You don't believe me, even though I have consistently told you over and over? That means you say I am lying.
Well, I can assure you, I am not lying. I have provided all the reasons, and the processes that I went through to conclude that Genesis was meant to be read figuratively before I had read the science critically and while I still assumed the earth was young. This did not convince me that the earth was OLD, or that the flood was local, etc. It just convinced me that the Bible does not really say anything on these details one way or the other. It tells the stories about what happened in a way that leaves it open to a wide number of time frames and events. So, then I looked to the evidence itself to determine what happened historically and physically.
The flood was based on the same analysis as Genesis 1 and 2. It just doesn't read like literal history from the perspective of one who has read ancient literature and studied history (and obtained a degree in ancient history). If you gave me a text of the same type from some other source and asked me whether I thought it was meant to be read literally or as a figurative story, or as a figurative version of a real event, I would say the latter. Have you seen the chiastic structure of that story?
And, since nothing about Scripture, Christian theology or doctrines itself, IMO, requires me to read it literally (or even suggests that I should start with strictly literal as some type of default), I simply take the text on its merits and determine how it was most likely meant to be read. Strict literal history runs way back in the running on this one.
The evidence from nature itself that it is virtually impossible (no, literally impossible) for a global flood to have occurred within human times, was simply a confirmation to me that my analysis of the text itself was correct.
Now, on the geocentrism issue, you are right, they saw what they saw. But if you asked them flat out whether the sun revolves around the earth or the other way around, using two rocks as models, they would have said without hestiation, that the earth is what stands still and the sun that moves. Do you doubt this at all?
And, no, I am not changing my position. All along I have said the same thing: The Scripture does not teach that geocentrism is required, but it is written from a geocentric perspective by people who believed in a geocentric solar system. And that is true. If I believed that Scripture was meant to be read as describing the events scientifically (as the geocentists do in this instance and you do in Genesis 1), then I would have to conclude that Scripture is describing a geocentric structure. But since I don't feel the need to follow the "plain reading" (since I think there often isn't one), and since I don't think that the story is meant to be read as describing things scientifically, I believe, as I have said, that Scripture does not teach geocentrism.
As for those who deny a literal resurrection, you mentioned above those who reject the miracles of the Bible. That is a bit different, since that would mean they were rejecting the resurrection purely on "naturalistic" bases. But, regardless, I think they are wrong because they come to an incorrect conclusion, just as you think the geocentrics come to the wrong conclusion. The difference is whether a disbelief in the literal resurrection is a denial of an essential of Christian belief. What do you think on that point?