The Instigator
ScottyDouglas
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The seven day creation in Genesis 1 is literal!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
ScottyDouglas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,640 times Debate No: 23850
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

ScottyDouglas

Pro

The debate is the literal interpretation of Genesis 1.
Rules:
1. Debate must stay on topic.
2. Argument is presented by Pro/For.
3. Debate will be conducted in a professional manner.

Gl to any who chooses to debate on this topic. And Thank You ahead of time.
Danielle

Con

All I have to do is disprove one aspect of Genesis in order to invalidate the idea that its narrative describes literal truth.

Genesis describes the primary creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity. Apparently my opponent is a YEC (Young Earth Creationist). YECs believe that the Universe, Earth, and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of God sometime around 6,000 years ago. They believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as a basis for their beliefs [1].

YEC was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept around the start of the 19th century. Most scientists began to see it as a non-scientific position and little more than religiously motivated pseudoscience. In addition to those heathen scientists, most theologians themselves also reject a literal interpretation of Genesis on the basis that it is completely incompatible with science [3].

I wish my opponent the best of luck in establishing his burden of proof.

[1] Womack, Mari. Symbols and Meaning: A Concise Introduction. AltaMira Press (2005).
[2] http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu...
[3] http://books.google.ca...
Debate Round No. 1
ScottyDouglas

Pro

I want to thank my opponite for her acceptance to this debate. Thanks!

Today we will debate about: The seven day creation in Genesis 1 is literal!

My arguement:

I can imagine a few arguements my opponent may propose but I can not know her complete arguement so I will only offer my own interpretation of Genesis 1.

Most actually consider that if they take the seven day creation story then that means the earth can not be billions of years old. This is not the case at all. In Genesis 1:1 we see God creates all time, space, and matter. In Genesis 1:2 the matter is formless and void, not a typical description when describing something that God has created. If God created everything and can do everything as clearly stated throughout the Bible.Then creating the earth in six days is very possible.

Do you all actually consider what it takes to make this creation? God has to know alot of things from everything on the scientific scale to the artistic. God created and set the laws for all things within what we know as creation.
Though in a scientific point of view it is uncapable of being true. Why? Can things outside emperical physical evidence be true? I know they can. Many exsperience such things throughout history even till today. This lore is talked about since acient times. Doesn't lore start somewhere? Science is outside its emperical bounds to study and hypothosis in terms of Meta-physical, supernatural, and spiritual. Nor can they deny their existance because they are unable to exsplain it. In the end only people who hold the Bible as guidance and true literal facts and not just poetic words then we start to understand its real meanings.

By not taking the literal description in Genesis 1 then it must be considered a metaphor. The Bible does have many metaphors from Genesis to Revelations. Though if we give the creation account as Christians a symbolisim as just metaphric then we take away from the actual signifiance of it. This plays into questions as, do you actually believe the Word of God at all? The creation account should be took as a narrative to a actual and literal event. In this description by just the narrative, gives a true literal interpretation.

KJV-R (Webster) Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkenss he called Night. And evening and the morning were called the first day.
What is this 'evening and morning' refering about throughout Genesis 1?

God has no night or evening or morning within His kingdom nor does He need darkness. So God speaking of darkenss, He was literally refering about the earth being incapable of having light. And when He speaks of days in Genesis 1, it is literally earth's days. The Bible clearly states a visual, " And the evening and the morning," which refers to our 24 hour days. We see that:

KJV-R (Webster) Revelation 21:23 KJV-R And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

(Webster) Revelation 21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

KJV-R (Webster) Revelation 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

KJV-R (Webster) Revelation 21:11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like to a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;

The sun had always been shining brightly and God allowed the sun to penetrate to the surface.

The entire creation of all time was described within the first two chapters of Genesis. We must remember that even though God is beyond the earth, universe, and all creation, He can always be within creation. This would be the case in the creation description as Gods reveals himself as though He is upon or within the earth.

