Creation of Eve (TE conundrum)

[California Tim]

One of the scriptural evidences of the literal reading of the Genesis account for me has centered on the literalness of the man Adam. I suppose that any TE'ist with an allegorical position must disagree. In fact if Adam was literally the first man, the allegorical reading runs into a roadblock when the creation of Eve enters the scene. Here's the chronological conundrum for TE'ists:

(Gen 2:7) God creates man
(Gen 2:8) God creates the garden and places the man in Eden
(Gen 2:15) Man is given responsibility in Eden to tend and keep it while avoiding one specific tree's fruit
(Gen 2:18a) God declares "It's not good for man to be alone."
(Gen 2:18b) God brings all animals to Adam for naming - Adam names all of them
(Gen 2:18c) Adam is as yet alone (no female human companion)
(Gen 2:21-23) Eve is created as a helpmate for Adam and together constitute the first family (marriage).​

Now the question I have to ask is why this story is told the way it is - if not literal? According to it, whether you read it literally or figuratively, Eve is created AFTER all the animals are named by Adam. This indicates that all other species except humans, had females and males for reproduction, but at the time they were named, Adam was still alone - the only human alive. The story goes on to clarify that Eve was created out of Adam. This precludes the idea (even figuratively) that Eve was spawned by some closely related hominids at the appropriate time. If Eve was a sub-creation so to speak of Adam (bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh), and he was the first man alone, then how could theisitic evolution reconcile with this account - even figuratively. What could the whole passage have possibly been written to convey except confusion - unless meant to be accepted literally?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

One of the scriptural evidences of the literal reading of the Genesis account for me has centered on the literalness of the man Adam. I suppose that any TE'ist with an allegorical position must disagree. In fact if Adam was literally the first man, the allegorical reading runs into a roadblock when the creation of Eve enters the scene. Here's the chronological conundrum for TE'ists:

(Gen 2:7) God creates man
(Gen 2:8) God creates the garden and places the man in Eden
(Gen 2:15) Man is given responsibility in Eden to tend and keep it while avoiding one specific tree's fruit
(Gen 2:18a) God declares "It's not good for man to be alone."
(Gen 2:18b) God brings all animals to Adam for naming - Adam names all of them
(Gen 2:18c) Adam is as yet alone (no female human companion)
(Gen 2:21-23) Eve is created as a helpmate for Adam and together constitute the first family (marriage).​

Now the question I have to ask is why this story is told the way it is - if not literal? According to it, whether you read it literally or figuratively, Eve is created AFTER all the animals are named by Adam. This indicates that all other species except humans, had females and males for reproduction, but at the time they were named, Adam was still alone - the only human alive. The story goes on to clarify that Eve was created out of Adam. This precludes the idea (even figuratively) that Eve was spawned by some closely related hominids at the appropriate time. If Eve was a sub-creation so to speak of Adam (bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh), and he was the first man alone, then how could theisitic evolution reconcile with this account - even figuratively. What could the whole passage have possibly been written to convey except confusion - unless meant to be accepted literally?

First, literal is simply an inadequate word to describe the fundamental hermeneutics that you wish us to use to understand Gen2-3. What is underneath your word -'literal' is the desire to take it in a modern scientific and historical manner. For instance, If it says 'rib' then to an observer at that moment would see a hole appear in Adam's side and a rib removed. This would make a discussion about which rib was removed, or if Eve has 1 more rib than Adam. Or even if women now have pairs of ribs and men have one rib of one pair missing.
(if you think i am joking see: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_095b.html)

But is 1)that the point of Eve being made from a rib 2)what the first readers got out of the passage??

can you see how modern scientific notions of history are getting in behind us and the passage? we are pushing meaning into it, not getting meaning from it. What is controlling the exegesis is modern ideas not those from the ancient near east.

but the really big issue is if Adam and Eve are the progenitors of mankind or the founding couple of the Hebrews. The traditional way is to couple the Noah with Adam and Eve and make both crucial founders of humanity. But what we are reading is Hebrew Scriptures, not aboriginal creation stories, not Chinese etc. The Hebrew stories are dependent on their neighbors for 'contrast and compare' type of information. They are written as polemics against the neighbors, fighting stories that use the dominant pieces from the outside and put them into a new relationship with the LORD God. For instance, the sun moon and stars are not gods but simply lanterns He has put into the firmament to light our ways.

