I've always found it strange how YECs think stories are worthless. How do you know that our Bible passages aren't precisely that: nice stories that we might learn a lesson from?
The Bible is full of such stories; the difference here is that these stories are true, not invented myths or legends.
Our hope is based on God's work throughout history, that he is not only real, and a rewarder of those who do good, but that he intervenes in history to work out his ultimate plan of salvation for mankind, to his everlasting glory. If these are all stories, there is no assurance that God works in history, and the foundation of our faith (that it is real, and it is God working through people) is thus undermined if not completely lost.
This is the key difference: that if the Old Testament narratives are reduced to mere fictional stories, it means that God did not sovereignly and lovingly act in the lives of real individuals. There is therefore no realistic hope that God will do for you what he never did for others, because it's just fiction. If he didn't really save the Israelites by intervening in history, what makes you think he'll really do it this time for you?
But, our hope in God is not so wishy-washy; we have a true hope in a real God who really acts in the lives of real people. We have hope because God has condescended, not in some fictional story that contains truth, but in a factual history that contains more than just truth, but hope. God is not like all of the other gods, claiming to be something through fiction and myth, but he declares his power through his real actions, through real people, in the history of this world that he created.
If nice stories couldn't do these things all the time, why would Jesus pepper the Gospels chock-full of nice (and not so nice) stories? Suppose you had a Christian who thinks that the Parable of the Prodigal Son was just a nice story to learn a lesson from, and you had another Christian who thinks that the Parable of the Prodigal Son literally and historically happened. Would you say that the second Christian has gained more from it than the first Christian? Certainly not! A metaphorical interpretation of the Parable of the Prodigal Son loses no clout to a historical-literal interpretation of it (and the parable itself is never explicitly labeled a parable, being reported in straight narrative).
Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. Did you interpret my comment as sarcastic? Did you not take me literally when I said, "nice stories?" Well, please take my words at their face value. They are nice stories that teach us lessons, but ultimately they are useless because they offer no more assurance than the nice stories that Buddhism, or Hinduism, or Shintoism can offer us. If they are merely stories, why not believe the stories of other religions? We have confidence in God because he does more than the other "gods" do; he isn't based in myths, nor do his followers offer us myths and legends with no truth. Instead, we are offered history as it really happened, the truth of God's work throughout the lives of his people and the rest of mankind.
Your literal-historical interpretation of Genesis 1 does not tell us one word about Christianity proper - it makes interesting claims about the earth, the universe, life, and man, but not a peep about God that has not already been assumed. So we don't have anything to lose in rejecting it. The Bible has never been crippled by reading it as a good story, for a good story will edify a man more than a thousand scientific beliefs.
Actually, I didn't present any interpretation of Genesis whatsoever. You are now merely assuming that I am like others that you have met and spoken to, and thus conversation is useless if you refuse to acknowledge that I am not "just another one of them." This is the most frequent problem I encounter when discussing the whole realm of Evolution and the Bible, is that I am immediately labeled and tossed into a pile with every other person who dares to challenge one aspect of the TE position. It is impolite and improper, for only a fool answers a case before he hears it (Proverbs 18:13 If one gives an answer before he hears,
it is his folly and shame.)
The issue with such an allegorical interpretation is that there is no evidence contained in the writings to suggest allegory; even poetic language does not qualify language as allegory (the Psalms are not fake situations, but the real situations David and the other Psalmists encountered). If we choose to interpret allegorically whatever we like, we can render meaningless numerous sections of Scripture.
Why interpret the gospels literally? Surely you see all of these parables, so why not argue that the gospels themselves are big parables? Why argue that Jesus really ever existed, or that he died on the cross? Perhaps, as the "liberal Christians" say, it is just a big parable to teach us about love. By whitewashing the historicity of the Scriptures, we can begin to formulate interpretations that in effect eliminate the significance of passages.
What is lost in an allegorical interpretation of Scripture is the meaning that God intended for it to have. God says nothing about 6000 years, or 10,000 years, and so I make no claims as to how old the earth ultimately is. However, God says that he created the world and all that is within it in six days, and rested on the seventh. If it didn't happen that way, why tell us that it did? Teach a truth by presenting a false version of history? I doubt anyone really equates this kind of use of allegory with the parables that Jesus uses; Jesus makes clear what he is doing and why, even telling his disciples the meanings of his parables. We have no such interpretation given to us for Genesis, merely a narrative that begs to be read literally.
If we don't interpret Genesis 1 literally, it's now unreasonable to interpret Genesis 2 or 3 as literal. Thus, we do not need to see the origin of sin as being with a woman who grabbed a piece of fruit. Thus, 1 Timothy 2:14 seems quite a strange argument, considering that the woman never existed, and thus it is a lie.
There's a big difference between the following two narratives; which one, if any, seem inappropriate? Neither of these things really happened:
Scenario 1: "Hey, let me tell you a story. Say there's this guy, and he comes over to me and pulls a gun on me and demands my money. Say I give him all my money, and tells me that if I don't take him to my house, he'll kill me. Should I take him to the house, even though my family is there?"