Another reason why the six day theory must be literal is because if it is not, It could appear to undermine God's authority and ability. This would give flaw to the representation of God. This description of creation reveals personnel and unique. Would God put so much effort to apply seven earth days for it not to be literal? I do not think so. The heavy importance to display our six earth days signals literal. Here we read:

KJV-R (Webster) Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

KJV-R (Webster) Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

KJV-R (Webster) Hebrews 4:4 For he spoke in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

Clearly the interpretations here show that the six day creation was in fact literal. Here we read God reminding Israel that He created the earth in six days and rested. These verses give much credence to God literally meaning six and seven actual earth days.

There is only 181 OT verses and 24 NT verses that deals with ordinal numbers with the word 'day.' A ordinal number is the order of items described. In these 205 verses only 1 is not literal days and this verse is not in Genesis 1. There is no reason to interpret Genesis 1 as anything but seven literal days.

Reasons:

1. The author of Genesis is Moses. Moses uses the word 'day' many times and usually it deals with a ordinal number. Not once was 'day' ever used by Moses to mean long periods. Why does it mean something else here?
2. Genesis, Exodus, and Hebrews are historical and doctrinal. There are 90 verses of history and doctrine that include 'day.' Every one of them refers to literal days. With the many verses that are interpretated as earth days, Why should it not be took literally here?
3. If the seven creation days is not literal then it undermines God's authority.
4. It undermines the signifinance of the act. Leading to not holding it sacred.
5. Can a scientist and emperical evidence claim to say metaphyics are impossible?

References:
The Bible (King James version)
http://www.keyway.ca...
http://bibleview.org...
http://www.usbible.com...
http://www.gospelway.com...
http://www.hebrew4christians.com...
Danielle

Con

I probably shouldn't have taken on a debate during Memorial Day Weekend lol - I'm far too busy to put forth an amazing rebuttal. However anyone who's read the last round can see that it's not really necessary for me to do so; all I have to do is point out the flaws in my opponent's case.

His argument basically boils down to 2 key points:

1) Science cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the metaphysics of the Bible are impossible. Besides, it wouldn't be relevant considering "[If Genesis were not literal], it could appear to undermine God's authority and ability. This would give flaw to the representation of God." He basically says that we ought to believe God could do everything written in Gensis simply because God is defined as being able to do so. This is a terrible argument; it offers not a shred of evidence or proof but merely suggests we should believe it simply because Christians believe it.

Throughout the last round my opponent proposed several fallacious arguments regarding this point, such as when he said "God created everything and can do everything as clearly stated throughout the Bible." This is using circular reasoning. He's trying to use the Bible to validate itself. This is a logical fallacy. Even though science is imperfect, it relies on empirical evidence and the scientific method to offer credibility. This argument is the complete opposite, and suggests we should believe in God's powers simply because God is defined as having those powers. Does that mean we should believe Santa can fly around the world in one night because he's described as doing as such? No.

2) Pro says that the the "days" described in the Bible do not refer to literal days. This argument of course negates the resolution in itself. If the "days" described were not 'literal' days -- what 'days' refer to -- then the Bible should not be taken literally. In fact my opponent describes how the "days" refer to mere periods of light and darkness, which means he admits that it's essentially a metaphor.

Pro hasn't given us any evidence, proof or justifiable reasoning to believe that all of the extraordinary things described in Genesis are credible. He says we should accept it as to not undermine God's authority, or accept it being something not literal... in order words he's already negated his own case.

As for my case, I'll be brief because I literally have 5 minutes to write this.

There are a ton of historical creation myths. The Bible's similarities with Egyptian, Greek and Babylonian mythology are too close to be a coincidence. The writers weren't isolated from other cultures and they didn't get their ideas by sitting on some mountaintop meditating with God; they borrowed ideas from their neighbor's creation myths. The technical term is called called syncretism [1, 2]. We have proof of this -- I'll provide more evidence in the next round if need-be. The point is that various creation myths exist from a bunch of cultures, and have been mixed and infused with a bunch of different stories. Are they all true? Which parts are true? So many questions but I'll stop and let Pro respond before going on.

Because this is a 5 round debate, I reserve the right to introduce more evidence or problems in the next round. There are more other problems aside from the literal day vs. night dilemma.

