Many Christians accept the Bible as a book of truth - it contains truth - about things in this life, about history, and about things to come both in this world and in heaven.
Others may mock them as "virgin birthists" or "world wide floodist" or "resurrection-ists" or "creation-ists" etc.
But this does not change the fact that the Bible is true - and declares actual truth for this life and the life to come.
This is so glaringly obvious that a great many atheists upon reading the Bible and finding it to be factual - turn from atheism to Christianity on the "Bible is TRUE after all" model rather than "Well what do you know - the Bible really IS myth" model.
Dawkins, Provine, P.Z.Meyers and many other atheists admit that they used to be Christians until they discovered the Bible to be myth and THEN they became atheist/agnostic.
For many this is simply stating the obvious.
Am not convinced the OPs is correctly stating the position. It cannot be a case of we accept or reject the Bible is true.
Indeed
it "can" be that case when it comes to origins and all the other miracles in the Bible.
It
"can" also be the case that many who adopt the atheists religious conviction on origins by downsizing the history as given in the Bible - do so without fully understanding the self-conflicted position they are taking.
It could be a case of we accept or reject what someone claims the Bible says.
indeed by holding the Bible at a great enough "distance" and then claiming any "conflict between the Bible on origins and evolutionism on origins" noticed by others paying more attention to those details - is an imaginary one - only works until they start paying attention to the details themselves.
In other threads he poses a similar dilemma; either we read and accept from a given verse that it means what he claims it means or we are considered as rejecting what the Bible says or how it reads. At the same time if we pose other verses where the Bible can clearly be read and accepted as meaning something he claims that it can be rejected, presumably solely because it disagrees with what he believes to be true - though he has yet told us how he decides which verses to read and accept over which to read and reject. He does clearly make such choices. So once again the dilemma presented is false and in that case appears somewhat dishonest.
totally false as has been shown previously.
James Barr is an atheist - he is admitting to what the text says -- not because he prefers to believe that Bible statement on origins - but because the text is incredibly obvious - so much so that there is 'no professor' of Hebrew studies in any world class university that takes the downsize/bend/twist solutions intended to meld Moses' text into Darwin's text as if they dovetail - seriously.
======================================
Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus,
Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:
‘Probably,
so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a)
creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood,
are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’
======================================
As the OP states "Others may mock them as "virgin birthists" or "world wide floodist" or "resurrection-ists" or "creation-ists" etc."
My guess is that you also pick-and-choose in that list which Bible histories in that list - to believe and which ones to dismiss as "mere myth".
I accept all the ones in that list as historic fact.
