The Bible is true, that is enough. I may be mistaken about the Ezekial reference, but the others stand.
Science is not the be all end all of knowledge. I would boldly say that if Science proposes a theory that runs counter to the Bible, then that theory is wrong.
Trying to poke holes in it only aids those that would discard it in its entirety.
WHile there are undoubtedly things not literal, it is nowhere near the scale some would have us believe.
Creation was six days. It says so. God created the animals as they are (according to their kind). Jesus rose on the 3rd day. What would be your criteria for determining ‘metaphor’ vs ‘literal’? Was Jesus resurection a metaphor? Why or why not? Science says it is.
You ignored the Hebrew children. I didn’t mention parting the Red Sea, the plagues of Egypt and such, the finger of God writing on the wall for the king (nebuchadnezzar?)
On and on. These things are true, or they are not. I say true.
Personally I have no particular problem with the stories of miracles in the Bible. I see no particular reason why God cannot make exceptions to the physical laws He created whenever He chooses to do so.
However, when the Bible says (if taken perfectly literally) that X happened in such a way, but physical evidence in truly massive quantity indicates in happened according to Y, I try to find some way to make the two forms of evidence fit together.
For me, at least, Occam’s Razor points in the direction of the Genesis account being metaphor rather than literal truth.
OTOH, we have absolutely zero physical evidence that the Egyptian plagues, the three Hebrew children, Christ’s reserrection did NOT occur. So I have much less difficulty believing them.
This is possibly a not particularly coherent POV, but it works for me.
To look at it another way: The Bible says, very first verse, “In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
To me this is in absolutely perfect agreement with present scientific evidence about the Big Bang. God created the physical laws and started the process in operation, then let it work itself out.
To believe he created the Universe, I need not believe he turned his personal attention to the formation of every star and planet. They formed themselves following the laws he established.
I don’t find it difficult to believe he did something similar with biology. He started the system and set it down to run. Possibly he enjoys being surprised by some of what results.
“Evolution” is often claimed by its proponents to disprove God’s creation. It does no such thing. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than what Darwin specified, the variation of species. It cannot in and of itself tell us anything about how the first forms of life arose, and certainly nothing about the physical formation of planets, etc.