The Geneis account of Creation should be read literally

========= Introduction: ========= I am very happy to be treading both familiar and comfortable terrain, being that the topic of debate is one well covered in my degree. It is also a great pleasure to be participating in Nick's first debate on debate.org. I would like to thank, Nick, for both his challenge and for his forthcoming and anxiously anticipated arguments. Before we get started, it should be noted that I am willing to concede that it is possible that the Genesis account of creation is a literal retelling. However, I am neither willing to concede that it SHOULD be read literally nor that it is probably meant to be taken literally. Therefore, I will maintain in this debate that the creation account should PROBABLY not be taken literally. Obviously, since there are no mathematical means by which we may quantify the probability of literal and non-literal interpretations, we will have to leave it up to the discretion of the readers. ========= The Problems of a Literal Interpretation: ========= My opponent has requested that this discussion stay clear of pertinent scientific material, and I will respect that request. But the fact that a literal interpretation of Genesis' creation account is impossible given our current understanding of science is no small matter. In fact, I think an intellectually responsible interpretation of Genesis not only looks at what best fits the scriptural and historical context, but also one that best fits our current understanding of the universe. For instance, where two competing hypotheses have a legitimate scriptural and historical basis, I believe the hypothesis that makes the most sense given our understanding of the universe should be preferred. One of the major problems with the Literal Interpretation is that it seems to contradict the psalmist's and Paul's proof for God's existence (Psalm 19; Romans 1:20) - that God is self-evident in nature. What is abundantly clear and remarkably unanimous among those who exhaustively research and meticulously study the intricacies of our universe, is that it appears to be very old - much older than a literal interpretation of Genesis would allow. It would seem that if God is self-evident in nature then it would align with what he said about nature, namely that it is remarkably young (assuming a literal reading). Those who study the age of the earth, however, come to a demonstrably different conclusion. Perhaps though, God did not intend the creation account to be taken literally. If God is self-evident from nature, it stands to reason that what he says about nature will be true. Was the point of the creation account to state HOW God created or THAT he created. The latter view, in my mind, seems the most likely. ========= Multiple Creation Accounts: ========= Another hurdle for the literalist, is the fact that there seems to be more than one creation account presented in the beginning of Genesis. Many scholars maintain that at least two creation accounts are coalesced within the first and second chapter of Genesis. A quick reading of the 1st and 2nd chapter of Genesis, with this in mind, will make this abundantly clear. The first account separates the creation order into 6 segments of 24 hour days. The second account (staring at 2:4), makes no mention of days or a particular creation order. To make this dichotomy even more clear, the first account prefers Elohim for God's name, while the second prefers YHWH (1). In the first creation account, God creates both the man and the woman simultaneously ( 1:27-28) - they remain unnamed until the second account. In 2:7, God creates Adam and does not create Eve until 2:21-22. Moreover, in the first account, the entire world is covered in water at 1:6-8. Yet in 2:5-6, the second account, the earth seems remarkably dry - insofar as the plants could not grow because God had not allowed it to rain. It was not until God brought water up from the bottom of the ground that plants received nourishment. If we are to take the creation account literally, we are poised with the problem of answering which account we ought to take literally. ========= The Day Conundrum: ========= Light was created on the first day. Since even those living during the time of Genesis' authorship knew that the sun was a measurement for days (in terms of day/night and dusk/dawn), the fact that light was created before its source only serves to show that Genesis 1 was never meant to be taken literally. In fact, this poses a significant problem to reading Genesis literally. If a day, by definition, is the average time of a single rotation of the earth in respect to the sun, then from day 1 we could never have arrived at day 2 - insofar as the measurement cannot predate the metric. ========= Why the Framework Interpretation(2)? ========= First, let me briefly explain the Framework interpretation for the readers. This interpretation insists that the point of the creation account in Genesis is not to give a literal or scientific explanation for the origins of the universe and the earth therein, but to give us more of a theology of creation. The point of the creation account was not to show us how God created, but to merely inform us THAT he created. The days listed in Genesis, therefore, are not meant to be taken as literal, chronological days, but rather has a 7 day motif - a literary or symbolic structure meant to reinforce important theological themes (e.g. The Sabbath). The REASON why Genesis 1 does not seem to represent a literal retelling is because the author used a common 7 day literary motif. Moreover, there is a stylistic parallel of the days mentioned, day 1 parallels day 4; day 2 parallels day 5; and day 3 parallels day 6 – leaving the last day to figuratively represent the Sabbath. The Genesis account shares many similarities with ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian creation myths. In fact, it seems that in many ways, the Genesis creation account is written to combat other competing mythologies (3) ========= The Theological Problem of Death ========= The most common method of combating theological hypotheses is by finding other, better supported theological truths that stand in friction and make the hypothesis generally irreconcilable with scripture. I anticipate that my opponent will suggest that death before the fall of man is irreconcilable with scripture. There is NO scriptural teaching that states death did not exist before the fall of man. Romans 5:12-14, often used in support of no death before the fall, teaches that there was no death of MAN. Moreover, the presupposition would be that death refers to the loss of biological life and not the origin of sin and transgression. ========= Conclusion: ========= This is all for now! I anticipate that the focal points of argument will be narrowed and, no doubt, sharpened as we progress in this debate. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...(Genesis) 3. The IVP Bible Background Commentary pg 30-31.