You must have done some serious study on the history of canonical texts. Whatever statements you make in this regard I am inclined to regard as worth consideration. Is there a culminating idea WRT the subject at hand you are attempting to assert?
Where the topic of creationism vs. materialistic evolution is concerned it seems the text of Genesis 1 is a good point of reference. Every biblical text makes statements the hearer will evaluate one way or another, or, as often happens, disregard. After some years of familiarity with the canonical texts it is my belief that the Law of Gravity, for example, is an ongoing miracle, even though my reason and senses have been dulled to its effect and Source.
Thus, as an observer so far, I tend to lower the bar significantly where the supernatural is concerned. So much so, in fact, that a virgin birth, turning water in to wine, walking on water, rising from the dead, healing diseases, etc. is only slightly above the routine where the creation is concerned.
Yes sir, and thank you.
As a youngster I was a member of a southern Baptist church -- literal Bible & 6,000 year-old earth (no snake-handling or speaking in tongues).
Long before high-school it was pretty clear to me that a 6 day creation and Noah's flood were myths on the order of Zeus and Odin. Disappointing, but as a Baptist the basis of my faith was in Jesus and his sacrifice, the New Covenant -- not in OT Jewish legends.
After school I went into the service and had the time and money to get books on the history and to expand on the Bible. Some of those contained the (then) new translations of the 1945 Nag Hammandi texts.
Well then! The Gospels (and the Church) was much more complex than what my Pastor had taught. The memes of Christian doctrine were scattered amongst the various sects. To consolidate, a Catholic (meaning universal) Church would've had to weed out "good"-acceptable doctrine from the "bad"-unacceptable. The Bible (& New Testament) that we have today is screened, filtered, and edited to suit the interests of the Church.
The point? (I didn't forget) is that Paul, by virtue of his 3 year-old vision of Christ, is not a reliable witness to Jesus. Why he occupies so much real estate in the Bible can only be explained by: it "suits the interests of the Church".
Thus, as an observer so far, I tend to lower the bar significantly where the supernatural is concerned. So much so, in fact, that a virgin birth, turning water in to wine, walking on water, rising from the dead, healing diseases, etc. is only slightly above the routine where the creation is concerned.
I don't. That I might win the lottery because a god diddled with natural probabilities doesn't strike me as a rational view. That a Jesus existed, stirred up some shi+, then was crucified -- I score that as probable. The rest of it is zero, creation included.