There are several issues here.

Issue One. The hypothesis I am proposing, is precisely that - the authors of Genesis merely fabricated a cosmology in order to impose an ethic, in a manner that invited much opprobrium from Nietzsche. The problem with launching into the invention of a cosmology, without having as primary aim getting that cosmology right, but instead to use that cosmology, right or wrong, as a means of imposing an ethic on the universe, is fatally flawed. If one's ethical project depends upon a particular cosmology being correct, that project dies a death the moment said cosmology is found to be wrong. I recall having stated this in previous posts.

Issue Two. The point of my pedagogical exercise was not necessarily to be successful with every person I present it to, merely to be successful with enough people for the requisite understanding to be disseminated. There will always be people who struggle to understand even elementary concepts, let alone a concept as powerful and pedagogically challenging as tensors. Furthermore, I chose this concept specifically because I know from experience, that it causes even undergraduate mathematics students to pause for breath. Consequently, any success in disseminating understanding of that concept is considered a plus in the requisite circles. If I had succeeded with you in this regard, then obviously this would have lent a lot of weight to the postulates i am expounding here, but just because it failed with you, doesn't mean it will fail with anyone else.

Indeed, that's one of the points I was seeking to introduce by this example, namely that [1] only partial success would be needed in order to lay the foundations for further development of understanding, and [2] any properly constituted entity seeking to disseminate understanding would know this in advance. As a corollary, we can dismiss the idea that a properly constituted entity possessing the relevant body of knowledge was behind this text, because such an entity would have sought other ways and means to disseminate that understanding. No mathematics lecturer would expect 100% success when teaching this concept, but would be highly delighted if just one student in 1,000 absorbed the concept to the point of being able to move into research with it. Furthermore, even that limited level of success would still form the basis for further development of understanding, especially if that one student in 1,000 also possessed facility with explaining his thinking to a wider audience. Plus, even an incomplete understanding in the initial stages on the part of the rest of the students, would again form the basis for better understanding at a later stage, and any entity with a proper understanding of basic pedagogy would also understand this, and plan accordingly. No evidence that such planning took place is present in the requisite mythology.

Issue Three. Just because a public presenter uses colloquial language when presenting a topic that has deep science behind it, doesn't necessarily invalidate that presentation, unless the colloquial language involved is actively misleading. Your example fails because the term "sunrise" possesses a basis in observation, namely that at daybreak, the Sun appears to rise upwards from the horizon. That there are intricate celestial mechanics involved in the actual process resulting in that observation, is of course a detail that is taught in basic physics classes throughout the developed world, and as a corollary, no misunderstanding need arise among those thus educated, who recognise "sunrise" as a shorthand for the requisite motions. Astute students in said classes will recognise in addition, that said mechanics were used in the calculation of the time of first appearance of the Sun over the horizon. There is no act of deception involved in your example, merely a recourse to shorthand understood as such by many.

Plus, I also understand that there's an issue involved with respect to the geometry of spherical objects, which complicates the actual calculations. You might find it instructive to determine this issue for yourself.

Issue Four. No, I'm not saying at all that the actual humans responsible for writing that mythology, should have anticipated a body of knowledge 26 centuries before the appearance thereof. Instead, I'm stating that any genuine "creator" of the universe, as asserted to exist in that mythology, should have had access to that knowledge (and more), and found a way of disseminating this to the requisite humans, so that discoverable errors did not appear in any text attributed to that entity. If you were trying to disseminate a message to other people, would you want errors appearing in the text version thereof?

Issue Five. I'm not using the same reasoning as fundamentalists at all, I'm destroying their so-called "reasoning", by pointing out that their assertions of purported scientific compatibility of their mythology are plain, flat, wrong. I'm taking their assertions at face value, and demonstrating why those assertions are woefully incompetent when treated thus. That you appear not to have deduced this yourself, is slightly worrying.

