Hi Flyer,
For example, Peter mentions the flood refers to it as a literal event.
Even if true, that doesn't mean he was right. A man of his time can be forgiven for not getting his science right; there was, after all, no real science and widespread ignorance of natural processes. This isn't any kind of judgement on the people of that era, it's simply a fact.
Christ loosely mentions creation and refers to it as a literal event.
That doesn't mean that he considered every last detail of the creation account to be literal and true. Personally, I don't think that the authors of Genesis 1&2/3 considered that they were writing an exacting historical and literal account of real events. I am convinced that they believed God created the world though. The two are not really the same. It's quite possible that the authors believed that God created the world but, lacking the precise details, chose to describe this in the form of foundational myths.
And all for a myth??
Yes! You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that myths are less important than real history. they're not! they are very important. They may not tell us what happened exactly, but they help us understand it nonetheless. Take the myth of George Washington and the cherry tree. It never happened, but does that really matter? The story tells us what we want to hear; that Washington was an honest man. It elucidates a view of Washington, tells us what people thought about him, how he fits into American culture. All this is just as important as any historical fact about him.
I agree that if the original sin is a myth it rather undermines the atonement of Christ, but as far as I'm concerned, that story was fatally flawed from the get-go. Jesus cannot take my sins upon himself. My sins are my own responsibility and cannot be taken from me any more than Jesus can take the credit for my achievements.
Luther and Calvin would not have chosen #1. I don't think #2 is a viable choice, certainly not for a proclaiming Christian to distort facts for the sake of an argument. Leaving #3 for now.........
There does, of course, exist a fourth possibility; that the interpretation was correct, but the author was simply wrong. If that is the case, your presupposition that all scripture must be correct will be guaranteed to lead you astray.
Lyell and Hutton were atheists
As I understand it, Lyell may have been an agnostic or atheist, but Hutton was a deist.
Mutate and Survive
™ Version 4.2