Likewise the Adam and Eve stories are fighting words, designed to attack the common ideas of the neighbors. And as such it makes much more sense to see them as our-that is Israelite forebears. God made us, versus the way your gods made you. this makes Adam and Eve the progenitors of the Hebrews, or alternatively the first humanity in touch with the LORD God, or the first covenant community. It makes the rest of pre-Adamic mankind simply irrelevant to the story, for they are not in contact with God.

And this is just one way to solve your TE conundrum. Pretty close to Dick Fisher's Origin Solution. Glenn Morton has another, not mythological but historical one. And i am sure there are more. And this is before any of a spectrum of ways that see Gen 2-4 as mythological and not-historical are considered.......

btw...
did Adam name ALL the animals---kangaroos?
isn't rib a complex pun? see ANE cognates. it may very well be a snipe at Babylonians.
both the names Adam and Eve are complex puns as well.
but as you loose yourself in such questions, are you missing the big point?

a nice exercise is to take an hour and follow the links from:
http://www.google.com/search?q=adam's+rib+eve&hl=en&lr=&client=googlet&start=20&sa=N


like:
http://www.piney.com/ApocAdHelpM.html

and try to identify the hermeneutical principles people use to understand the passage. Ask yourself -- what is it that they are trying to prove? what are their big ideas?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Genesis is not an allegory for Creation. Rather it is of the myth genre. Because of this, events and characters do not have a one to one relationship with reality. The focus of the story is humanity's relationship with God, not the actual history of Creation.

 

[gluadys]

One of the scriptural evidences of the literal reading of the Genesis account for me has centered on the literalness of the man Adam. I suppose that any TE'ist with an allegorical position must disagree. In fact if Adam was literally the first man, the allegorical reading runs into a roadblock when the creation of Eve enters the scene. Here's the chronological conundrum for TE'ists:

You are still applying your literal lenses to the story Tim.

A non-literal approach considers the chronology to be non-literal too.


What could the whole passage be written to convey?

1. It is not good for humans to be alone. Nor for a man (or a woman) to be alone.
2. A human being (Adam) whether male or female needs a companion "suitable" for him/her. Animals can be a great source of comfort, help and companionship, but they don't quite fit the bill.
3. Men and women are made for each other. Women being made of Adam, are just as human as Adam. (Making Eve from Adam's rib is reminiscent of the Greek myth that sexes required a splitting of the original human form which was androgynous.)
4. As the Jewish commentary says: Woman was not made from man's head to be superior to him, nor from his foot to be inferior to him, but from his side, next to his heart, to be his cherished companion. Men and women are to consider and treat each other as equal partners.
5. Marriage is the most important and most intimate of human relationships, taking priority even over the bond of parent and child. "For a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife." (I have always found it astounding that a book as patriarchal as the bible says it is the man who is to leave the parental nest. This goes contrary to every suggestion of woman as chattel to be "given" by her father to her "husband" and become a part of his household.) As we learn later in the New Testament, it is the image of the relationship of Christ and the Church.

I expect a less hasty exegesis could draw out much more.

 

[Vance]

But Tim, as the others have pointed out, that entire analysis is based on the view that the story is conveying literal history! That the events literally happened, with the details and chronology described. You are still reading it as history, and then arguing that one particular historical event doesn't make sense figuratively.

