The Bible is not compatible with Big Bang/Abiogenesis/Evolution

In order to prove that the Bible is incompatible with these theories, I must first prove that: 1. The Bible teaches a literal interpretation of Genesis 2. Big Bang/Evolution/Abiogenesis is incompatible with Genesis Conclusion: The Bible is incompatible with those theories Argument 1: The Bible teaches a literal interpretation of GenesisWhat I think my opponent and I can agree upon is that the many passages of the Bible can fall under these categories: Poetry – As seen much in the book of Psalms Parables – As in many of the teachings of Jesus, for example in Matthew 13:3–23 (And he told them many things in parables, saying: “A sower went out to sow. 4 And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. 5 Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since…) Prophecy - As seen in books of the last section of the Old Testament Letters – For example, the writings of Paul Biography – As in the Gospels Autobiography/testimony – as in the book of Acts History – For example, the accounts of 2 Kings The big question is where Genesis falls under these categories. Chapters 12-50 are undisputed as history as they document the lives of Abraham and his descendants. Most Jews would agree as they take these passages as the true history of their own people. However, chapters 1-11 which documents the creation of the universe, Adam and Eve and their descendants, and Noah’s flood is the issue of this debate. We can start by eliminating obvious ones. They aren’t parables as whenever Jesus used parables, he often would say that it is a parable or use similes to make it obvious that it is a parable. In the full context of Genesis 1-11, the chapters are not prophetic in nature. Although, there are one or two verses that spell out a prophecy. For example in Genesis 9:11 (“….never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth”). Because these chapters are written in a third-person view, it would be safe to assume that this isn’t some autobiography or testimony. There is nothing that would indicate that Genesis 1-11 are letters. Since this section of Genesis covers different events involving different persons, it wouldn’t fall under biographies as biographies are limited to the accounts of a single person. The most controversial is whether Genesis 1-11 was written as history or as poetry as many Christians believe. In order to determine whether or not it is poetry, we need to look at how poetry is written in the Bible. One distinctive feature in the poetry of the Bible is the use of parallelism. Parallelism - Parallelism is the usage of repeating words and forms to give pattern and rhythm to a passage in literature. Parallelism often either juxtaposes contrasting images or ideas so as to show their stark difference, or joins similar concepts to show their connection. For example, Psalms 1:1 shows a triple parallelism. (‘Blessed is the man that walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers.’) Although in Genesis 1-11 there are examples of repetition of certain phrases such as ‘and God saw that it was good/very good’ which was used seven times, it is more of a statement of fact rather than poetic parallelism. The reason of repetition is more likely to put emphasis on such phrases. Because Genesis 1-11 lacks the properties that define poetry elsewhere in the Bible, it can be concluded that Genesis 1-11 is not poetry. There is more affirming evidence other than the process of elimination to confirm that the Bible teaches Genesis 1-11 as history. If you compare Genesis 1-11 and 12-50 you will notice that there isn’t much difference in the writing style. Why would one be considered history and the other not? Most, if not all experts in Hebrew would agree that the Bible teaches Genesis 1-11 as history. Oxford University’s Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written: “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 their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.” In addition, there are also multiple references across the Bible that refer to Genesis 1-11 as history. For example, Jesus has often referred to the book of Genesis as history in Matthew 24:37 (“For as were the days of Noah……..”) or in Matthew 19:3-4 (“3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,”). In conclusion, without pressure to make the Bible to conform to evolutionary principles, it is obvious that Bible teaches Genesis 1-11 as literal history. And because Genesis 1-11 was written as history, it is now pretty clear why the Bible is not compatible with Big Bang/Evolution/Abiogenesis. First off, these theories teach that the universe, Earth, solar system, life, and humans are all are the product of billions of years which contradicts the Bible’s teaching that everything came into being in a matter of six, 24-hour days. A reason why evolution can’t work with Genesis, is that the Bible teaches that death and suffering came into the world after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. However, even if Adam and Eve were the result of the evolution of primates, it still contradicts the Genesis account. Picture Adam and Eve standing upon layers and layers of dead things would be clear evidence that there was death and suffering before Adam and Eve. The Bible also states that man was created in God’s image, but a bacteria that evolved to a man clearly contradicts this notion. Here is the main reason why these theories contradicts the Bible. If there was no literal Adam and Eve, there was no original sin. If there was no original sin, then there is no need for Jesus Christ to come and die for our sins. If the book of Genesis is not true, then the core message of the Bible falls apart. I await my opponent’s argument. Sources: The Holy Bible http://creation.com... http://www.literarydevices.com... https://www.Biblegateway.com... Letter from Professor James Barr to David C.C. Watson of the UK, dated 23 April 1984. Copy held by the author.