I think we are being intellectually dishonest when we try to make more out of passages than is there.
I agreed.
That's why when I did pick up the bible again in early 2000, after 14 years hiatus, my view have changed considerably. I went from being a believer to being agnostic.
Back when I was teenager, I didn't question the bible or that of the church teaching.
What I mean, since re-reading the bible in 2000, I no longer accept church interpretation of the bible. Perhaps because of the years between 1986 and 2000, I had the chance to grow up, learn some new things, pick up some new skills, etc. Whatever it was, I no longer take any thing that I might read, at face value.
The problem with creationists of today, is that they are trying to put modern context into ancient writings, where ancient authors might or don't have the necessarily education of astronomy, of earth science, of mathematics, etc.
That's a mistake, and it is a mistake that I, myself, have learned not to do.
For instance, I took the gospel of Matthew on sign of the virgin birth for granted, and without question, when I read it the first time as a teenager. At that age, I didn't bother to double-check the gospel's claim, by comparing with Isaiah 7.
Once I did check it, I came to realise both the author (whoever he may be) and the church have taken Isaiah's passage on the sign, completely out of context. The original sign had nothing to do with the virgin birth or with the messiah.
That made doubt a lot of the so-called messiah's prophecies, which the New Testament claimed come from the Old Testament.
Believe me, I know that people take the scriptures out of context for whatsoever reasons they may be, just as the NT authors did with the Hebrew Scriptures.