Right away, we should be cautious about meshing the two chapters together as "one" text. The chapters are infamously understood to have been at some degree of independence from one another (and indeed in tension) at several points.
In any case, one of the reasons Genesis 1 is ascribed to the "Priestly" source is precisely because of some of the lexical and conceptual connections with the temple cult, etc. But in terms of standard scholarly analysis, Genesis 2:4 typically marks the beginning of a separate source. Most notably, the seven-day structure doesn't appear at all here.
> The terms used in Gn. 2.15 ("work" and "care for") are priestly terms, not agricultural ones.
Whoa, okay, I don't know where you're getting your information from, but that's a straight-up misrepresentation. עָבַד and שָׁמַר are both very common verbs in the Hebrew Bible. The latter word is so general that I've not sure if we can say anything about it at all, other than it denotes keeping. (That it's a reference to the priestly cult in particular is probably no more plausible than Gunkel's suggestion that the mandate of 2:15 was to guard the garden specifically from demonic incursion.)
Together with the former word, though, Genesis 2:15 almost certainly just suggests maintenance (which, again, is super general) and/or, more specifically, cultivation. The latter is certainly the sense we get from עָבַד's use in Genesis 2:5; 3:23; 4:2, 12, too; and we find the exact same phrase from Genesis 2:5; 3:23, etc. in 1 Chronicles 27:26 as well.
> Humanity was not the slave of the gods (as in other contemporaneous cultures), but instead in the Bible priests and priestesses, to engage with God in relationship, to manage sacred space, and to do what was necessary to maintain God's presence among the people
It shouldn't escape notice that עָבַד in Gen. 2:15 is literally the verb for "serve" or to be a slave. Now, the exact background of Adam maintaining God's garden is unclear. It's worth noting, though, that in some of the closest ancient Near Eastern parallels to this, the creation of humans is not just for temple service, but for a broader development of culture, and indeed agriculture. If Genesis 2:15 is a kind of de-mythologized version of this, it's de-mythologized it so much that it's hard to tell what exactly the purpose of this was at all. But I still think that, going by what we have, it's very hard to say that this maintenance was even intended to be in service to God at all.
To add to that, the perspective of Genesis 2-3 itself is that Adam and Eve are clearly alone in the garden, so they can't at this juncture "maintain God's presence among the people" or anything like that.
To sum up, it's probably safest to say that the mandate in Gen. 2:15 wasn't for any particular greater purpose at all. If anything, the impetus behind this tradition was probably just naively literal: that if humans were going to live in a garden, they'd probably need to do some upkeep. It may simply preempt the idea — having already been hinted at in Gen. 2:5, and to be developed in 3:19 and 3:23 — that agriculture is a standard part of human existence; though it may also suggest easier labor, which was soon to become more difficult. (See also Genesis 4:2, 12 here. In terms of major commentators, Hamilton and [mostly] Westermann don't really draw any broader conclusions from Genesis 2:15, either.)
So to sum up what you said in response to what I wrote about Genesis 2:8, at some point it seems you agree that God doesn't reside primarily in the garden proper, but rather that the garden is adjacent to God's real home/sanctuary, in Eden. But at other points you seemed to suggest that the garden is the locus of God's presence, though.
Honestly, you still seem to be so wrapped up in seeing the narrative through a lens of (quite specific) symbolism that you're actually failing to read the narrative as it is — missing the trees for the forest in a sense. But we should always make sure the finer details of narratives help us construct and confirm the larger contextual lens through which we might see the narrative, before just insisting that it simply must be seen through such a lens, details be damned.
As for specifics in your response about Genesis 2:8:
I'm open to — though not sold on — the idea that God might have been thought to live in Eden somehow; though I'm still not sold on his presence being concentrated in the garden. Again, as I suggested, I'm more inclined toward the view that God "visits" the garden, so to speak. More on that later; but for now, here are a few major commentators on Genesis 2:8:
Westermann writes:
The garden God planted to provide for his people has nothing to do with a garden of God (or of the gods) or with what is popularly called paradise. As Vriezen has remarked there can be no question of a garden of God because this garden was planted by God only after the creation of human beings and is meant for them alone.
