Genesis 1-3: Exalted Prose, Ancient ("Temple-Building") Cosmology, and Anti-Pagan Polemic

@hellodebake always appreciate your thoughtful replies.

Genesis 1 is almost like a point by point refutation of the Egyptian pagan creation myths, which have a similar order with light being created first (as a result of the rebirth of some Egyptian deity, Anum, I think) and then creation of the sun god Ra, which comes later after the initial creation of light. 

People have long struggled with the appearance of light on Day 1 prior to the creation of the sun on Day 4. But an evangelical OT scholar I've read and personally talked with has noted that the appearance of light first before the sun seems to relate to the belief that the sun and morning daylight were seen as two *different* sources of light. When I think about this, it makes sense why they would think that. First, they thought the sky was a solid dome. Second, the sky is 'lit' before the sun rises. That is to say, in the morning it is light out before the sun rises, and apparently people in ancient times viewed this morning "daylight" as a separate light (to "separate night and day"). It seems they did not make the connection that the sun was the source of daylight. The sun was just a "greater light" against the "daylight" background. That explanation more than any other makes the most sense to me why (Day)light is created first before the sun, because they believed they were separate light sources (I know others will disagree, but it fits the historical context).

But either way, Genesis 1 still makes it clear that Elohim God is the one Creator of it all.

Also, I agree with you about divine inspiration, and none of the above changes that Genesis is divinely inspired. And to me Genesis 1 is a special kind of miracle all in itself--the elegance, and exalted 'poetic prose,' and intricate chiastic structures (the hallmark of Hebrew poetry), and chiasms within chiasms (that are more evident in Hebrew), and layered levels of rich, deep theological meaning and truth that all at once not only refutes pagan myths but seems to present creation as God's 'cosmic temple' where God is personally present and actively involved in His own creation and especially humans as His image bearers.

I do remember the link you provided on 'poetic prose' in the bible. Still not wholly sure i understand it, perhaps it will come with time.

I'm the type who likes to interpret the bible literally where it can be taken literally, for example i believe in a global flood and Noah's Ark as written in the bible and have explained elsewhere here (? somewhere) why i do. 

My question is, how does 'poetic prose' change any interpretation of the bible, and is it meant to do so or this is just how some parts of the OT are written?

May I make a recommendation? Instead of interpreting "literally" or "figuratively," how about just interpreting the Bible the way it's supposed to be interpreted? (Meaning, the way it would have been understood by the original, intended audience). If we do that (correctly), then we'll always be interpreting and understanding the Bible the way it was meant to be interpreted and understood.

(We also avoid all the problems with the "literal-or-figurative" false dichotomy. For example, some texts have both literal and figurative elements. Similarly, just because a text uses figurative or symbolic language doesn't mean it's not real/true/historical. Symbolic/figurative language is often used to describe *real* things. Some historical narratives in the Bible include figurative language. And some poetic texts in the Bible (like Noah's Flood) are about historical events.  So it really is a false dichotomy that people get hung up on).

@hellodebake hopefully I helped with the light on day 1 & 4, but what were you wondering/hung up about on 'hovering/fluttering, etc. in v. 2? I didn't quite follow. 

Also, I didn't understand your "I'm not them" comment

Again, I think people get too hung up on "literal vs. figurative," which is a false dichotomy. Again, what's important is interpreting according to the proper historical context and original, intended audience. Genre can certainly play into this, but things don't always fit into neat categories (like the "exalted prose/poetic prose" of Genesis 1, which has elements of both narrative and poetry). Such can alert us to important often overlooked features like that the literary structure of Genesis 1 is organized around two  groupings of the days (Days 1-3  & Days 4-6). So, yes, it does effect how we understand a given biblical text, BUT I want to emphasize that it's not always cut and dry. Just because something is poetic doesn't automatically mean it's not historical. 

For example, the Noah's Flood story is structured in the form of Hebrew poetry. But that doesn't mean it's not historical. But it does alert us to the possibility that the number sequences of 7's & 40's and such in the Flood story are likely symbolic and not meant to be understood in such a rigid, literalist, linear way (and in fact we know that numbers like 7 & 40 in the Bible indeed carry symbolic significance). BUT that doesn't mean the Flood didn't happen. It's not an either-or-thing. (And that's where I think people often go wrong with this false dichotomy of "literal-or-figurative" when often times both are present. For example, even those who believe in a literal Flood believe the "windows of heaven" being opened for rain is figurative and not literal windows). It simply means that the story of a real historical Flood has been presented in the form of a poem with symbolic and theologic meaning (it's not much different from someone today writing a song about an event in history. Just because it's presented in the form of a song or poem doesn't mean it's not historical and didn't happen).

Thanks.It's something for me to chew on for a while....

I'm still not really following what you're getting at with v2. First, there's a ton of disagreement over how best to translate that verse, because ruah in Hebrew can mean spirit but it can also just mean simply wind. So it could be translated "Spirit of God" or "wind/breath of God." Either way, it suggests God's powerful presence mysteriously moving over the waters and "hovering" over them, ready for action. I don't see how that relates to "gravitational energy."

Yes, it can have several different definitions depending on how it is used.

Gen ch 3 v? when A & E 'heard the footsteps of the Lord walking in the garden during the " cool" ( ruach ) of the day."

I explained it in #85 of the 'Creation or Anti -Genesis ' topic here.

Interesting thoughts, but I'm not understanding where you're getting 'vibrate, shake, flutter' from. As far as I know it says "hover," but admittedly I haven't looked into this as much, so if you could explain how you get that. Thanks, appreciated. 

Have not read hover or hovering in any biblical translation, wind only found in a Catholic bible my younger brother used back in his high school days, 'Spirit of God moved....' in just about every bible i've read.

From my Strongs Concordance, # 7363 gives vibrate, shake, flutter as the definitions of the word moved ( rachaph ) found in Gen ch 1 v2.

There is a Strongs online concordance if you want to look it up yourself.

The Hebrew interlinear renders as "hovering," but when you click on the word it shows that it's usually translated as "moving" like you say