[1] http://www.usbible.com...
[2] http://www.cs.williams.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
ScottyDouglas

Pro

I must tip my hat to my opponent. I also will Thank her for this debate!

My opponent brought up the short time which she has to debate, This can not be a crutch or excuse. Though I am sure time is little for us both, I think we can both can work out a proper debate. She again is appreciated for her time and effort.

My opponent took this debate as a agreement to debate the 'seven day creation account', not scientific errors in the Bible. Or the mere speculation of God. Other 'so called' problems of the Bible is not a debate here and it is invalid. If my opponent would like a future debate on such a topic, then I would accept.

"His argument basically boils down to 2 key points:"

No my arguement boils down to one point, that the seven days of creation described in Genesis 1 is literal!

My understanding is that my opponent concedes the literalness provided in Genesis 1 from a biblical standpoint for seven earth days. Though she states:
" Pro says that the the "days" described in the Bible do not refer to literal days. This argument of course negates the resolution in itself."

This is untrue and I never stated as such. The whole point of the debate is that the seven days of creation is took literal by myself. What my opponent should explain is why Gen 1:1-2 are in fact included inside the first day. My interpretation is Gen 1:3-31 are the seven days and not Gen 1:1-2. We see from Gen 1:1 that time began, the heaven was created, and so was the earth. In Gen 1:2, the earth has water, has darkness, and God moved upon the waters and the earth. When God creates something it has purpose and it is perfect in its ways. Though we see the earth is not. It is void and dark. Why? Because the earth became formless and void. We read in other passages within the Bible of the Great War in heaven. Think of the destrcution it would cause not only in the heavens but on the earth. God was simply reanitmating the earth and did so within seven days. So the seven days are in fact literal.

My opponent says further, "If the "days" described were not 'literal' days -- what 'days' refer to -- then the Bible should not be taken literally. In fact my opponent describes how the "days" refer to mere periods of light and darkness, which means he admits that it's essentially a metaphor."

Again my opponent is wrong about my stance. My interpretation is literal. The darkness described would be in the sky and so from the earth you could not see the sun, moon, and stars (think of a scorched sky). God simply allowed light from the sun to pierce through the darkness within the first day. By the fourth day, you could clearly see the sun, moon, and stars. This shows that God was repairing the earth and correcting our atmosphere for living conditons. This also goes to hint that many eons could of past before the earth became formless and void.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent states: "Even though science is imperfect, it relies on empirical evidence and the scientific method to offer credibility."

I agree science has worth for belief by its testing and method. Though creditablitiy does not make something true or untrue, just possible by a educated hypothesis.

In a article posted below we read:

"The Bible is not a science book and it can not claim as such. Though I am not aware of scientific claims that contradicts the Bible. Science in its very nature, is not capable of proving the non-existance of anything. You can even choose something you have no good reason to believe actually does exist--unicorns, or leprechauns, Santa Claus for that matter. Make that person show you, in principle, how science is capable of proving that any particular thing does not exist. He won't be able to. All he'll be able to show you is that science hasn't proven certain things do exist, not that they don't exist. There's a difference. Some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That's simply the false assumption scientism. Don't ever concede the idea that science is the only method available to learn things about the world."
http://www.str.org...

My opponent asserts that: "This argument is the complete opposite, and suggests we should believe in God's powers simply because God is defined as having those powers."

Yes God is defined as having those powers and nobody still has showed evidence that this is not the case.
I refer back to my arguement in round 2, as for the verification that Genesis 1 is literal.

My opponent has offered no reason to suggest that the seven days of creation is not literal, except that God does not exist, which is not any verifiable reason, because she can not prove He does not exist. Mt opponent has failed to show why the described Chapter in Genesis is not literal. She will try to bring up why God does not exist, this drives the debate off topic. This is not a debate about God's existance nor is it my burden to prove his existance. If my opponent offers reasons within the Bible itself why Genesis 1 is not literal then that would be fair. Though if she continues on the course of trying to bring the debate off topic, I must ask points be took from her.

