The Geneis account of Creation should be read literally

This is the kind of topic I could debate for 20 rounds! INTRODUCTION My opponent has contended that although it is possible that the Genesis account of creation is a literal retelling, it actually isn't because the use of a common 7 day literary motif is most obvious. Therefore, I will first discredit the use of the 7 day motif in this case. 7 DAY MOTIF My opponent is classically begging the question by claiming that the author's recording of the creation account is the use of a 7 day motif. Quite simply, where did the 7 day motif come from? Either the 7 day motif came from the 7 day calendar week, or the calendar week came from the motif. Cool? Cool. Next step, which came first, and where did it come from? Aha, conundrum for the motif-ist! If the 7 day calendar week came first, from humans understanding that God created in 7 literal days, then the motif itself is therefore based on the LITERAL creation week. My opponent's only hope with this one is to prove that either: 1. The 7 day calendar week originated first, arbitrarily and based on nothing, and that the 7 day motif is based on it, or 2. The 7 day motif originated first, arbitrarily and based on nothing, and that the 7 day calendar week is based on it. Without proof of either of these scenarios my opponent can only ASSUME that a non-literal interpretation is correct despite the apparent literal grammar of the text. After this assumption, he can then use the 7 day motif as an explanation. However, he cannot make that assumption first, as we are debating that exact issue. ISSUE My opponent does not seem interested in contesting the Hebrew grammar and semantics of the creation account (I don't blame him). Upon request, I can produce various facts demonstrating the following conclusion: the account of creation is grammatically identical to the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph in the latter parts of Genesis, all written as literal, historical narratives chronicling what were believed to be real people and real events. For this debate, the only issue of contention is how the literal, historical narrative of the creation account SHOULD be taken. My opponent asserts that it SHOULD NOT be taken literally. As the issue of the grammar being literal is not at issue (unless my opponent wishes to contest the facts of the Hebrew grammar), I will proceed with why it is necessary to interpret these literal statements literally, noting that I have already shown to be errant my opponent's only argument presented thus far in favor of a NON-LITERAL INTERPRETATION of LITERAL STATEMENTS, the 7 day motif theory. COMPROMISING Leading advocates of the framework hypothesis, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, admit that their rationale for trying to interpret Genesis as a framework rather than literally is to make the Bible agree with long-age science that insists the earth is billions of years old [1]. Other common creation compromises are the day-age theory and the gap theory. Essentially, no creation compromise ever arose from a reading of the text itself, but rather from Christians who wanted to remain Christians in the face of the long-age science they believed. Regardless of the credibility of modern science (which I am not contesting here), this is a cut and dry case of exegesis vs. eisegesis. EXEGESIS VS EISEGESIS Exegesis: critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, especially of the Bible [2]. Eisegesis: an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text [2]. I am striving to understand the meaning of the text by examining the Scriptures alone (exegesis), and I submit this as a summary of the arguments I am using to support the following conclusion: the Genesis account of Creation SHOULD be taken literally. My opponent absolutely cannot reach the conclusion that the account should be taken non-literally from what the text itself actually says, as the grammar is clearly literal. Whatever the outside forces or influences are that are driving my opponent to not take the literal statements literally, and however credible modern science considers them, is of no value to this debate, as that is clearly importing outside ideas into the text and corrupting the conclusion (eisegesis). Examining the text for what it is and deciphering what it says (exegesis) is the only fair way to determine the meaning that a text is claiming. Example: Some scientific theories from the past have since been proven false (just think of one, like the earth being flat). Do we reinterpret the words of the previous scientists to make them agree with what we currently think or know? Of course not; we acknowledge what they ACTUALLY MEANT by what they ACTUALLY SAID, even if we currently think it to be false. I submit that as an explanation of how something SHOULD be understood. It should be understood as it was meant to be understood. I'm not saying you have to believe in a literal Creation week, but that is what the text says, which means that is how the text should rightly be understood. And let's not forget that how the text should rightly be understood is the issue that is being debated here, not whether science, Darwin, Dawkins, aliens, Santa Claus, or my opponent agree with it as being true and correct. Every Atheist or Evolutionist who disagrees with the Bible because it makes the ‘absurd' claim that God created in 7 literal days is acknowledging that the text does indeed call for that understanding of it. PROBLEMS OF A LITERAL INTERPRETATION "One of the major problems with the Literal Interpretation is that it seems to contradict the psalmist's and Paul's proof for God's existence (Psalm 19; Romans 1:20) - that God is self-evident in nature. " My opponent's argument on this point goes as follows: 1. The Bible claims that God is self-evident in nature 2. Science says that nature is billions of years old 3. A literal interpretation of Genesis calls for a young earth C: Genesis should not be read literally However, my opponent is attempting to make use of the LITERAL claims of the Bible that God is ACTUALLY self-evident in nature. He is placing some literal statements of the Bible on his side as evidence that the literal statements of the creation account should not be taken literally. The only argument presented thus far for not taking the literal statements in Genesis literally is the 7 day motif theory, which is clearly begging the question. Therefore, my opponent must now present a different reasoning for taking some literal statements literally and others not, or else he contradicts himself in the above argument. At any rate, I plan to address any issues raised of a literal Genesis contradicting anything else in Scripture. CONCLUSION As the focus of this debate is clearly how the literal statements of Genesis SHOULD be taken, the issue of the scientific impossibility of light before stars is irrelevant to this debate, although I may touch on it later. I do vow to touch heavily on the conundrum of "two creation accounts", as it can easily be demonstrated that an analysis of the grammar shows that the "second" account is nothing but more details of the sixth day of creation, and that any appearance of events happening out of order with the "first" account are merely improper interpretations. CLARIFICATION: In this debate, I have the burden of proving that the account of creation should be interpreted literally, so I will focus first on my opponent's criticisms of a literal interpretation, as I need not focus on refuting his specific type of non-literal interpretation. As space allows, I will do my best to address the claims of the framework hypothesis. 1. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise, pp. 94,136 2. . http://www.answersingenesis.org...