[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Deesse23]

I dont make assumptions about the Genesis account, and i am not basing any of my beliefs on that.

You operate on an assumption about the Genesis account, when you suggested I need to show that it was written as non-literally.

Either way I pointed how to identify it as non-literal, by my two bucket system, of writing styles that resemble non-literal, non-historical stories, and those that resemble literal, historical accounts. Genesis resembles the style of the non-literal bucket.

No, i dont. For the x-th time, i am not assuming either way it having been written literally or allegorically. All i am saying that if its written literally, we already have falsified it.
You claimed that is is intended to be allegorical, at least not literal. You need to provide evidence to support your claim (such as "looks like other things written in the same style" provided by you, which however seems to be rather weak to me, looking at the underlying claim at stake about a deity).

---

voiced my expectaton that its didactics would be better than yours

Right. But how do you know what kind of didactics would be better? Maybe the fuzzy difficult ambiguous kind is better, in the long run.

We can evaluate methods of teaching. We have the technology (afaik).

If you arent interested in a discussion in good faith, then just tell me so. I also have other things to do.