Like I predicted, a sentence by sentence breakdown, and yet you contributed
I like to keep things simple for you, you’re welcome.
The only thing I wanted to respond to was your comment about meeting more Christians. I was in a youth group all throughout middle school and high school. Went on 3 Christian retreats, taught vacation Bible school in the summers, and volunteered at a Christian led soup kitchen. My wife, parents and half my friends including my best man are all devout Christians. So, no I think I know plenty of Christians.
According to Gallup the huge majority of Christians reject evolution, which would by default make them young earth. So maybe you just needed to interview them all a bit more on the age of the earth.
Neither my 2 pastor's, nor my youth group leader, nor anyone that I ever talked to ever mentioned that they thought the Earth was only 4000 years old.
Good because scripture doesn’t support it being 4,000 years old, it has to be at least 6,000.
Also, you said that non-young Earth Christians are inconsistent. Inconsistent with what? I'm sure you realize that the Bible contains both documented history and metaphors.
Yes it does, but the metaphors come in the poetic and apocalyptic portions of the Bible (i.e. Job, Revelation, and Psalms) and the Hebrew in Genesis is not poetic, it’s written in a historical style. Additionally, if you open the door up for Genesis being mere metaphor, then you can just arbitrarily declare any portion of the Bible as metaphor. Perhaps Christ’s death was merely metaphoric? So you have to interpret scripture in its literal context or else it becomes impossible to know what any of it means. A Christian who has no way of knowing what scripture means isn’t exactly a very consistent Christian, or one who is going to do very well in a debate.
Who are you to decide what is story and what is real. You don't have special powers, it is only your belief that the story of Adam and Eve took less than a week.
I don’t need special powers, in Hebrew it is very obvious when something is being described as a historical event and when something is figurative; the entire book of Genesis is written in a historical narrative. Stylistically it is far different than Job and Psalms, and very similar to the other historical narratives such as Exodus and Kings.
To say that any Christian who doesn't believe the Bible to be exactly how you interpret it is being inconsistent is just comical. In your world it is only black and white. "Christianity is the only true religion, why...because that's what I believe", "Young Earth is the only consistent Christian belief, why....because that's what I believe."
I find it interesting that you keep claiming I don’t have any reasons for believing what I believe but then when I provide you with very clear, concise, and logical reasons you simply ignore them in your next post. There is no reason to believe that Genesis isn’t literal, even if a person accepts those dating methods you spoke of they still do not have a reason for rejecting Genesis. After all, if they are Christians they still believe that a virgin gave birth and that a man rose from the dead three days after being killed, and there is infinitely more scientific evidence suggesting those things don’t happen than there is for an old earth. So why reject one portion of the Bible because of science but not the other parts? You see? It’s just inconsistent all the way around.