[Serious] A Literal Bible. Answering questions

[The Grand Nudger]

...?  Word selection is not, at all, the anachronism between a biological account of life on earth, and a biblical one.  They could have picked any word they wanted there, and it's not at all possible that any change to any one word in that huge mess of a story can salvage it with respect to biological reality.

However, if you think that could be done, I'd be very interested to see.

Ulterior motives need not be involved. Science is a tool, not an ideology. Conclusions varying around the central accepted view is normal, and I fully encourage every individual to do their own research into everything said by everyone. This is an attitude which has served me well personally. 

That's exactly what I suggested.  That it's not actually the case that a researcher telling other people that they've misinterpreted and misrepresented his own research, upon which their premise is based, can only be or is even best explained by a sophistic argument against religion.  Maybe, they just got it wrong?  

We've both obviously done some* research, which lead to me to my previous question.  You were aware that anyone looking this up would find it, correct?

To get to a real discussion though needs the ability to look through the ideologies that are claiming for various narratives, and see what everyone is trying to say. You seem like you're trying to understand, but I'm struggling to put together a decent response because it feels like I need to dive into everything, but I need to figure out specifically. Been a bit busy today, unexpectedly, not had much time to think yet.

I thought we just agreed that no ulterior motive was necessary to explain why a researcher would tell someone that they've misinterpreted and misrepresented their work?  

The reason I'm no longer an Atheist is from a deep and prolonged personal experience. I'm not speaking about one god out of many, but the one God, who can probably more easily described by the ancient Greek concept of Nous. It took me months to even put together the sudden knowing, after 20 years of considering religions a delusion. 

Well, there you go.  You had a personal experience.  Nothing to do with the debunked claims about an airburst.  

As for young Earth Creationists, it is about that simple. I picked one key example because I don't have infinite time, but words being given branches of meaning in other literature is the basis for the "Biblically Accurate" view, not the Bible itself. It's sophistry obscuring the truth, like all ideology. 

There either is or isn't some truth.  If any inconvenient reference to any inconvenient fact is going to be called sophistry - we're probably not going to have a great time together you and I.

You are correct in your criticism of religion, which is the gatekeeper, and re-interpretter of the book.

I suppose I should be more clear.  Religion isn't the gatekeeper or re-interpreter of magic book.  It's magic books cause.  The explanation for it's contents.  Consider...is it more important that jesus multiplied fish, or is the presumed message of that story more important than the narrative detail, in your opinion?  Does jesus multiplying fish tell a story about a religion..or does religion tell a story about jesus multiplying fish?