible?  See the issue with your reasoning? If you will consider your argument effective in favor of the Bible, you will have to grant that it is effective for other scriptures as well.   Oh blasphemy!  You definitely cannot concede there.  Thus, the weakness of such an argument is easily exposed.  Can we conclude that these religious scriptures mentioned the Big Bang?  No.  These men wrote of a beginning; however, they failed to accurately describe it.  If you say that the Bible is compatible with science, why isn’t it specific when venturing into scientific territory?  “In the beginning.”  Am I to assume that this covers the fundamental forces, planck time, inflation, etc?  Christians like you will stop at nothing to keep a dead corpse unburied.  The Bible is either wholly compatible with science or it’s not.  You can’t say it’s correct about the Big Bang whilst being wrong about the stars predating the Earth.  You can’t say that it is silent about Taxonomy and figurative about Evolution.  My airtight argument stands!  You are contorting to avoid the fact that your Christ didn’t and doesn’t exist.  I leave you to your ignorance.  I don’t know when mushy feelings, spiritual hymns, and talking to oneself became more important than facts.  Nothing is more sacred than the facts.