Instead, a figurative reading is that it is not meant to be historical at all, but is a figurative story that conveys a wide collection of God's essential truths for us. This account, for example, would be giving us the message that God created Man to be in charge of (and be responsible for?) the animals, that women were created as a helpmates for man, but not created as a separate species, but the same as Man, etc. And the rest of the Adam and Eve story follows the same way, as a story conveying God's essential truths about Mankind and His relationship with Mankind, about temptation and selfishness, about the flaw of blaming others, the role of Satan, and ultimately telling us that our own selfishness has created a gulf between God and ourselves which must be bridged. Thus, the need for Christ's redemption.

It is only in our modern minds that we find such truths told via non-historical stories, using figurative and symbolic language, somehow LESS valuable, or LESS true than just telling what actually happened historically. In the past, this was exactly how such truths were expected to be conveyed.

But it is interesting (and ironic) that you chose this text to prove literalism. One other feature of neareastern literature about creation and other such matters is that often these cultures would have two or more different accounts of the same events, often overlapping and often contradictory in some details. This is, indeed, proof that that they were not reading them as literal history since they believed both were "true", and told both of them side by side, even though they could not possibly both be historically accurate. We see the exact same thing here with the two Hebrew creation stories. Genesis 1 and 2 fit this same literary and cultural style.

The first creation story has animals created first, and Adam last. The second has Adam created before the animals. This is the plain, simple reading if you read it literally. If read as literal history, this would require an additional exegesis to force these two texts to reconcile, and one that only makes sense if you are insisting they must be reconciled. Yes, people have gone to great pains to show how they can be reconciled, but that just proves the point: it takes a special effort of exegesis to reach this reconciliation. The stories, at face value, are contradictory when read literally.

As you say, God is not the author of confusion. But providing two creation stories that, if read literally, are contradictory on their face WOULD be to create confusion.

The only way that this confusion does not exist on the very face of the two accounts is if these two accounts are not read literally from the very beginning. If you start with the position that such texts need not be literal history, then there is no conflict that needs to be reconciled! So, is this not the most straightforward reading? The one that leads to the least confusion?

The only thing standing in the way of this reading is our modern mindset which prefers literal history, and which assumes that for a story to be true, it must be historically accurate. We have little use anymore for the presentation of truths in figurative language, and when we do encounter non-literal text, the writing is seen as "just a story" and not a method of conveying truth. This is our modern viewpoint. Why should we impose this modern cultural bias on the ancient writers and God inspiring them?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It is only in our modern minds that we find such truths told via non-historical stories, using figurative and symbolic language, somehow LESS valuable, or LESS true than just telling what actually happened historically. In the past, this was exactly how such truths were expected to be conveyed.



Genesis is not an allegory for Creation. Rather it is of the myth genre. Because of this, events and characters do not have a one to one relationship with reality. The focus of the story is humanity's relationship with God, not the actual history of Creation.




Look at modern myth making in our culture. the movies.
Past heroes- Troy or Alexander or future myths like SG1, Star Trek etc.

They are all written as history, as factual, as a newspaper reporters notebook. Why?
Compare and contrast to Indian and Chinese epics. Lots of miracles, magic, deus ex machina, Why?

For something to be believable, to be real to modern western culture, it needs to look-like history, to be scientifically accessible. Our epistemology doesn't allow anything else to be valid knowledge. Dreams, visions, myths, old stories etc are all discredited in our collective consciousness. They are not sufficient containers for our hopes and dreams, for our ideals, only history narrative fits that bill.

These are myths and stories, and our insistence that they be played out of an historical scientific stage betrays our cultures acceptance that myth=false and science=true, irrespective of the meanings or the greater truth that is trying to be transmitted.


....

 

[Vance]

And, as we have pointed out before, this is where a great irony lies. The modern fundamentalist is actually basing his insistence on literalism on modern SCIENTIFIC ideas of truth!

 

[California Tim]

And, as we have pointed out before, this is where a great irony lies. The modern fundamentalist is actually basing his insistence on literalism on modern SCIENTIFIC ideas of truth!

