The Geneis account of Creation should be read literally

CONTEXT "Normally, if it were any other text, I would conclude that future understanding is irrelevant to the author's past understanding." My opponent admits that for all cases except the Bible, future understanding is completely irrelevant. He tries to make an exception for the Bible because of all the prophecies contained in the Bible. However, the ONLY prophecy contained in Genesis is in 3:15 and it refers to a descendent of Eve (Jesus) ultimately defeating Satan. Also, the prophets my opponent lists prophesy nothing whatsoever related to 21st century science. Ironically, many believe that 2 Peter 3:2-6 could be prophesying about long-age science, although the apostle clearly scoffed at those who would one day hold such beliefs in high esteem, being ignorant of God's creating acts and the global flood (neither of which modern non-Christian scientists believe): "I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, ‘Where is this ‘coming' he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation (naturalism anyone?).' But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed." My opponent is clearly grasping at straws to say that because the Bible contains prophecies about the future, the author of the GCA would have known how old 21st century scientists would say the earth is. Obviously the author was well aware of the scientific impossibility of light before stars, yet he went to great lengths to make the grammar as clear as possible. Prof. of Hebrew studies James Barr of Oxford brilliantly demonstrates the resolution of this debate. Barr adamantly disagrees with the GCA, yet from reading it and understanding its context, he acknowledges the following [1]: "…probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to the readers the ideas that: 1. Creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience, 2. The figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to the later stages in the biblical history, 3. Noah's flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those on the ark." Modern science (and Barr) disagrees with creation in a literal week, with a rather young earth, and with the possibility of a global flood, yet Barr admits that the author of Genesis made all of these points as clear as humanly possible, and this is how we should understand the text. My purpose in starting this debate was to establish the need to understand scripture as it was written, and I hope to someday become informed enough on modern science to discuss/debate it as it relates to the Bible. For now, curious readers can check out this source [2] for some evidences for a young earth (Con this is just for the curiosity of the readers). LITERAL GRAMMAR If it is really impossible to tell whether or not a literary device is in use by looking at the grammar itself, I can't help but wonder why my opponent believes that Jesus was a literal person. By his logic we can't know for sure that all the stories about Jesus weren't just metaphors. I won't put everyone through a 6th grade grammar lesson, but it is possible to read a text and pick out the similes, metaphors, hyperbole, etc. I have not begged the question and assumed that Genesis does not use literary devices. All of Genesis is written as a historical narrative, like something you would read in a history textbook. Its meaning is clear, even if you believe it to be false. When God personally wrote the Ten Commandments, He made it clear why we must observe the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10-11): "But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work…" God could have left it there, but for some strange reason He decided to give us a reason for why we mush rest one day per week: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day." God's clarification on the length of the days in question is an irrefutable clarification on the meaning of the GCA: its meaning is literal. TWO CREATION ACCOUNTS "…asserting that all plants that do not require cultivation can exist without water." When did I say this? Never. I said that cultivated plants did not exist before there was a man to cultivate them. The plants that did exist at this point were watered by a mist, all of which is stated in 2:5-6. The large bodies of water referred to in 1:10 are the oceans that were gathered in one place so that there would be dry land for the first time (1:9). Chapter 2 tells us that the dry land was watered by a mist so that plants could grow. These statements ARE NOT REFERRING TO THE SAME EVENT. Goodness. LIGHT BEFORE SUN "So if God is unchanging, how does imbuing his Glory with light not require a change?" So what is my opponent's take on Revelation? Is it then a lie that there will not be a sun and that the glory of God will illuminate the new earth? "Moreover, since we must conclude that the days in Genesis 1 were of a different nature, given that the Hebrew word for day requires the sun, how do we reasonably conclude that the days represent 24 hour periods absent the sun? - my opponent's sources notwithstanding." As my opponent has chosen to make the dogmatic statement that the Hebrew word for day requires a sun without attempting to use any sources to back this up, my sources are the ones we'll be trusting. EISEGESIS I have not ‘read' Revelation into Genesis. As the Bible claims that every word in it is God breathed, I am treating the Bible as a whole and acknowledging that a statement in Revelation offers an example of how a statement in Genesis is not an impossibility for God. If my opponent wanted to cite a statement from anywhere in the Bible that says the earth is billions of years old as evidence that the GCA is not meant literally, he would be allowed to do that. But if such a statement existed in the Bible, I would never have begun this debate. SUMMARY 1. A text should be understood according to the meaning the author meant to convey. 2. ALL of Genesis is written as a historical narrative, such as you would read in a history textbook. 3. Hebrew scholars are in agreement on the meaning that the text is claiming, even those who believe its claims to be impossible. 4. My opponent's argument in favor of a non-literal interpretation is fallaciously motivated by his desire to not have the Bible stand in contradiction to current scientific consensus. In general, what is your take on miracles? They usually require scientific impossibilities. It's fine to not be able to comprehend light without a sun, the same way our minds can't comprehend the resurrection of the dead, something that you profess to believe. They are both miracles as far as our comprehension goes. Your stance just seems odd for a Christian who believes in God's power as strongly as you do. I'm just a little confused over when you take a scientific stance and when you don't. Thanks for the fun debate though! I apologize if I ever seemed hostile. It's hard not to when you feel you're right. I imagine you concur ;-) [1] Sarfati 137 [2] http://creation.com...