We all interpret written text, you have your interpretation and have mine. But you reveal more of your weakness here. You say “Why not say how it is really” but that is a valid explanation given the culture and language of the time.
No explanation in science is ever “how it really is” go on, give me one, prove me wrong.
No we do not have a conflict - we only have a conflict with an interpretation, if you want conflict then fine if you want to avoid it then find an interpretation that makes the conflict vanish. The New Testament tells us that scripture is a two edged sword, it has two aspects one physical and the other spiritual, Jesus underlined this several times by explaining parables.
The Genesis Flood has to be interpreted too, if a simplistic literal physical interpretation leads to genuine inconsistencies with observations then we can dismiss it. But if there are other interpretations then we should consider those, he book might be revealing profound insightful knowledge about something and we mistake it for deranged ramblings of primitive tribes.
If you say so.
Yes, what a drag that we must be clear on what we’re talking about, I’m such a killjoy.