The Geneis account of Creation should be read literally

======== CONTEXT ======== My opponent now contends that Modern Science is wholly irrelevant and goes further with his accusation that I am an eisegete! Should we consider the scientific possibility of an event when considering whether or not the GCA reflects a scientific retelling of the origins of the universe? Should we disregard the fact that modern science has shown that the GCA cannot be a literal, scientific retelling when considering whether or not the GCA should be read literally? Normally, if it were any other text, I would conclude that future understanding is irrelevant to the author's past understanding. But when dealing with a text that I believe is the divine word of God, such things as past and present are irrelevant. Either GCA is literal and God created the universe with at least the APPEARANCE of age (a deceitful, non self-evident God), or the GCA is not literal and the universe is old (a non-deceitful, self-evident God). " 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)." Fortunately for me, the prophets of old have already wreaked havoc on this line of reasoning. Both the major (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel) and the minor prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi) made a habit out of knowing the future - from future captivity to the coming of the Messiah. In THIS context of the prophetic, what good reasons do we have for believing that the author of the GCA was NOT privy to the future and the science therein? ======== 7 DAY MOTIF ======== My opponent tries to briskly cast this argument aside with the brevity typical of failing arguments. Given that the 7-day motif was a common Babylonian and Mesopotamian literary foil that predates the authorship of Genesis by orders of millennia (1), we have very GOOD reasons for believing that the same literary device was being utilized in the GCA. Given that the original readers would have been keenly aware of the motif, it would be ridicules to assume that they took literarily what, to them, would have seemed completely non-literal (given their cultural milieu). This is not just a case of similarity, this is a case of the author of Genesis using a well known literary device - similar to allegory, metaphor, hyperbole and etc. My opponent's casual disregard for this argument is tantamount to him insisting that we ought to take an obvious metaphor as literal. If anyone is inserting their biases into the text (eisegesis) it is my opponent! My interpretation comes from a clear understanding of the sociohistorical context, the original audience and a study of literary genres prevalent during the authorship of Genesis. My opponent's whole defense is question-begging. He must assume the truth of his premise in order for his argument to follow. We know with certainty that the 7-day motif DID predate the AUTHORSHIP of Genesis by millennia. On the other hand, we do NOT know with certainty whether or not the GCA is either literal or recounting actual past events. ======== LITERAL GRAMMAR ======== My opponent continues asserting assumption as fact. Here he begs the question again: "AND GENESIS CONTAINS NONE OF THEM." This premise unilaterally relies upon the verity of the thing in question, namely whether or not a common literary device is present. As has already been shown, a literary device is not only present (the 7-day motif), but it is a device that would have been immediately recognized by the original readers of the GCA. It has become abundantly clear that my opponent does not know what grammar is, nor its function within Semitic tradition. I asked him for an example of non-literal grammar and received only dancing. Metaphors, similes and a smorgasbord of other literary devices are used ALL THE TIME within historical narratives - even if there is no relevant difference in grammar (2). Moreover, Hebrew poetry is marked by its parallelism (3). What do we find in the GCA? We find the days are remarkably paralleled as already shown in my earlier rounds. ======== TWO CREATION ACCOUNTS ======== "Chapter 2 only speaks of events that chapter 1 says happened on day 6." How do you know? "Jesus is on the side of the "two accounts" not being in contradiction" Jesus' use of both creation accounts has nothing to do with whether or not he thought they were either separate or made inconsistent claims. Jesus, on the other hand, is using the GCA in exactly the way I have been maintaining, not as a scientific retelling, but as literature that has THEOLOGICAL import. "...man and woman were not created simultaneously." Whether or not God said "and it was so" is inconsequential. If it is a LITERAL account, than it MUST have happened, EXACTLY as it said it happened. "God did not create vegetation again. Con is confusing wild plants with plants that need a man to till them." No I'm not, I am looking at the Original Hebrew and basing my conclusions off of the fact that the SAME Hebrew word, eseb, is used in both accounts. In Genesis 1:11, eseb is used, and it is used again in Genesis 2:5. Moreover, since when did all non-cultivated plants not require rain to survive? "this argument is utterly ridiculous." And fortunately for me, my opponent calling it ridiculous does not make it so. Nor does it count for much when it comes from somebody who sees no problem with asserting that all plants that do not require cultivation can exist without water. Yam, the Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:10, refers to bodies of water (usually large). How is it possible that all other forms of vegetation could exist without this "mist" (ed). ======== LIGHT BEFORE SUN ======== My opponent refutes himself here. First, he is reading Revelation into the text of Genesis (eisegesis) - so he can apparently refer to future events but I cannot. And secondly, his reasoning for why God cannot CREATE His glory (his unchanging nature) by necessity, refutes his idea that God can imbue His glory with light - insofar as it requires a change in the nature of His glory. So if God is unchanging, how does imbuing his Glory with light not require a change? Moreover, why is this light no longer visible? Also, with Revelation being written millennia after the death of the original readers of the GCA, how were they to know that this was the case? 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. ======== EISEGESIS ======== I can only commit Eisegesis if the thing I am appealing to his not relevant to the ACTUAL meaning of the text. If Genesis is literal, then it makes scientific claims that can be tested. Modern science is relevant to Genesis because it can help delineate whether or not it is making scientific claims. My opponent marks me as an eisegete for referring to FUTURE sociohistorical context when considering the meaning of Genesis (which is but a small part of my argument), yet he himself refers to FUTURE scripture (Revelation) when determining the meaning of Genesis (and thus, he himself refers to a future sociohistorical context). How does he reconcile this inconsistency? 1. "How it All Began: Genesis I and II," by Ronald Youngblood 2. http://faculty.gordon.edu... 3. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com...