The Geneis account of Creation should be read literally

I resonate with my opponent's sentiments, it's topic's like this one that I could debate ad infinitum. ========= INTRODUCTION ========= It is not at all true that my argument stands or falls on the existence of a 7 day motif. I am defending the position that the creation account should not be taken literally based on a number of varying reasons (e.g. Multiple creation accounts, creatively paralleled days, YHWH and Elohim dichotomy, day conundrum, scientific unlikelihood, contradiction of God's self-evidential nature and etcetera). To keep this debate as organized as possible, I will address each of his arguments under the headings provided in his second round. ========= 7 DAY MOTIF ========= It is claimed that I am begging the question. I think this is misapplied, given that the truth of my claim is not contingent upon the truth of the matter in question (the traditional begging of the question). My opponent criticizes my argument by saying that I have no idea whether or not the motif is based upon the 7 day week or vice versa. It's helpful to point out that there were varying calendar weeks in existence before the writing of the book of Genesis (and indeed afterwards, as there are still varying calendar weeks)(1) - most notably the Chinese 10-day calendar. But he is quite right, I do not KNOW whether the chicken or the egg came first. But that is really quite inconsequential. As it stands, both my opponent and I are standing on the likelihood of our assumptions. So pointing out my assumption does nothing more than highlight his own. we cannot prove our assumptions absolutely, we can only discuss their likelihood. As long as I can show that Genesis seems to utilize a literary device, then I have shown that it not only differs from the following chapters, but that it is likely more focused on form than fact. The fact of the matter is that the Bible is full of the number 7 - from the seven days of creation to the 7 seals of revelation. But the creativity of the creation account is seen in the way these days parallel. What we have is a marvelous parallel of the realms: sky (or the celestial realm), water, land. Realms: The first day God creates the celestial realm. The second day God creates the waters. The third day God brings forth the Land. Then we see that each following day parallels the previous days with the entities that inhabit those realms: The fourth day God creates all the celestial entities that inhabit the sky. The fifth day God creates all the animals of the sea The sixth day God creates all that inhabit the land. ========= ISSUE ========= My opponent may have missed where I brought up the startling fact that the creation accounts ARE written differently from the other parts of Genesis, so much so that it has caused many scholars and theologians to accept the documentary hypothesis(2) of Genesis - insofar as they believe that Genesis 1 and 2-4 are written by entirely different authors. One of the major reasons for this belief is that there is a dramatic switch in the divine name, from Elohim to YHWH. Moreover, I'm not particularly concerned with the grammar of the creation account as it is no real consequence. There is no relevant or significant difference between Jesus' parables and their explanation, this does not mean that we ought to think that Christians are literally wheat and others are literally weeds. Grammar, more often than not, is irrelevant to whether or not a literary device is being utilized (e.g. Jesus' hyperboles, his parables and John's visions). ========= COMPROMISING ========= I am neither of those two people and as a result my intentions ought not to be generalized. My view is shaped by growing literary and historical understanding of Genesis. The fact that this better fits with what we know about our universe is no small victory either. Since my case rests on historical and literary understanding of the text, one could hardly accuse me of eisegesis. ========= EXEGESIS VS EISEGESIS ========= Before we move on at this point, I would like my opponent to give me some examples of non-literal grammar. For instance, when Jesus says that we ought to gouge our eye out or cut of our hand off if one of those things causes us to sin, we understand this to be hyperbolic. But why do we understand it to be hyperbolic? Is the grammar of any relevant difference from the grammar before it? Moreover, my opponent completely limits the text by restricting all "outside" influences. For instance, we cannot at all understand the book of Revelation without understanding the historical context in which it took place. My opponent's reasoning would restrict the use of cultural and historical analysis because it is not a property of the text. But if we take the text of revelation alone, we are met with absurdity. If the meaning of a text is contingent upon the historical context in which it took place, the historical context is of utmost importance. ========= PROBLEMS OF A LITERAL INTERPRETATION ========= Here is where my opponent gets very slippery. He claims that my logic is self-refuting, because, I mean, if I take one part of the Bible metaphorically then how do I know it's not ALL metaphorical? My opponent needs to answer me this: Do you think that scholars and theologians should not take literary devices, genre and other stylistic attributes into consideration when determining the meaning of particular biblical passages? My opponent commits the Black-or-white fallacy(3). Essentially the Bible must be either wholly literal or wholly non-literal. This false bifurcation is an affront to Job, Psalms, Songs, and Revelation. It renders all of Jesus' hyperboles and parables nonsensical. The reason my point stands is because the theological implications of the prose in Psalm 19 are unavoidable. Moreover, there are no GOOD reasons for believing that Paul was being anything but literal in Romans 1. So what we have here is an argument from the coherency of scripture. Either Psalm 19 and Romans 1 are correct and the creation account is non-literal, or the creation account is a literal, scientific retelling and Psalm 19 and Romans 1 are false. Which would my opponent have? ========= CONCLUSION ========= My opponent has not addressed either the paralleled days or the day conundrum. He goes so far as to suggest that the day conundrum is irrelevant, but this could not be further from the truth. Given that the Jews were well aware of how days worked, they would have immediately understood that the days COULD NOT be literal given the impossibility of days occurring without the sun. It is not possible for the creation account to be a literal, scientific retelling given this conundrum. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...