Furthermore, the various individuals reponsible for the requisite text, did not "know" whether or not the universe had a beginning, they merely asserted this. They did not have actual knowledge of the origins of the observable universe and its contents, and demonstrated this amply by littering the requisite text with assertions that are not merely wrong in the light of modern scientific knowledge, but farcical and absurd in that light. This isn't just the case for physics, but for biology too. Furthermore, if you check the actual output of relevant researchers in cosmological physics, they are very careful with respect to their postulates on the matter, not merely in the interests of scientific rigour, but because some of them have seen their work subject to duplicitous misrepresentation by the usual suspects among pedlars of apologetics.

Indeed, every time I see the tiresome "atheists think the universe came from nothing" lie that so many of them love to post on Facebook and elsewhere, I'm reminded of two salient facts flushing this garbage down the toilet where it belongs, namely [1] the question of the origin of the universe doesn't arise from "atheism", but from research in cosmological physics, to which I and others pay attention, and [2] that the universe "came from nothing" is actually the very assertion contained in their mythology, and it is supernaturalists who think the universe came from nothing, via a conjuring trick from their magic man.

In the meantime, I've devoted space elsewhere on this forum to an exposition of two papers by Steinhardt & Turok, in which the implication, explicitly, is that the observable universe in its current form had a "beginning", but that what existed before was eternal. Their proposed mechanism for the instantiation of the observable universe, incidentally, possesses several merits - one, it eliminates the singularity problem from Big Bang cosmology, and two, it generates an observable product we can look for here and now in the observable universe, in the form of a precisely defined power spectrum for primordial gravitational waves. If future gravitational wave detectors return data to the effect that said power spectrum is actually observed to be present, Steinhardt & Turok pick up a Nobel Prize.

Understanding the details of their work, incidentally, not only involves you heavily with tensors, but the intimidating mathematics of the Ricci Calculus, and I don't propose to give a masterclass on that any time soon, because you need about five years' worth of graduate mathematics behind you before you can even begin working with it, let alone pressing it into service in a research paper.

Issue Six. You are committing a fundamental error, by conflating persistence with correctness. Plenty of bad and wrong ideas have been persistent over time among humans, but by definition, those ideas did not survive because of correctness. Bad and wrong ideas have been persistent for several reasons, viz:

[1] The ideas in question enjoy at least some accord with superficial intuition, whilst being wrong when subject to proper analysis (I point you at your own "sunrise" example here);

[2] The ideas in question enjoy support from a politically powerful and motivated lobby (but only persist as long as that lobby persists)

[3] The ideas in question exert a powerful emotional appeal.

In the case of the mythology in question, [2] and [3] above are manifestly at work. First of all, as I've stated elsewhere, the one feature that the Abrahamic religions brought to the landscape of human discourse, was ruthless enforcement of conformity to doctrine, without which, the mythologies in question would have fallen into the same disuse as Greek or Egyptian mythology a long time ago. The ideas contained in those mythologies did not survive because they withstood the tests of proper discourse, rather, they survived because ruthless enforcers of conformity to doctrine (frequently material beneficiaries of the requisite pursuit) placed the arena of discourse in chains for 1500 years. Those ideas are now under diligent scrutiny to an extent that would have terrified the Inquisitors of old, because the arena of discourse has at last been liberated from religious shackles, and the success of science has played a large part in that liberation. The remaining strongholds of those ideas only remain so, due to a willingness on the part of adherents to exhibit discoursive duplicity on a grand scale, combined with the manner in which the simplistic notions arising from those mythologies are emotionally comforting to the gullible and uneducated.

Indeed, one idea I've been warming to, is the idea that genuine intellectual maturity only arrives, when one jettisons these comforting lies, and faces uncomfortable reality with fortitude. Only when one has stared hard at one's own terrifying insignificance on the cosmic scale, and emerged not afraid of it, but rejoicing in the new understanding it bestows, can one truly call oneself a mature adult.

I shall now take another break.