This is a good point and one that goes to the heart of biblical theology. Scripture is always interpreted as is evidence. We interpret scripture initially so as to reconcile it with our existing views. Naturally people make errors. Galileo pointed out that his interpretation of observations was not at odd with scripture it was at odds with a particular interpretation of scripture.
When people try to interpret scripture in some literal physical sense, it is that interpretation that’s the often the source of problems not the scripture itself.
But it does:
It is clear too but not if you are shackled to a materialist worldview. Much of scripture’s language reflects ideas and abstractions that were common thousands of years ago, this is true though:
That is correct, but surely a primitive uneducated people would never write that, it’s nonsensical, how can it be suspended on nothing, it would fall! No human mind would ever say the earth is hanging on nothing, it is contrary to everyday experience - yet there it is, written a long time ago.
We can see too from observation that the universe had a beginning, winding the clock back to the initial “big bang”. People have always understood that the universe is described as beginning, starting to exist at some point in the past. Yet for years the universe was believed to be static, there was no speculation that it was expanding.
It was Einstein who first saw that his general relativity theory implied an expanding universe. He hacked the equations to eliminate that, at the time it was to all intents and purposes undisputed that the universe was static.
Later in the 1920s it became evident that it was in fact expanding, it was not static. Einstein removed the hack from his equations and was appalled at himself for not having trusted the theory at the time. Had he done that though (before there was evidence of expansion) his theory would have been rejected by many.
We’re back to interpretation again though and that involves our interpretation about what physical existence means, why we exist at all. I mean which definition of slave do we use? The NT describes humans as being “slaves to sin” all of us are slaves, but what can it mean?
I agree, I was once a very vocal atheist and would decimate theists, quite cruelly too. But since that time I’ve grown to understand the interpretation issue, we - each and every human - interprets scripture and I am now at the point where I think there might be multiple distinct valid intepretations, we each see what is shown to us, there is no “objective” Christianity, not at a fine granular level anyway.
Years ago when I looked at scripture or heard it quoted I knew only one way to interpret it - as claptrap, the ramblings of primitive tribes of nomads fantasizing about Gods because they understood so little about the world.
Later after some years of struggle I began to grasp that scripture is not at odds with science at all, it is only interpretations that are at odds with the right interpretation there is no conflict.
Well it is written “his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made”. It says its clear, why do so many of us not see it? It’s because we have chosen a worldview, chosen one that suits our own selfish desires and egos.
If a person can step back - right back and have no worldview at all - and then start afresh, consider the options, rank them, compare them and choose a worldview from a point of intellectual neutrality, they might then be able to see.