I should jump in to clarify the word "literal" was not the best one to convey the meaning to the crowd in here. What I believe is that the account is a historical narrative of actual events - that it literally happened. I am pretty sure I have seen every attempt to logically explain Adam and Eve as methaphorical representatives and not historical people and every one must eventually dismiss the geneaologies that are incorporated into the whole text as just so much wasted ink. Have any of you ever stopped to consider that one issue thoroughly? We agree God is not an author of confusion. Yet we are given a specific historical lineage back to a metaphorical couple that supposedly never existed? What utter nonsense.

What must be said in Genesis that the author left out to convey the Genesis account as a historically accurate narrative?

• The hebrew word used to describe the creation days overwhelmingly refers to 24 hour days elsewhere in the Bible.

• The addition of "evening" and "morning" to describe each day further bolsters the argument.

• The seventh day was honored - revered as holy and kept as a foundational commandment - one of only ten.

• The account specifies that species reproduce "after their kind". (Why the need for that before Darwinism was even considered?)

• Adam was considered a historical person by the patriarchs, Paul and Christ.

• A specific geneaology of actual and acepted historical figures follows the creation account - a totally useless exercise for an allegorical story.

So far, I heard one predominant underlying theme by TE'ists here: The Bible must reconcile with the revelations of modern science and human understanding! In otherwords, man's judgement is true and the inerrant standard by which all scripture is confirmed.

Let's go out on a limb here - for the sake of argument - and I'll just say that ALL the science is true. The apparent age of the earth appears to be in the billions of years using indisputable dating methods. Microevolution has been observed and by association mandates macro-evolution. The fossil record is so complete and indisputable that Christ himself would declare it true if required to settle the dispute. The universe cannot be less than hundreds of billions of years old. Etc etc. Now the question:

What if God did it like He said He did it in Genesis ANYWAY? What if ALL the evidence apparently leads astray? The only complaint I've ever seen raised here on that issue is that it would not be "fair" for God to do such a thing. Some would insist God would surely do it in such a way as to please or satiate our vanity by way of our own understanding. I've heard all the arguments for why God should or should not create this way or that way, punish some but not others, give all humans a chance to repent or risk being "unfair" or "unjust" in our eyes.

The problem is, it's all unscriptural. ALL the arguments for allegorical reading, for deciding how to read Genesis other than literal are presented from a "world-view" and finite understanding of the way God plans things. It cannot be supported from a Biblical perspective. It depends on science or extra-biblical evidence almost exclusively. God Himself declares: "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are MY ways your ways!" The Bible itself could hardly be clearer. The problem arises when the clearly written passages don't jibe with our natural senses. Then we decide this or that interpretation must be altered based on personal experience or finite reasoning. God's word and sovereign plan are put in subjugation to our own understanding of the way it should be. This may be fine when the argument is supported elsewhere in the Bible, but not when used alone to justify erroneous interpretation. The Bible takes precedence when a man-made conclusion seemingly cannot be reconciled with an otherwise clear passage that is supported scripturally elsewhere in the Bible.

 

[Vance]

1. Tim, are you forgetting that I, and many of the Church Fathers, and many, many since then came to the conclusion that it should be read figuratively before there was any scientific reason for doing so? It seems that you keep ignoring that point, since it is so much easier to wave away figurative interpretations based on influence from scientific conclusions.

2. you say "Yet we are given a specific historical lineage back to a metaphorical couple that supposedly never existed? What utter nonsense." This is only nonsensical for someone writing today. It made perfect sense to someone in ancient times. Your cultural bias is showing again.

3. Every one of your bullet points are based on the text being historical! You keep bootstrapping a historical reading by pointing other text which you read historically.

