why are christians "challenging" the young earth creationism?

[Late_Cretaceous]

In cases like the ones you have just pointed out a literal interpretation of these passages would be less meaning full - if not outright pointless - then a non literal interpretation of symbolism.

In any case, even those who regard themselves as biblical literalists are more open to this concept then they care to admit. In several debates now I have asked literalists if they interpret the passages from the bible where it says the earth rests on pillars and is immobile is literal or not. In every case they go on the defensive showing how those passages are ment to be interpreted (not literally of course) but are still true none the less (and rebuking me for questioning the veracity of the bible - which I wasn't doing). Unwittingly, they demonstrate that much of the bible is open to non literal interpretation. It's all a matter of where you draw the line/

 

[Dracil]

I've been studying John's gospel lately in my small group at church. The word "true" is an important one in this gospel, and if one misunderstands it as meaning "literal", as in the quote above, one is likely to be quite confused. Here are some things that are true about Jesus:

"The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world." (John 1:9, ESV)

Jesus' incarnation wasn't about literal light coming into the world, as in photons. The statement is true but not literal.

"Jesus then said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.' ... So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, 'I am the bread that came down from heaven.' " (John 6:32, 41)

Though this is another can of worms, I don't think that Jesus is literal bread. The statement is true but not literal.

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit." (John 15:1-2)

Jesus isn't a literal vine. The statement is true but not literal.

Based on the use of the word within Scripture, I'm surprised there is so much confusion over how something can be non-literal and still true.

And there's always that quote by that Catholic priest, "The Bible is true, and some of it happened"