The Geneis account of Creation should be read literally

It was all in good fun. Before getting into my last ground, let me quickly respond to this question: "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 believe God does miracles all the time. I believe that Jesus was brutally flogged, spit upon by unruly and jeering crowds. I believe he carried his cross (as far as he could no doubt) upon a back of mangled flesh. I believe his hands were nailed up for my wounds and his side pierced for my transgressions. I believe he died. And I believe he rose again. What I don't believe is that this God who loved me dearly, created the universe with the deception of age. I also do not believe it is intellectually honest to posit the miraculous when other, more salient explinations exist. CONTEXT My opponent insists that just because the authors of the Bible showed a keen ability to know certain aspects of the future that we cannot, because the GCA was written literally, conclude that the author of Genesis knew anything about the actual age of the universe. I'm not sure how many times I have to point this out, but my opponent is once again knee-deep in fallacy. When you assume the truth of the very matter in question in order to make a point, you are begging the question. James Barr is verifiably wrong. First, he himself does not believe that the GCA is a historic event (1) and, secondly, the late-earth theory (that creation was around 10,000 years ago) is within the distinct minority of today's scholarly community - including those Christians who are part of the scientific community (2). Competent scientists of astronomy, astrophysics, paleontology and archeology have shown that the earth is remarkably old. As an important side note, John Barr actually spoke against those who stringently held to the minority view that the earth was created in six literal days and that the earth, despite overwhelming contrary evidence, is young (3). It is probably best to check sources before using them to support a point they do not, in reality, support. 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. " Again, missing my point. Literary devices are not always visible on a grammatical level, but are rather seen when examining the larger body of content and context. Jesus' hyperboles are not syntactically different from the sentences prior, but we know based on an examination of Jesus' character and the content of his other sayings, that certain sayings are hyperbolic. But in this case, my opponent is wrong on BOTH levels. As I have been hammering home, a literary device is being used in the GCA and it is abundantly clear! We have grammatical repetition with the days and the "God said" phraseology. Repetition is a characteristic of Hebrew poetry (4). We have the Hebrew phrase, tohu wa-bohu (formless and empty), in Genesis 1:2 that sets the framework for the entire literary structure of the GCA. Days 1, 2 and 3 represent God's forming (light, water and ground) and days 4, 5 and 6 represent God's creating (or filling) actual entities (e. g. stars, fish, animals). So God first gave form to the formless and filled that which was empty. If the author of Genesis wanted this to be read literally, why would he not put the definite article (the) before the days. Instead of reading, "the second day," it actually reads, "a second day. " This omission of definite articles on the days allows for a non-chronological reading of the days. This non-chronological order can be seen clearly in genesis 10:5 and 11:1-9. Those who study Semitic language have concluded that the GCA is composed of 40% poetry and 60% prose (5). Moreover, I have already demonstrated that a 7-day motif is being used. Dr. Ronald Youngblood, a specialist in Semitic languages, puts it this way, "Ancient Near Eastern literature, particularly from Mesopotamia and Canaan, provides numerous examples of the use of seven days as a literary framework to circumscribe the completion of a significant or catastrophic event (6). " E. A Speiser adds further saying, "The pattern in these works runs uniformly as follows: 'One day, a second day, so and so happens; a third day, a fourth day, such and such occurs; a fifth day, a sixth day, so and so takes place; then, on the seventh day, the story comes to its exciting conclusion (7). " The GCA follows a common literary structure most notably used in the very region that Genesis was authored. TWO CREATION ACCOUNTS Not only were the first plants, whose very existence relies upon photosynthesis, existing without the sun in the first account. But it is clear in the second account that the vegetation for cultivating had not yet sprung up because God had not allowed it to rain (it was not until then that God brought forth the streams from the land). So how exactly were the first plants existing without rain or streams? It should be noted that my opponent never responded to why there is a drastic switch in the divine name from the 1st GCA account to the 2nd. LIGHT BEFORE SUN "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? " Instead of seriously responding to my criticism, my opponent asks a question that neither refutes my claim nor adds anything to his point. Revelation is a highly symbolic book whose apocalyptic literature should not be taken out of context. Why should Revelation be taken literally here when it is so undoubtedly symbolic everywhere else? This is what we call selective literalism. As for the Hebrew word for day. Here is the number for strong's concordance: 3117. The meaning of Yowm has always been elastic (that is why there is debate over it in the first place). Also, the idea that it should be taken as 24 hour segments absent the sun is ridiculous. The first days were separated by lightness and darkness, this would actually represent 12 hour segments. To insist that, ALL in one 24 hour day, Adam gradually realized that none of the animals or birds were suitable helpers - after naming each one of them no doubt - and then was around long enough to become lonely (as reflected by his joyful exclamation) is impossible to believe. EISEGESIS Revelation is a book written in the future and thus my opponent is unfairly applying future information retroactively, as if the original readers of the GCA would have been aware of this. If, as my opponent affirms, they would not been aware of modern science, I doubt they would be aware of Revelation. CONCLUSION To affirm a literal, scientific retelling of the GCA would require ignoring clear literary devices in the text and is tantamount to insisting that there is an error of 99.9998 percent in each of the major radioactive methods of dating. I think it is best to affirm the GCA as Augustine did, "the days are ineffable and timeless. " SOURCES 1. . http://www.christiananswers.net... 2. D. England, A Christian view of Origins 3. James Barr, Fundamentalism 4. . http://faculty.gordon.edu... 5. Ronald Youngblood, How it All Began 6. IBID 7. E. A. Speiser, Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament No hostility taken (or given for that matter).