[PetroniusMaximus]

"I just don't understand why believers fight over this issue, which is irrelevant ultimately to our relationship to the Eternal (meaning outside of time), and Infinite (beyond all possiblitity of our rational understanding) God."

Actually it is of the utmost importance - though that is not apparent at first glance. As I have posted elswhere recently...

"Every major doctrine of the Bible is based in the first few chapters of Genesis. If Genesis is non-historical then the doctrines are based on myth. You can work it out from there."

[tellico]

I didn't mean to suggest it is "myth", but there is a world of difference between myth and literalism. Do you also believe the book of Daniel is "myth" since it was obviously written long after the events it portrays by someone unfamiliar with all details of the history of the time? Not at all of course, the spiritual truth in that book is one of the most powerful found in the Bible, but it is not history. Similarly, the book of Esther. I would consider both profoundly spiritual and important, but neither is literally true history in their entireties.

[truthfinder9]

The problem is that when thinking, critical people look at Genesis and find out young-earthism isn't literal and is contradictory, they say "Genesis is a fraud and all these Christians believe this, so why should I?" Young-earthism is probably in the top 5 reasons I have seen people turn away from Christianity. Why Young-earthism is Not the Literal Interpretation