Genesis must be literal; later writers refer to it as fact (Talk.Origins)
- Genesis must be literal because writers of later books of the Bible refer to it as fact.
Source: Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Arkansas: Master Books, pp. 244-247.
CreationWiki response: (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
1. Referring to something as fact does not mean it is fact. Writers often use metaphors. I have often seen writers refer to the story of blind men describing an elephant as if it were fact, for example, even though it is a fictional story.
2. Even if the later writers thought what they were referring to was true, it may not have been. People mistake folklore for fact all the time.
These two Talk.Origins responses assume that Genesis is not historical. They also assume that the Bible is not the Word of God. If the Bible is the Word of God then the way that later books of the Bible refer to Genesis is important. Given that later books of the Bible refer to Genesis as fact, if one really believes that the Bible is the Word of God, taking Genesis literally is the only logically consistent position. This claim is aimed at those who believe that the Bible is the Word of God, not unbelieving scoffers like those at Talk.Origins.