4. I do not think a young creation unfair, I think it would be God creating confusion, and possibly even being deceitful, neither of which God is capable of. If I have a choice between 1) God creating in such a way that the Earth and Universe and everything in it would look, act, and TEST billions of years old, but actually only be 6,000, or 2) reading the text as figurative and not literal history, I will choose 2 every time. This is just made a slam dunk for me since I find the figurative reading dramatically more likely even without knowing anything of the evidence from God's Creation itself.

5. You continue to base your entire idea of what is "clear" and "plain" in Scripture on the premise that literal is preferable, more correct, more true. That we should, for some reason, assume a historical reading unless mandated otherwise.

You have never explained why we should start with a presumption that a text is meant to be read as literal history. Why would this be the default. Why is this your basic presumption?

And what about my point regarding the conflicting accounts being LESS confusing using a figurative reading. Is this point being influenced by science as well?

 

[California Tim]

3. Every one of your bullet points are based on the text being historical! You keep bootstrapping a historical reading by pointing other text which you read historically.

Alas, it is finally perceived (perhaps). You make my point - that being, what is the PURPOSE of writing in the fashion of narrative history if it was not intended? Those bullet points BOLSTER the argument in favor of narrative history - not against it. What more could have been added IF THE AUTHOR WANTED IT TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS HISTORICAL? Will anyone ---- Can anyone produce an answer for that one? I don't care what extra-biblical evidence you rain down on the point --- I want to know what SCRIPTURAL points were left out that would have otherwise verified a historical narrative?

 

[Vance]

But that is not the issue. Why are you starting with the idea that it would be historical to begin with? All of those bullet points work just as well in a figurative, non-historical account. You are asking what else could He say to show it was meant to be historical but I don't see the relevance of this question. It's as if you assuming historical, so reading all of the text in that light, rather than starting without a presumption and letting the text speak for itself, taking into consideration the style, the language, the forms, the usages, etc.

If we were to start with a presumption, it should be one based on what the original writer would have intended, which would not be a presumption of strict historicity.

I just think you are starting from completely the wrong place, based on modern cultural biases in favor in historically accurate writings about our past.

And you still haven't addressed the issue of the two accounts and which approach leads to less confusion.

 

[California Tim]

You are asking what else could He say to show it was meant to be historical but I don't see the relevance of this question. It's as if you assuming historical, so reading all of the text in that light, rather than starting without a presumption and letting the text speak for itself, taking into consideration the style, the language, the forms, the usages, etc.

I am not sure how the relevence could be ignored. It's a huge issue. Either the author intended it to be literal or not. My question is how could you assume anything else but a literal reading in its context? Are you claiming that you are letting the text speak for itself when assuming an allegorical reading?

 

[Vance]

I am not sure how the relevence could be ignored. It's a huge issue. Either the author intended it to be literal or not. My question is how could you assume anything else but a literal reading in its context? Are you claiming that you are letting the text speak for itself when assuming an allegorical reading?

Exactly. Well, figurative, not specifically allegorical. That is exactly what I am saying. The text, it's styles, language, usage, internal comparisons, etc, all point directly to a figurative reading to me. And it has for many, many Christians since Christianity began, and even before with the Jews. It just doesn't read like someone trying to write literal history in the least.

But the other point is, again, why are you starting with literal as your "default"? Why should this be the starting place, from which you only deviate when you find good cause? Yes, this is our cultural proclivity, but should our current style of reading and writing be what we base our "default" on when reading a text written thousands of years ago and meant to be read by many generations over those thousands of years?

You take those points, and I think you come up with a document that contains much figurative, much semi-literal legend, much literal history, much poetry, much that is non-literal visions, etc. It is a mix of writings which each must be read on its own terms. How could we possibly apply one default approach to all these various styles, written (even through inspiration) by all these different people over thousands of years?

Again, I agree that God is not the author of confusion, so I read it figuratively when all the factors point in that direction.

Then, of course, when I see that the scientific evidence makes a literal historical reading nearly impossible, I simply say "ah, I see, then I guess I got it right."

