英文についての質問です。
The ample fig leaf served our artistic forefathers well as a botanical shield against indecent exposure for Adam and Eve, our naked parents in the primeval bliss and innocence of Eden. Yet, in many ancient paintings, foliage hides more than Adam's genitalia; a wandering vine covers his navel as well. If modesty enjoined the genital shroud, a very different motive-mystery-placed a plant over his belly. In a theological debate more portentous than the old argument about angels on pinpoints, many earnest people of faith had wondered whether Adam had a navel.
He was, after all, not born of a woman and required no remnant of his nonexistent umbilical cord. Yet, in creating a prototype, would not God make his first man like all the rest to follow? Would God, in other words, not create with the appearance of pre-existence? In the absence of definite guidance to resolve this vexatious issue, and not wishing to incur anyone's wrath, many painters literally hedged and covered Adam's belly.
A few centuries later, as the nascent science of geology gathered evidence for the earth's enormous antiquity, some advocates of biblical literalism revived this old argument for our entire planet. The strata and their entombed fossils surely seem to represent a sequential record of countless years, but wouldn't God create his earth with the appearance of pre-existence? Why should we not believe that he created strata and fossils to give modern life a harmonious order by granting it a sensible (if illusory) past? As God provided Adam with a navel to stress continuity with future men, so too did he endow a pristine world with the appearance of an ordered history. Thus, the earth might be but a few thousand years old, as Genesis literally affirmed, and still record an apparent tale of untold eons. (Adam's navel by Stephen Jay Gould)
1） 3段落目にThe strata and their entombed fossils surely seem to represent a sequential record of countless years, but wouldn't God create his earth with the appearance of pre-existence? Why should we not believe that he created strata and fossils to give modern life a harmonious order by granting it a sensible (if illusory) past? とあるのですが、
but wouldn't God create his earth ～とWhy should we not believe that he created strata ～の個所は修辞疑問文ですか？また、この疑問文は聖書の直訳主義の一部の主唱者の意見ですか？
2） Thus, the earth might be but a few thousand years old, as Genesis literally affirmed, and still record an apparent tale of untold eons.
この英文のthe earth might be but a few thousand years oldの個所のbutはどういう意味ですか？
still record an apparent tale of untold eons.の言っている意味がよくわかりません。
長い文で申し訳ありません。
よろしくお願いいたします。
お礼
丁寧な解説ありがとうございます！ やっとすっきりしました。