Scenario 2: "Yesterday, I ran into this strange guy on the street. He started asking me lots of weird questions, and then pulled a gun on me and demanded all my money. I gave it to him, but then he said I had to show him where I lived, so I took him to the house."
Would you simply say in Scenario 2, "well my friend (my dear), I'm sure you're speaking allegorically here, because that doesn't seem like a realistic thing based on the evidence. You must have some significant meaning for me here."
Of course not. You would immediately attempt to confirm that this narrative is indeed true. "Are you serious? What happened? Are you okay?" When you are told it is not true, your reaction would depend on the relationship, but if this were an otherwise serious person who had never pulled such a stunt, you would likely seriously question why he would make such a story up to you.
Why suddenly assume that God's Word should be "spiritualized" so as to lose its historical significance?
And yet evolution has no quarrel with Romans 5 - no TE here denies that all sin in Adam and live in Christ.
Then I have a couple questions. I will not just assume you are like "every other TE I've met," so I'm asking you. That is common courtesy in a debate, you know. Who is Adam? Who was Eve? Were they real people, and when and where did they live (to the best of your knowledge)?
Also, please explain to me your interpretation of Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
If sin entered the world through one man (Adam), how death entered through sin, how did death bring about Adam (Macro Evolution as the origin of man)? How did a process bring about a result that caused that original process?
Please follow my logic here so that you can formulate a good response:
A causes B, which causes C. It is a cause and effect relationship.
However, TE teaches that C causes A. It is a logical fallacy to believe that C causes A but that A is the result of C at the same time (being that it is not an endless loop).
If TE is true, than the Trinity is not the ultimate mystery of logic: the nature of Adam, sin, and death is the ultimate mystery of logic and reason.
Although I have never been a staunch believer in Macro Evolution as the origin of species, I do not ultimately have any scientific reason for rejecting this view of Evolution (though I have many, many, many serious questions and doubts); my reasons are ultimately theological, based on Scripture. For me, there is no question: should Scripture and any human theories or science seem to be at odds, it is my duty to believe in the Scriptures first, and interpret the rest of life through that. When one researcher stated that he believed rape was a natural part of sexuality, and that men were meant to participate in rape in order to advance the species, I rejected it; it may be somewhat natural to us in our fallen nature, but it is indeed not "the way men are supposed to be." I reject it on the grounds that the Scriptures teach us otherwise. Same with Evolution.
There are basically only three essential reasons for rendering Genesis 1-3 as allegorical:
1) You are inherently skeptical of religious texts or claims to truth. You simply, in general, view all religious claims (particularly miraculous ones) as being untrue in the empirical sense.
2) You have some moral or intellectual obstacle that makes a literal interpretation difficult for your lifestyle and/or world-view.
3) Although it can be said to belong to #2, I'll make it separate: you have a scientific belief in Macro Evolution, and allow that to dictate how you interpret the Scriptures.
Let me place them side-by-side for comparison:
ME = Macro Evolution as origin of species, S = Scripture
ME: Death is a natural part of the cycle of life.
S: Death is an unnatural result of sin, and was never the intended plan for mankind (Rev. 21:4, James 1:15)
ME: Death has been around since life
S: Death entered into the world only after Adam, a man, sinned (Romans 5:12)
ME: Death brought Adam into existence.
S: Adam brought death into existence (through sin; Romans 5:12).
ME: The world and biological life continue to develop, following the course of survival of the fittest.
S: The whole world groans in pain because of sin (Romans 8:22)
ME: The world and biological life were created in billions of years.
S: The world and all life in it were created in 6 days (Genesis 1).
ME: Mankind evolved slowly and gradually from the primate family.
S: Man was created instantly from the "dust of the ground" (Genesis 2:7).
ME: Woman evolved simultaneously with man in this gradual process of evolution.
S: Woman was created from man, from his rib (Genesis 2:22).
It's these inconsistencies that cause me to believe that TE, Theistic Evolution, is contrary to Bible-based Christianity. It is theoretically possible to believe that a god exists, and that this god created life through Evolution, but I do not believe it is reasonable or possible to hold the truth of Christianity and Macro Evolution as both true; I believe one negates the other necessarily.
BTW, I have never heard of the Creationist individual who's video has been linked to here. I am sure, however, that Christ would not be content with the level of attack made against this brother in the name of science. When brothers and sisters argue over doctrine, I understand completely; doctrine is essential for our lives. If we get the Bible wrong, we put our souls in serious peril. Although it is not good for them to become enraged at one another, it is understandable in the sense that it is of such enormous and serious importance. However, the anger, attacks, and heated argument over a scientific position is simply mind-boggling to me: is this so important to brothers and sisters that they will attack and malign one another, creating barriers and hurting our unity in Christ? Over what? How to interpret old bones? If a brother insists that his view of doctrine requires a belief that God created the world in six days, we should discuss and debate such a view in one arena: the Word of God, since that is where he is convinced. Apart from that, all other things are subordinate, and indeed lesser.
Keep hammering on this point! We've got 2 creation stories ( and a third in Genesis 5) and they contradict when read literally. That's a neon sign NOT to read them literally. 