References:
Holy Bible (King James Version)
http://www.christiancourier.com...
Danielle

Con

Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ScottyDouglas

Pro

Since my opponent did not arguement my points I made then it leads one to think that the 'Seven days of creation is in fact literal.

I will not build anymore on my case in this round, I will just clarify on some of my pervious points.

Gen 1:1 - was the creation of time, space, and matter. This is agreed by science as the starting point and material to all we know.

Gen 1:2- After the initial creation something caused the earth to be desolate, 'formless and void.' The cause for this can be many reasons but the facts we have are that it was desolate.

Gen 1:3-31- God started to replenish and repair the earth.

I know this is not the usual position by a creationist but it seems pretty logical to me considering things we know from science.

I thank my opponent again. I hope next she fires back. If not then I will be happy to talk more on this myself. In the next round regardless if my opponent replies, I will give a verse by verse interpretation of Genesis 1.
Danielle

Con

Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ScottyDouglas

Pro

Thanks for this debate.
I will provide a breif summary.

KJV-R (Webster) Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

God created time, space, and matter.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness wasupon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

God was upon the earth and the earth is destroyed.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

God allowed the sun to peirce through the clouds to provide light.

4 And God saw the light, that it wasgood: and God divided the light from the darkness.

The light and dark was seperated.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

This symbols the first day after God allowed the light to shine on earth again.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

The waters from the heavens(clouds,atmosphere) are seperated from the waters upon the earth.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which wereunder the firmament from the waters which wereabove the firmament: and it was so.

God restored the heavens and earth and seperated them both.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The second day passing after God started repairing the earth.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry landappear: and it was so.

God brings forth dryland.

10 And God called the dry landEarth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it wasgood.

God puts all waters and land in one place.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, andthe fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed isin itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

God brought forth grass, trees, fruits, and any herb with seed in itself as God is.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, andherb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed wasin itself, after his kind: and God saw that it wasgood.

God sees that anything is good that is after himself.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Third day of repairing.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

God put forth lights in the heaven for earth.

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he madethe stars also.

God made the sun and moon but not here. They were already made but here they were visual to earth again.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it wasgood.

Now the sun and moon could of been somewhere else and God placed for earth. But that does not have to be the case. God could of made them in the past and that is what it was refering to.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl thatmay fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it wasgood. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it wasgood.

God creates the fowl, fish, and all beast of the field.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his ownimage, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

God creates man after his image and gives him dominion over the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which isupon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which isthe fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there islife, I have givenevery green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it wasvery good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

God finishes the earth, man, beast, fowl, and fish and they are good. They were all given proper food to eat.

Thanks again for reading and please vote for PRO.
Danielle

Con

Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
It's a shame that I had to forfeit. That week I had to forfeit 3 debates that I was participating in. I have since challenged all of those people for re-matches. One of them I am now winning by a landslide. One of them my opponent refuses to debate me (because he says he knows he will lose). And this one I have no interest in, unless we agree to c/p the arguments we already have and continue our cases rather than formulate entire new ideas. It would waste time considering I'm still pretty busy at work (though I have a 4 day weekend coming up, hence why I might be interested if you are...)
Posted by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. All that mess with no validations.
Posted by NobodyMove 4 years ago
NobodyMove
Its really a matter of shame that people of the 21st century believe in the Biblical claims. Evolution is a fact and the Christian god doesn't exist. I don't know when humans will finally grow up, and accept this.
Posted by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
How do get points or no points?
Posted by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
That video mistakenly got on here. I must of made an error and copied it twice. I am sorry. PLZ overlook my stupidity. TY
Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
Oh snap son
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
It is difficult to discern which debater is negating the resolution better.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
Oh boy...
Posted by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
No, he believes God created the world in six days. On the seventh day he rested. Duh.
Posted by dan564891 4 years ago
dan564891
So you believe God created the world in 7 days ??
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
ScottyDouglasDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: So. Many. Forfeits.
Vote Placed by Davididit 4 years ago
Davididit
ScottyDouglasDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Rofl. FF to a YEC. Nice.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
ScottyDouglasDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Danielle, say it ain't so.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
ScottyDouglasDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
ScottyDouglasDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF