Exactly.
The people who translated the Bible into English relied on earlier translations into Latin, Greek, and Aramaic as well as on the original text (or the version of the original extant at the time). Maybe those earlier translators knew something we don't anymore when they chose "replenish," or even just believed something that's not a part of modern-day Christian thought.Either way, the word choice is telling.
We see all this influence from religious thought and theology; our understanding of what we are reading, stems from our frame of reference in the religious thinking we were raised in. Whether I like it or not, both my parents being raised Roman Catholics is the foundation for my understanding of Genesis, even though they raised me atheist and outside of the Catholic institution, the religious instruction of their youth was still the frame work for my understanding of scripture. Only now that I am on the verge of entering old age - after 35 years of walking with the holy spirit - am I beginning to look at these verses with an open mind.
I wrote 15 years ago that it was a bedtime story, it was a myth, carried by word of mouth, but I think it was much bigger than just a Jewish myth, it was, no doubt, a general myth of mankind, remembering where he came from, adapted to the Jewish origin of their family patriarch Abraham. The first 5 chapters of Genesis reads radically different than the rest of the book, it reads like a totally different book that was penned in the Hebrew as an introduction to where Abraham came from. So the story of Adam seems to be a general myth from the mysts of time, something that was common to mankind, an understanding of how we came to be on this planet, and then it was adapted to produce Abraham. I suspect the story of Adam is so much older than we tend to think, and yet, I think it is a genuine story passed down... not one made up for the sake of later generations. I don't buy into the idea that religion made it up to enslave us into caste systems... although religion definitely does that, I think religion is also an opportunistic scam that uses anything it can get its hands on. I think the bedtime story of Adam was there, floating around forever in the general consciousness of man... and religion plucked it up for an intro to the story of Abraham. That's not to say it isn't an honest approach, whoever the scribes were, seemed to be earnest enough... I think they were faithfully retelling the story. No way to know if the "first epoch" or "first age" ended up reading "the first day"... or when or if a change like that happened, but the kernel of the story seems to be intact.
If we strip away the religious catholic teachings and muse over the myth (the myth is likely so much older than those dogmas, it is like taking a child's interpretation for an ancient writing; there's no reason whatsoever to listen to that; it should hold no authority)... if we just think about what the myth is telling us, you will notice some startling concepts unveiled here. The idea that the waters were above and below the firmament; how in the hell did mankind know about the jet streams?
And there is that old question... which came first; the ground or the life that dies and becomes ground? Genesis tells us that all plant and animal life came from the ground. Where did the dirt come from? You can say that early plant life grew in the volcanic ash, and that gave us dirt which eventually produced "earth" - a ground of dirt. We see that happening today, but not without animals to fertilize it. It's a tougher biologic model than was likely intended by the verses because Genesis starts with the ground and everything comes from it... it isn't so easy... perhaps, this latest epoch of time was the benefactor of earlier epochs - and maybe those started differently? A global flood should deposit some nice soil to work with, the epoch described in early Genesis seemed to be primed to go, everything fell into place with such precision, like it was just itching to happen.
And look at mankind. God creates man the same way he created the animals, and bear in mind, all of this is replenishing the earth, so all of this was here before, anyway, he makes man from the ground, just like the animals. Mankind is naked, just like the animals... there's no thought amongst the animals to make clothing for themselves and the same went for mankind. So mankind is living in the woods, amongst the trees, very much like another ape, and God looks amongst the animals for a mate for Adam. Either God is really stupid, or this man Adam, is not very different from the apes. At any rate, a strand of mankind is reproduced, and the huge deal, the big separator, is the gift of speech.
Then it seems that God and his angels bequeath everything upon this strand of man: clothing, shelter, organization, community, eventually government and industry. I don't think the story was about the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents of Abraham and Sarah, I think the story is about the origin of mankind after a cataclysmic flood. I think it relates to us our early history going back roughly 200,000 years. The Jews, no doubt, seized upon the myth the same way all religions seize upon ancient writings and claim them for their own. But my gut tells me, the pre-(Noah's)-flood story was adapted, or simply recorded for posterity sake, as an introduction to Abraham's story; a way to say how mankind began, then they shoot to Noah's flood and the genealogy of Abraham: and by and large, Genesis is the story of Abraham... and Abraham was the genesis of monotheistic civilization.