[bdavisx]

Even better, well, take everything literally except for the parts that are provably wrong. If one part is not true, then any or all parts may not be true. And since there's almost no evidence for anything miraculous in the Bible then AFAIK it's all untrue until proven otherwise. I should mention I was a deacon when I was in my 20s, so it's not like I was raised atheist.

[arisbe__]

It's not about scientific truth. I would avoid the word truth altogether in the context of religion. You are so out in left field that you are playing a whole different game. That is your interpretation is "not even wrong" due to your pressupposing that the style and purpose of the mode of communication is one of precision and truth.

Evangelicals tend to see things in a similarly anachronistic (seeing traditional communication through a modern lens) way and it seems to have become near-ubiqitous. The mistake is only recently becoming understood. Ultimately it was a necessary mistake to make.

[memling]

> I should mention I was a deacon when I was in my 20s, so it's not like I was raised atheist.

Interesting, thanks for the explanation. Were you a deacon before you started reading Genesis more skeptically or how did that happen for you? Feel free not to respond, of course. I'm interested in stories of de/conversion; I don't mean to probe where you'd rather not say.

[bdavisx]

Yeah, when I became a deacon I started reading the bible way more, with the thought that I could provide helpful/supportive quotes to people like some others can. I really don't understand how anyone can read it and not become skeptical.