There are 2 kinds of people who say what you are saying. Both kinds are on this board.
There are those who are religiously committed to it, and won’t listen to any evidence in favor of the Biblical interpretation, and there are those who genuinely think they are helping Christianity by trying to fit it with what they see as “settled science”.
I note you have added “in places” to soften your statement. If you are in fact the 2nd type, then I have some sympathy for you since I am a convert from that way of thinking myself.
You should be noticing that I can pick holes in your position quite easily. This debate has been going on a long time. I am totally expecting the “didn’t Jesus teach in parables” argument - of course he did, and he said clearly that they were parables. And every time Jesus referred to scripture, he did so literally, not allegorically. There is no precedent for reading the Bible allegorically.
As Christians, we should be able to have faith that God can command a whale to swallow Jonah for instance, and regurgitate him on a beach. “but he couldn’t breathe”, you might say. So? Jesus turned water into wine! that’s chemically impossible! If you start picking & choosing your miracles you’re on such a slippery road, you can be pushed any way the devil wants you to go.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed the discussion with DallasMike, but he’s in quite a tough spot right now, because he’s been forced to say he believes that all the people on Earth came from Noah in about 5000 years, because he came out with the “local flood” argument. Now scientifically, that’s pretty easy, but it’s not what mainstream science believes, at all. So where does he stand now? Neither in science, nor in the Bible. Tough spot.
So sure Buck, use your brain, but just make sure that is what you’re doing, and you’re not just accepting a bunch of stuff you’ve been told without exploring the alternatives. There are very good scientific reasons to accept the biblical worldview in terms of the creation, and the flood. The first 10 books of Genesis is where the devil is attacking the Bible. If he can get people to throw that out, he can go on to the rest. For example the homo “churches” that throw out half the Bible because they don’t like it!
And I’m not just talking about the numerical age of the Earth. Personally, that’s not something I’m concerned about. I generally support the young Earth argument, because there is at least as much evidence for it than the long Earth argument, but it’s not something I’d say is key. Evolution however is.
Thank you for the civil response. We will continue to disagree.
I haven’t softened my position by including “in places”. That is what I have always felt. However, one cannot convey an entire outlook in a few post on this board. It is not, as I understand it, peer reviewed.
To summarize, I beleive that the Bible is allegorical in places, and the places in which it is so becomes clearer as we grow in intellectual capacity, a capacity that God gave us. I believe that the earth is very old, and I believe that evolution is the path that God used to get is here. Furthermore, it took a lot more than 5000 years to do so.
Finally I am a Christian of great faith. I believe that literalists betray a weak faith.
You say you can pick holes—go ahead. Science and Christianity support my position.
Thanks again.
I don't think that I said 5,000 years. I believe that the flood occurred at least 10,000 years ago, probably more like 20,000 to 30,000 years ago.
Chuck, you're the one in a tight spot --- you just don't recognize it.