Genesis must be literal; it is straightforward narrative

From EvoWiki

Contents 1 Claim 2 Source 3 Responses 4 Fallacies contained in this claim 5 Related claims 6 Acknowledgments

Claim

Genesis must be literal; it is straighforward narrative.

Source

• add source

Responses

1. Suggests that the person has not actually read the Bible (with all its poetry, metaphors, etc.) or looked into the history of the various interpretations/redactions/translations.
2. Even if the Bible were "straighforward narrative", this wouldn't tell us anything about its truth or otherwise.
3. The first and second chapters of Genesis actually give differing accounts as to the order that God made the various things.
4. The Lord of the Rings is a straightforward narrative, but we all know it isn't historically true.
5. Aesop's fables were straightforward narratives, but no one thinks that mice and foxes are capable of speech.
6. "Allegory" is defined as a straightforward story that is not literal, and which the author intends to symbolically represent some point, moral, or generalization. Moreover, even the style of writing in Genesis is not straightforward, and it has been generally accepted that it was written by at least two different people, with no thought towards mutual consistency.
7. The narrative itself could be straightforward, while some aspect within the narrative could be meant to be read symbolically (such as the word "Day").

Fallacies contained in this claim

• add fallacies

Related claims

• The Bible is literal
• Genesis must be literal; later writers refer to it as fact

Acknowledgments