On what concept of hermeneutics do you say that the “literal”, ie, natural reading, interpretation of Genesis is incorrect?
Certain books of the Bible are written in poetic, apocolyptic, or allegorical form, but, as determined by Hebrew language experts, Genesis is not one of them.
Perhaps you’re still using an extra-biblical standard to determine what is “true” and what must be “allegory” in order to fit that standard?
You’re putting man’s standard above the bible, and you need to understand that you’re doing so.
I am standing on the traditional Christian view that God reveals himself through his Word AND through nature.
Since there are abundant clues in nature that consistently point to a very old Earth, an interpretation of Genesis that suggests otherwise says God is contradicting Himself. Which He can never do.
I think the core issue of this debate is if man is fallible in his interpretation of the Bible, but not in his observations, assumptions, and interpretations of the universe around him.