The Geneis account of Creation should be read literally

========== CONTEXT ========== I would like to clarify a statement I made in R3 that made Con believe that I completely misunderstood his arguments. With regards to modern science, I tried to make it clear in R1 that the purpose of this debate was not to use any arguments from the authority of modern scientific consensus on the age of the universe, as most people would therefore take this debate as a ‘science has already proven Genesis wrong' thing and I would undoubtedly lose without anyone paying attention to the actual arguments. The mere mentioning of modern science making a literal understanding of the GCA silly skews the whole topic of the debate so drastically that I fear people will forget the topic altogether, how the author who had no knowledge of our context intended for readers to understand his text. "My opponent and I are both operating under the framework that these authors' were not writing your typical ancient text, but were writing with the inspiration of the breath of God. So they were understandably privy to information not necessarily known within their sociohistorical context." Correct, the author was writing about events in the past (further in the past than his time in history), so the sociohistorical context of that past is pertinent as well. However, my opponent's mentioning of modern science requires going in the OPPOSITE direction. With regards to the time period of the author of Genesis, Con has referred to FUTURE sociohistorical context in a futile attempt to understand the meaning the author meant to convey (eisegesis). ========== 7 DAY MOTIF ========== It CANNOT be determined from Genesis that a 7 day motif was being implemented by the author. It does not matter at all that a 7 day motif was common at the time of the authorship of Genesis, as it cannot be said with ANY degree of certainty that one caused the other. I just baked a chocolate cake and a vanilla cake. If one of them caused the other, I concede this debate. Similarity is NOT causality. ========== ASSUMPTIONS ========== For time constraints, I will respond to a few of these in the next round. ========== LITERAL GRAMMAR ========== As I've stated ad nauseam, it IS possible to determine whether a parable, poetry, or the like is in use, AND GENESIS CONTAINS NONE OF THEM. Rather, the GCA is written as a literal historical narrative, just like the rest of Genesis. Refer to my R3 argument "Literal Grammar" and its source [1] for this. My opponent continues to falsely assert that the Bible's claim of God being self-evident in nature is in contradiction with a literal understanding of Genesis. Clearly, the statements ‘God is self-evident in nature' and ‘the earth is about 6000 years old' do not contradict each other in the least. It is only when one takes the conclusions of modern science on the age of the earth and combines it with the statement of God being self-evident in nature does any contradiction arise with a literal understanding of Genesis. To find the contradiction that my opponent ridiculously professes is within the Bible itself actually requires the importing of our modern context into the ancient text (definition of eisegesis). ========== TWO CREATION ACCOUNTS ========== Chapter 2 only speaks of events that chapter 1 says happened on day 6. It should be noted that Jesus is on the side of the "two accounts" not being in contradiction [2]. My opponent has ignored what I actually said regarding the immediacy of creating man and woman. As I stated in R3, what implies the immediacy of action is the construction "God said…AND IT WAS SO" (emphasis added this time). With regards to creating man and woman in chapter 1, the text DOES NOT contain the ‘AND IT WAS SO' part, meaning that man and woman were not created simultaneously. As I've stated, Genesis 1 gives an overall chronology of events, while chapter 2 gives more detail of specific parts, as is common to do in historical accounts [3]. Because of the shift of focus, it is not troubling in the least that God is referred to by one of His other names in chapter 2. Scofield's commentary on Genesis 2:4 gives great insight on the reasoning to use the names that the author did [4]. God did not create vegetation again. Con is confusing wild plants with plants that need a man to till them (i.e. cultivated plants). Chapter 1 says that plants were created on day 1 (it does not say all plants), but chapter 2 only says that plants that need a man to till them were not yet created. After the man was created, so were the plants that needed tilling. No contradiction. "Moreover, in the first account, God brought the land up from the water which subsequently allowed for vegetation. Yet in the second account, God brought the water up from the land which allowed for vegetation." With all due respect to a debater with 49 wins on this site, this argument is utterly ridiculous. In Con's first statement, he is referring to when the whole earth was still covered in water immediately after being created and then God brought up dry land for the first time (1:9). In the second statement, he is referring to when God brought "mist" or "springs" up to water the ALREADY VISIBLE DRY LAND (2:6). ========== LIGHT BEFORE SUN ========== My opponent refutes himself here. If in the future, as the Bible claims, "the glory of God" will illuminate the new Heaven and earth, then God evidently will "let there be light" at that time. As Con pointed out, it sounds like this would require God ‘creating His glory' in a way. However, as the Bible claims that God is unchanging, God will not ‘create' His glory, as that would be something new. The only conclusion is that in the future God will imbue His glory with light. So, my opponent believes that God CAN do it, but arbitrarily choose to believe that He just didn't do it in the past? My opponent continues to falsely insist that the author's definition of a day depends on the sun. I explained in detail at the end of R3 that the author's definition of a day depends NOT on any particular source of light, but rather on the presence or absence of light itself. As such, the issue of days being possible hinges on our discussion of light before the sun. As with most of Con's "points" in this round, the reason why we should still understand these days as being 24 hours long was also already answered in R3 (see the last paragraph of my R3 and its source [5]). ========== EISEGESIS ADMITTED ========== "If modern science affirms that it is impossible to take the GCA literally without scientific contradiction, then I think it ought to influence our view on whether or not the GCA is a literal retelling and consequently whether or not it ought to be read as such." Eisegesis: an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, BIAS, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text. Clearly, if Con has not just committed the fallacy of eisegesis, no one ever has or will. I am sure that my opponent will undoubtedly try to wiggle out of his inadvertent admission. However, this is an undebatable example of my opponent exercising the definition of eisegesis. Con has admitted that even if the resolution is TRUE (the meaning of the GCA is literal), he has already rejected this meaning as possible due to his personal BIAS of today's scientific context. Whatever the meaning was that the author intended to convey to his readers, Con has shown that his aim is to make sure the "meaning" agrees with what science is currently saying. As such, no merit should be given to any of his arguments, as they are all motivated by a fallacy. [1] http://creation.com... [2,3] http://creation.com... [4] http://www.biblestudytools.com... [5] http://www.answersingenesis.org... (section II)