So, while I still see nothing wrong with allowing the evidence of God's Creation to inform how we interpret Scripture, as one factor to consider in the mix*, even without such a factor, I end up with non-historical for Genesis 1 and 2, and to a certain extent the flood story and Babel as well. Then the style shifts dramatically with Abraham, and we move into a more historical style.

*I think Augustine got it right when he said that the evidence from nature should, indeed, be one of the four bases for proper interpretation.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I am not sure how the relevence could be ignored. It's a huge issue. Either the author intended it to be literal or not. My question is how could you assume anything else but a literal reading in its context? Are you claiming that you are letting the text speak for itself when assuming an allegorical reading?

and here lies the problem.
our modern thinking doesn't seem to allow for various levels of interpretation. we seem to think, no require that, our literature be flat-scientific, historically accurate. That is why we have such a hard time believing that literature can have levels that even the author was not conscious or, nor intending.

We seem to impose these radical dichomotomes: either -- or. either figurative or literal, either history or myth, either YEC or materialist evolutionist etc etc.
when the question is more on the line of a spectrum.

look at a traffic accident.
say a car hits a young mother and a child in a stroller.

you have a cops report, a newspaperman's report, eyewitness account, stories told later to friends. All of these differ, Why? just like you have newspapermens account to history to historical novel to political mythmaking spectrum for the same events. They are governed by the purpose of the account within the cultural context of the people. Now would you accept an eyewitness who reported an angel came and saved the baby? or would you rather talk about the angle of impact?

Is Gen 2-4 written as historical narrative or like an historical novel? talking snakes? These are very basic questions of hermeneutics, and it needs to be realized that the fundamentalist YECist has already choosen a whole set of hermeneutically principles before s/he has ever examined the text.

but i propose a better way is to see the text as multiple levels, as an elaborate literature that has multiple ways to read and intrepret it, and they are not mutually exclusive. to read it as literal history is not to eliminate our ability to see it as polemics against the neighbors. Nor does the treaty of the great king make a liberal metaphorical analysis impossible.

 

[California Tim]

But the other point is, again, why are you starting with literal as your "default"? Why should this be the starting place, from which you only deviate when you find good cause? Yes, this is our cultural proclivity, but should our current style of reading and writing be what we base our "default" on when reading a text written thousands of years ago and meant to be read by many generations over those thousands of years?

I believe that in the absense of clear direction otherwise, any scripture written is primarily literal. A literal Christ, a literal death and resurrection for example. In cases where a figurative passage was used, it is usually quite clear as in some of the physical descriptions of God, the church as a "bride" and such. In the case of Genesis, there is no reason to call into question the narrative style, the historicity of Adam and the account of creation as written (except that modern science disagrees).

 

[Vance]

But WHY do you use literal as the default?

I, for example, believe Jesus is literal because of the way the text is written combined with the theological requirement that He have literally lived and died and due to my personal relationship with Him.

But when dealing with texts in general, WHY start with literal? And why use the same default for all Scripture, when it is written by so many different hands, over so many years, with so many cultural settings? Why?

 

[California Tim]

Is Gen 2-4 written as historical narrative or like an historical novel? talking snakes? These are very basic questions of hermeneutics, and it needs to be realized that the fundamentalist YECist has already choosen a whole set of hermeneutically principles before s/he has ever examined the text.

I didn't want to give the impression I ignore your posts, but often they are so deep, I get lost in the translation wondering exactly what you are saying. Insofar as the above statement, I do indeed take a "literal by default" approach unless the Bible seems clearly to mandate a figurative or allegorical position on the matter.

 

[California Tim]

But when dealing with texts in general, WHY start with literal? And why use the same default for all Scripture, when it is written by so many different hands, over so many years, with so many cultural settings? Why?

Written by so many different hands ... Yes. But inspired by ONE author - the Holy Spirit.