Hamilton notes the presence at various places in the Hebrew Bible of the phrases/concepts of the "garden of Yahweh" (Gen. 13:10; Isa. 51:3) and "garden of God" (Ezek. 28:13; 31:9); but he also suggests
The writer of Gen. 2 does not use any such phrase, perhaps to refrain from giving the impression that this garden is where God lives. He is its planter, but not its occupant.
Finally, Gunkel proposes that a pre-written stage, oases — "outward-sprouting wildernesses in the midst of infertile land" — were believed by Israelites to be areas where the spirit of God lived, but that "[b]ecause of an aversion to the mythological, this concept is no longer explicitly stated in [Genesis] 2, but it is still assumed in 3:8, where God strolls in the garden."
Adam is placed in the garden which God plants; but nothing in Genesis 2 indicates that this was done specifically so that he could be "brought into God's presence" or anything.
And on that note, interestingly, in his essay "The Story Of Paradise In The Light Of Mesopotamian Culture And Literature," A. Van Der Kooij takes a closer look at the neglected detail (Gen. 2:8, 15) of God's taking Adam and placing him in the Garden — "in the east" — within its broader ANE context. He compares this to the translation of Utnapishtim in Gilgamesh, Ziusudra in Sumerian sources, and even makes the connection to the Greek blessed/fortunate isles. But one thing to note here is that it's not at all clear that these privileged persons were brought (in)to the home/presence of the gods. Rather, these were special locations for humans to reside on their own.
(Also interestingly, with reference to Stordalen's Echoes of Eden and Dietrich's "Das biblische Paradies und der babylonische Tempelgarte," Van Der Kooij discusses three different types of gardens that were potentially the closest background for the garden of Eden: royal gardens, cultic/Temple gardens, and "mythic" gardens, like the Jewel Garden in Gilgamesh.)
I'm already running out of space, so to cut it short, I think many scholars would agree that there's little evidence — and in fact some negative evidence — to suggest that "[t]he garden next to Eden was not where humans lived, but . . . the place of reception of the humans into fellowship with God in God's own dwelling place," as you said. Certainly the existence of (horti)culture and the motif of nourishment suggests a longer stay for Adam and Eve in the garden.
I won't really say anything about Genesis 2:18, for one because I didn't put a whole lot of weight on that particular objection to begin with, but also because I don't think your response really contributed to your larger argument either. Again though, in Gen. 2:18ff., it looks like Adam was simply being prepared for mundane aspects of human life here, and not for entry into God's presence or anything like that.
As for 3:8,
> This is an anthropomorphism. God doesn't actually (physically) WALK anywhere.
was a strange response — to an argument I didn't make. Not only did I myself mention the "anthropomorphism in 3:7" (I meant 3:8), but my argument here was over whether God resided in the garden permanently or (visited) occasionally, not about whether God was corporeal or not.
I agree that the "wind/breeze of the day" is a bit unusual — although not as much as some make it out to be — though this still seems to suggest that God had a particular time of day when he'd stroll through the garden. This may not only be similar to, say, a king simply visiting a garden adjoining the palace, but could also suggest that (being in) God's presence wasn't really as profound as it may seem.
As for
> The expulsion from the Garden, however, does have everything to do with God's presence. The Fall is defined by the fact that Adam and Eve acquired wisdom illegitimately and tried to take God’s role for themselves rather than eventually joining God in his role as they were taught wisdom...
I'm very quickly running out of space, so I'll try to respond as succinctly as possible.
Adam and Eve's acquisition of wisdom wasn't some usurping of or assault on divine prerogatives, but again just rote etiology — here portrayed as a kind of underdog acquisition; but again, etiologically, an acquisition of what humans have always had (which also diminishes the ethical coloring of its "sinfulness," etc.). It's undeniably parallel to the Babel narrative in this regard, as I've discussed at length here.