The Geneis account of Creation should be read literally

CONTEXT: The question within this section of the debate has become whether or not modern science should influence our reading of the Genesis creation account (GCA hereafter). My opponent incorrectly summarizes my argument, as if I have somehow affirmed that science has proven Genesis false. That is not only wholly inaccurate, but so egregiously off base that I wonder whether he has clearly read my argument at all. My contention was and is that modern science has shown that the GCA cannot represent an actually, scientific retelling of origins. 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. Moreover, if read as a literal, scientific retelling, then the GCA finds itself WITHIN a scientific context, subsequently making modern science directly relevant. Furthermore, if the author's intent was for the GCA to be read literally, then one must affirm that he/she was intentionally lying about how everything originated. Given the stylistic differences between the first and second creation account in Genesis, however, it is possible that the author's(s') intentions were of a theological nature, not literal. This brings us to an important question: What is the point of the GCA? Is the point to retell in detail the origins of the universe, or was it of more theological import - illustrating Imago Dei, The Sabbath, man's fallen nature and the profundity of marriage? The important context is not just historical, but theological. 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. 7 DAY MOTIF: "...which does not require ANY assumptions." Assumptions made by my opponent: 1. Upon reading the text, he has understood it correctly 2. The referred to Hebrew Scholars were correct. 3. That the 7 day motif comes from a 7 day calendar week and not vice versa. 4. The Hebrew's number of completion came from the creation account (though the GCA could have used the number seven because it was their number of completion). 5. That Genesis 1 and 2 do not represent two different creation accounts. 6. That literal grammar cannot be used within a larger literary metaphor (which is demonstrably untenable given Jesus' wide variety of parables). 7. That light and darkness, absent the sun, still represent 24-hour periods. 8. That God was the light source referred to in Genesis 1. 9. The second creation account is an account of day 6. Though I could certainly exhaust more space by listing more assumptions, the aforesaid should demonstrate that my opponent stands on the likelihood of his assumptions. The fact of the matter is that the Hebrews saw the number 7 as the number of completion and consequently used it more than any other number in the Bible (save for 1). But most importantly, the 7 day motif was NOT unique to Jewish writings and Scripture. It was a COMMON Mesopotamian and Babylonian literary device(1) - most notably found in their epics. A prime example can be found in the Epic of Gilgamesh, an ancient text that predates the authorship of Genesis by some 1,600 years(2). We therefore have GREAT literary reasons for believing that the author of the 1st GCA was utilizing a literary device common to his/her sociohistoric context. Coupled with the use of creatively paralleled days, the creation account is looking more obviously non-literal than literal. LITERAL GRAMMAR: What is non-literal Grammar? How does it differ from literal grammar? "...although my opponent thinks my argument must call for this." Actually my opponent's argument was that I cannot claim that some statements of the Bible are literal and others are not; specifically in using the Bible as a hermeneutical lens by which to interpret itself. So the literal statements regarding God's self-evidential nature cannot be pitted against the supposed literal statements of the GCA. Now here is a true example of the traditional begging of the question, inasmuch as the truth of my opponent's assertion is unilaterally contingent upon the very premise in question, namely whether or not the GCA is literal. To the contrary, there is good reason to believe that the GCA is not literal given the literal statements made elsewhere in the Bible (Romans 1). Conspicuously left out from my opponent's argument are examples of non-literal grammar. The fact that there is no relevant difference in grammar between Jesus' parables and their explanation shows us the unsoundness of such reasoning. "...possibly being...holds no water" Showing possible alternatives is not tantamount to proving that an argument does not hold water. Also not addressed in my opponent's response is my question regarding the verity of either Romans 1 or the GCA. TWO CREATION ACCOUNTS: My opponent tries, unsuccessfully, to resolve the issues between the two creation accounts. He first unabashedly asserts that it is CLEAR that the second account is an account of day 6. If this were truly the case, why would God have to create vegetation AGAIN (2:5)? Vegetation was created on the third day (1:9-13) according to the first account, but in the second account it CLEARLY states that no vegetation had yet appeared because God had not allowed it to rain (2:5,6). 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. The accounts are clearly not reflective nor necessarily complimentary of one another. Also, in the first account regarding the simultaneous creation of man and woman, it DOES follow the "God said" repetition (1:26). Moreover, it uses the plural of human being. My opponent also does not respond to the change in the divine name, from Elohim in the first account to YHWH in the second (making it even more clear that there are two differing accounts). LIGHT BEFORE SUN: My opponent is reading Revelation 21:23 into the text. Now there has to be some relevant difference between his use of scripture to support his point and my use of scripture to support mine that allows him to completely disregard my point as having any import while simultaneously lauding his. If God's glory is the SOURCE of the light, we have a problem with the proclamation, "let there be." Did God create His glory or merely imbue it with the property of light. Moreover, where has this light gone? The bigger issue here is how these days manifested themselves absent a sun. My opponent says that they were dictated by light and darkness or morning and evening. The problem is that morning and evening do not exist absent a sun. Light and darkness are contingent upon the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun - insofar as different parts of the earth are experiencing a day while other are simultaneously experiencing night. Moreover, why in the world would we believe that these morning-evening segments represent 24-hour periods? To make matters worse, are we to believe that God is merely turning his glory off when he wishes it to be evening and turning it back on when he wishes it day? With these things never being said in the text, how are we to imagine that it was clear to the original readers of Genesis? Sources: 1. How It All Began: Genesis I-II, Ronald Youngblood 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...