Genesis of The Bible is Not to Be Taken Literally

Thank you for the opportunity to engage this topic. We have accepted the topic in the first round and now move on in Round 2 to primary arguments. Argument #1: One argument that I will employ in favor of a literal reading is that it makes it clearer to contrast God's creation of the universe with the view of the universe evolving by itself with no outside agency. That is simple but it cannot be overemphasized. Many people take it for granted but it bears repeating. If the Old Testament book of Genesis is interpreted however evolutionists want to interpret it, then that does not allow the Genesis text to speak clearly to us today. Argument #2: The text is best understood in its literal meaning and that was probably how the original recipients understood it. Let me explain. Genesis 1 does depict six days of creation and one day of God resting from his creation. Later, in the Old Testament, that set of creation days is referred to as a historical fact. [4] Argument #3: The days or "yoms" of Genesis 1 are best understood in their plain, ordinary sense of a day. This is another simple observation but it is powerful. If the "days" of Genesis 1 were *not* to be understood as ordinary days, then the author of the text would have given some contextual clues about this broader meaning of an "age" or something similar. Argument #4: Here I will address the problem with your citation of the Pope. He does not offer an solid exegesis of the text. He goes for the metaphorical reading that suggests non-literal days, but why? Is there some compelling reason why the text ought to be understood differently other than to please scientists who believe in the theory of evolution? If not, then the normal textual meaning stands! Also, how does one take the Pope seriously when he, like science educators, does not believe in free speech for Young Earth Creationists and Biblical Worldview instruction. [1] Argument #5: Trying to fit long evolutionary ages into the Genesis text does not work, particularly in regard to the lack of "death" before the coming of sin. This is a substantial point and James Stambaugh makes it better than I can. [2] Naturally, if people had been living and dying and coming and going for generations before the advent of sin which is described in Genesis, then it would not make sense for God to say that in the event that the fruit of the forbidden tree was eaten whoever ate "would surely die." [2], [3] Well, I hope that my opponent has more interesting arguments than simply what the current Pope is expressing as dogma for the interpretation of Genesis. What we are looking for is more than the Pope's "say-so" but what is intended by the author of the text of Genesis and what that might mean, by implication, for readers today. Thanks again and I look forward to ongoing discussion.--TS [1] http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu... [2] https://www.icr.org... [3] "[B]ut you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die." [Holman Christian Standard Bible] http://biblehub.com... [4] "For the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days; then He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and declared it holy." [Exodus 20:11; Holman Christian Standard Bible]