I am continuing the discussion with my old friend Weekend Fisher on the the problem of historical unturth in the Bible. This is a good-natured friendly discussion it's being and between both our blogs. Here is a quotation from the comment section of her blog:
Joe: "you want to believe that most of the Bible is historical"
WF: a) what I want to believe is what's true b) As far as I can tell, there's a lot of history in the Bible where I'd say "close enough" if not "inerrant". c) When we get to the New Testament especially the 4 canonical gospels, we get to higher-quality sources for historical purposes.
Joe: "You also seem to punted on the OT"
WF: I have no intentions of punting on the topic in general, but I wanted you to be more involved in the conversation. I wonder if you got your impression either from me trying to draw you into the conversation OR from the plain fact that I'm less interested in the OT than the NT. E.g. If someone throws down a challenge on the historicity of the resurrection I'm likely to answer; if someone throws down a challenge on the historicity of some event affecting Solomon's grandson, I'm not likely to be interested in it
With that said I am going to play the Genesis and flood card and discuss my major issues and I hope Weekend will allow the discussion to move in that direction.
Me:To me the conversation is about Genesis and the flood, maybe because I had dealt with them recently with a poster on my blog asking about my ideas on it. But that's where I have the main problem with historicity in the Bible. I have no problem with The Gospels I think they are 90% historical.Not mythological at all. I only say 90% as a theoretical margin of error. I only question small stuff like the exact chronological order of pericopes.
Genesis and Evolution:
Sorry to rudely awaken some (no not you Anne) but denying evolution is no longer an option for apologists. Moreover,this realization is about 50 years behind the times. Many christians have a barrage, an array of anti-evolutionary arguments, they are wasting their time.No one listens, you can think it's so well documented and rationalize about the scientific knowledge of hydraulic engineers and reflect upon how all non Christians and many Christians are just ignoring the truth, that wont make them listen. You are on;y ranking yourself among flat earthers. Such apologists are not making strong bold proclamations of God's word the are making God's word look silly.
Moreover, science does work. It does tell truth, Science is not a hoax, not opinion, It;s not, don't make say it, "fake News." Science does have limitations it can't tell us right from wrong morally or the nature of ultimate reality it can't rule out God-- not ever. But it does tell us facts about the physical nature of the world. We know factually the world is several billion years old. The universe is much older, It was not created in seven days. That is fact, To deny that is to deny truth, The mighty arsenal of creationist propaganda is just that the more studies it honestly the more obvious that becomes.
One major tactic Christians have used to sort of allow for the age and evolution in some limited way and still keep the basic content of Genesis is the day-age idea. By extension to glamorize the language of the text. I accept that as a valid view, I do find it sens to require a lot more effort to harmonize and general verbal acrobatics that accepting the account as mythology just seems more parsimonious. That assumes the things I've already said about mythology as not a lie.
The major caveat is that really accepting evolution is not just changing a couple of things.It;s going to blow things wide open. You have to be re thinking everything. That is possible there are Christian thinkers to whom one can turn.(Francis Collins for one)  But you have to be willow to open up theological problems. Such problems include: does God guide evolution and if so to what extent? What about the fall? No six days mean no fall? I think I;v solved these things but one must consider for oneself.
There is no option now. Atheists are trying to use evolution as disprove God but it's not going to change their minds to try and debunk evolution. That will only result in making up their minds even more. We have to undermine their view by showing it up; it can't disprove God for God to have used evolution.
Genesis and Flood
The most basic problem with Genesis flood accost is the fact that there is no geological evidence for a world wide flood. If such a flood had occurred there would be evidence. Aside from the logistical issues-- food for the animals,waste disposal,and gathering animals from places like China, Australia, and America, the real manor issue is the morality or lack thereof of it all.
Would God realty wipe everyone out save seven people only, because they were all so evil? Then God got sorry he did it and promised not to do it again (at leas not that way). Next time it will be fire. So he's really not sorry hes just sorry he didn't do it worse. This all strikes me as commentary rather than history. Let's not forget that the flood was not original with the Hebrews, They took it from the Sumerians and they got it form still older cultures.
This was something people had always believed going way back rivers flood. They had to accept it and then explain it in a way that cut their God into the picture. Giving it a moral reason was a step up, pagan cultures's attributed the flood to petty reasons their gods were easily angered. At least Bible God had a nobel easonm.
In reality I don't believe that God is unjust or that God perpetuates injustices nor do I believe he would wipe out humanly for being evil when humanity has always been evil. We have been fallen and sinful for a long time. It seems more like commentary, borrowing myth from other cultures to make a point.
Joe and WF comment section "History, Myth, and Genesis' "Page One" Problem," Heart. Mind. Soul, and Strength blog (SUNDAY, JANUARY 05, 2020)
Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. Faith + Execution, "Topics Theistic Evolution"
Francis Sellers Collins "(born April 14, 1950) is an American physician-geneticist who discovered the genes associated with a number of diseases and led the Human Genome Project. He is director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, United States."
Joseph Hinman, "Is Evolution Indicative of No God?" Metacrock's Blog (SEPTEMBER 15, 2019)