 

[Vance]

Written by so many different hands ... Yes. But inspired by ONE author - the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I agree. But that has nothing to do with the question. Why do you think that God intends you to use a default of literally historical when reading the text He inspired?

Since you seem reluctant to answer that question, I will give it a shot. I think that it is because in our society, we have come to know our past with a certain degree of accuracy, and due to the scientific revolution, have come to place an extremely high value on conveying truth via historically accurate records. As a result, we have relegated "stories" to "just stories", and a less valid and "secure" method of conveying truth. We want the certainty that an accurate historical record can provide. If it is not historically accurate, then the truth conveyed must be discerned, analyzed and thought about. If it is "just the facts, ma'am", then our work is done.

Further, the modern fundamentalist movement which demands such literalism grew up out of a reaction to "liberal" trends in the major Protestant denominations earlier in this century. This liberalism was associated with higher education, and complex theologies and doctrines. This was a form of "Second Reformation", in which the movement tried to give Christianity back to the masses by an approach to Scripture that leveled the playing field by choosing a hermuenetic that all could use equally: literal reading as straightforward history. This does away with (it was thought) any need for complex exegesis or thoughtful analysis. All could just open and read, and there it is in black and white. This movement grew up out of the poor South, and spread very quickly, accompanied by a corrolary movement of Charismatic Pentecostalism: a focus on the emotional connection through the Spirit, which is another aspect of Christian experience which can be equally experienced by all.

The problem with the strict Fundamentalism is that when you take a text that was not meant to be read as literal history and insist on reading it that way, it ends up creating more complex exegesis than otherwise!! You end up having to develop convoluted concepts to explain away so many inconsistencies that arise with a default of historical literalism.

And, I know what I am speaking of, since I grew up in this tradition. My father was a Pentecostal minister with the Assembly of God Church. I still attend an AG church where my cousin is the youth pastor, and I serve as an usher and Sunday School teacher. So, I am not just making stuff up.

 

[California Tim]

Yes, I agree. But that has nothing to do with the question. Why do you think that God intends you to use a default of literally historical when reading the text He inspired?

Since you seem reluctant to answer that question, I will give it a shot.

I really thought I answered it already in a dozen different ways. I even gave a bullet list of reasons (albiet a very short one). Here's a brief recap:

The style of the writing is narrative history and NOT poetic.

The words used to describe the creation days were painstakingly clear, were used elsewhere throughout the Bible to denote 24 hour days and further used modifiers (evening and morning) which makes the literal translation 100% in favor of literal days elsewhere.

References to the creation later in the Bible also were not in poetic form but seem clearly to refer to historical accounts. Patriarch, Paul and Christ all referred to Genesis as literal.

Adam is listed as the head of the human family tree and a specific historical geneaology is included to bolster that claim.

As if in the fashion of a preemptive strike on an erroneous doctrine yet to be developed (evolutionism), the account goes to great lengths to counteract claims of speciation by mandating that species reproduce "after their kind". This very issue, by itself could be a topic for a new thread. Why even mention "after their kind" at all if it was meaningless or allegorical? The truth is, it has a definite value and indicates the seriousness of the attempt to clarify the method of creation.

On an extra-Biblical basis, the flood account as a literal worldwide event, precisely explains the fossil record, including the absense of transitional species, the strata layers, the mass extinctions and the dramatic difference of opinion on dating methods and reliability. It solves the riddle of rapid formation of vast pockets of organic fossil fuels which require a rapid die-off of animal and plant life which is then swiftly covered with sediment before decomposition. It accounts for the potential cataclismic movement of the tectonic plates while under great pressure of the waters and the current world population model run in reverse coincides with the literal flood account of Noah and of the approximate age of the earth since that flood.

Should I continue, or do you understand my position well enough now? It is not born of preconception or willful ignorance, but in a different interpretation of the same evidence you see. And frankly, it is so obvious to me, I wonder how it could be so abstract to other Christians.