NT six literal days

Oh, no one's saying Scripture is wrong. The disagreement is between those who think it is theologically correct and those who think it is scientifically and historically correct as well.

Scripture is intended to provide theological truth - truth Whose focal point is Jesus Christ. As such, Scripture is correct.

 

The whole theory is guess work and not viable at all..
I can do the same thing.

I have four childern. They all have four noses, four mouths, four brains, four sets of arms, four sets of legs, four sets of eyes, four sets of sets of ears, and on and on with the comparisons. I can do the same thing you just did with Genesis one, with a comparison of my children, and then call it poetry. That is nonsense. There is no poetry there--only someone's wishful thinking that it is poetry. The first poem in the Bible has long been considered to be Lamech's poem recorded in Genesis 4:23,24. I have never heard any Bible scholar say otherwise. Wishful opinions don't count.

 

So the only valid scholarship is that which agrees with your already-formed opinions. Fascinating.

 

DHK I'm having trouble understanding why you are fighting so hard against Genesis 1 being poetry. It being poetry doesn't make it any less true. It's just the literary form that was used in that particular section. The literary form doesn't make something untrue.

So what if it's Hebrew poetry? What difference does it make?

No if someone says it's Hebrew poetry and therefore doctrine can not be derived from it then that is problematic, but I haven't seen that happen on this thread.

 

So, God is not smart enough or big enough to be scientifically and historically correct?

BTW, as far as historically correct, God was the only one there at the time and He left us a written record. It seems to me that He is the only one who could accurately tell this part of history.

 

I really don't have a problem with someone calling the "form" of the creation account poetry as long as the "content" of the poetry is accurate and correct. It just seems to me that those who say it is poetry are ready to dismiss it as that, and therefore it is not accurate or true. All of God's Word is accurate and true, or it is not accurarte or true at all.

 

If it is poetry where does it start and end? Was Adam and Eve poetic or were they real people? Was the ark real, was the flood real? Was King David really a king? Did Jesus Christ really come to earth, will He really return again or is this just poetry? What is the formula for determining what is poetry and what is truth?

 

I think HoG made that pretty clear in his post.

So poetry never speaks of real people and real events? Poetry is just fairy tale?

Come on folks, just because it is poetry doesn't make it any less real or any less trustworthy. It's just the literary method chosen to put this information in written form. What does it matter if it is poetry or not? This shouldn't be that big a deal.

 

See Rufus' point. If it is poetry you can make the Scripture make anything you want to say. Much, if not most, poetry is allegorical. When the subject of Genesis one being poetical was introduced it was introduced with the express purpose of making Genesis one mean something else other than what it really means--six historical days--just as Moses stated it was in Exodus 20.
Besides that, to just now claim that it is poetry goes against all Biblical scholarship of past history. I am willing to side with all the great scholars not only of this past century, but of all the centuries gone by, then with some novel modernistic interpretation of the 21st century. It doesn't make sense.

 

Putting words in my mouth is childish. Try again.

 

It demonstrates how it is poetic but not why it is not truth. Should we discount the truth of the Psalms because it is poetic? The Bible in its entirety meets HoGs criteria for we can find 7s and other such things that just fit together perfectly all throughout the Bible. There are 7s throughout Revelation, is this poetry too? It does not mean that we discount the truth of it, it just means we have a God of order, who also happens to be the master poet.

Apparently, if it's poetry, it is a fairy tale for people can be led to disbelieve the Bible's account of creation. If one believes that a day means a day then one can believe the Bible. It's a big deal because one belief has to be true and one has to be a lie.

 

That is true of any literary style. That is done by all kinds of denominations with plenty of non-poetic texts. That's hardly an argument for this not being poetry.

I don't know whether that's a true statement or not, but even if it is you can't say that 100% is like that, so even by your own admission this could still be poetry and 100% authentic.

Again someone's misuse of the langauge is hardly an argument against whether it's true or not.

People have misused the gap between Gensis 1:1 and 1:2, but that doesn't mean it is incorrect, although that is the biggest basis for the argument against it.

Really. So there is no Biblical authority in the past that claimed this text was Hebrew poetry.

Again this is making a mountain out of a molehill. I for one don't have one problem with it being poetry and it certainly doesn't change the facts that they are literal 24-hour days.

 

Because he wasn't arguing that it was untrue. HoG can speak for himself, but we have visted enough that I'm fairly confident when I say that HoG believes Genesis 1 and 2 to be very true the way that it is written.

No and thank you for making my point. Just because it is poetic doesn't make it any less true. Same holds for Genesis.

I think you have read WAY more into his post that what is there. He's not trying to disprove the Genesis account. As for Revelation I'm not sure whether there's poetry there or not. However it wouldn't surprise me if there is, and I don't think that it matters a great deal whether it's there or not.

Again just because some misuse the langauge doesn't make the literary style untrue. If that is so then all of the Bible is untrue, because people take all kinds of liberty with the texts that aren't poetic.

But that has nothing to do with the literary style. That is outside of whether its believable or not.

 

I have a problem with people claiming it to be poetry when for centuries it was never claimed to be poetry. Who says it is poetry? On what basis? What makes them an authority as opposed to all the great scholars of centuries gone by? That is what I have a problem with. Some guy asserts some wild idea in a book and people here are gullible enough to believe it.

 

I guess I'm mixed up and confused about what is being argued then, I apologize as I must've missed something along the line. Sounds like we're agreed...it's poetic truth. Assuming this is the definition of poetry being used.

PO''ETRY, n. [Gr.] Metrical composition; verse; as heroic poetry; dramatic poetry; lyric or Pindaric poetry.

1. The art or practice of composing in verse. (Source: Webster's 1828)​

 

You know for a fact that this has never been claimed to be poetry until recent history. Can you explain how you know this to be true?

Who says its not? On what basis? See these kind of silly games can be played on both sides and we'll never get anywhere. The point is it doesn't matter. It doesn't affect anything whether it is or isn't.

 

It's your mouth. You're the only one who can put words there.

OK, let me try again.

1. Is God smart enough or big enough to be scientifically and historically correct?

2. Since God was the only one there at the beginning, why isn't His record of history accurate or reliable?

 

Exactly! :thumbs:

 

The simple answer is yes. I have taught the Book of Genesis as a Bible College course, and have gone through commentary after commentary in the study of the first eleven chapters of Genesis in particular. I have never come across this novel and speculative idea yet, in all my research. They all with one accord agree that the first recorded piece of poetry in the Bible is that of Lamech in Genesis 4:23,24, and he was the first murderer. The Book of Genesis is a book of firsts. One cannot just arbitrarily take a passage and then decide that it was written in poetry because he thnks it was. That is an opinion without basis in fact.

I and plenty of others say it isn't. It is prose. It is a plainly written historical account of creation of the universe. The author who decided to introduce the idea that it was poetry did not believe in a six day historical account of Genesis.

 

If you will go back and re-read HoG's post on the matter it seems there is more than "opinion" there. And might I had that if Genesis is not poetry, the author has a very poetic, non-poetry style of writing :)

Again it makes no difference whether it is or isn't.

No offense, but whoopee do. There are others that say it is. Again what big stinkin deal is it one way or the other. It doens't make a hill of beans difference one way or the other.

Well it's an awfully poetic style of prose then :laugh:.

And nowhere does it state that after 1:1 that it is an account of the creation of the universe. No support for that. Now this area does make a HUGE difference which way it is seen.

So? Again just because someone misuses the langauge doesn't make the literary style incorrect. That's not an argument.