By no means is Genesis 1&2 poetry, any serious Hebrew reading the text will tell you that is written as a historical genre, as matter of fact and factual and by no means is it poetic in genre BUT even if it were poetic (and it’s not Hebrew poetry) it wouldn’t disqualify it from being historically accurate and true ”...Genesis 1 was likely written as subversive poetry“

Can’t it be both? Also, can you provide a reference to a “serious” Hebrew reading? The JPS Torah commentary is used for exegesis courses at my seminary. It seems serious, Hebrew, and views the text as high poetry.

I addressed that point, even if it were both it doesn’t make it less factual, historical or accurate. No it can’t be both because that’s not Hebraic poetry. Or put differently, what makes you think it’s poetic? And where else does this poetic genre exist in this form in Scripture?

Ok. It was not my intention to claim that it was not factual... only that “God as purely good (omnibenevolent)” and as creating “out of nothing” are anachronistic reads of the text. That seems important for understanding exactly what the text says if one approaches it as historical.

Taylor, Charles. 1981. Linguistics, Genesis, and Evolution. Why no one would conclude Gen 1&2 are poetry, this in response to your earlier question citing a source

@curiousdannii curious how many lots of sevens you actually see in chapter 1

@Nihil, the author of Genesis 1:1 chose to start the verse off with seven words: "bereshit bara elohim et hashamayim vuh-et vuh-ha-erets." The choice of the feminine version of the much more common masculine noun "rosh" (as in Rosh Hashana - beginning of the year) seems to be a specific selection that has nothing to do with telling history. There is a poetic repetitious sound to "bereshit bara" that is not present in "Berosh bara." The e/a vowel sounds seems to have been chosen for poetic or story telling fluidity, not for mere historical listing. This is one of many poetic form aspects.

The first verse of genesis 1:1 is poetically constructed along with others in Genesis 1. Compare this to the prose of the Eden narrative and the beginning of Genesis 2:4b. Here, it is essentially the same sentence "when god made the earth and the heavens." But the word is not bereshit, but be-yom (in the day/when). Also, the author has flipped the order of heaven/earth to earth/heaven to indicate a move from heaven priority to earth priority as we see the creation and habitation of earth with humans. Seems like superfluous flourishes if the text is "merely" a historical recounting.

Did you @GusLott just say that v1 has 7 words? Are you aware that the original was not divided into verses? (Not even the acrostic contains 7 words). And that the conjunction AND follows? Also you make a valid point that Genesis 2:4 emphasizes the DAY when the heavens and earth were made, meaning they were part of the “creation week” at the beginning and therefore on the first day, meaning creation didn’t start in v3. I wouldn’t put it past the Holy Spirit to get poetic but it doesn’t change that it’s not a poetic genre nor that it is historically inaccurate even if it were poetic.

Yes, the original form was not divided into verses. The first verse was divided this way because of the underlying content. This translates as "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This opening unit has poetic sound consonance between the first two words. There is also the explicit inclusion of the direct object marker (אֵ֥ת) twice to indicate the object of the verb. Compare this to Genesis 2:4b where there is essentially the same sentence, but the direct object markers are not present. This initial complete thought was clearly structured with the number seven in mind

The subsequent second "poetic verse," which the medieval scholars separated into "Genesis 1:2" contains 14 Hebrew words. This is not a tail wagging the dog thing. The numerical verse partitions respected the poetic structure here in the opening of the bible.

I updated my answer to contain a comment about Proverbs 8 and God's acquisition of wisdom at the beginning of his path before the depths were brought forth. This doesn't clearly mean that God created the depths, but it indicates a time before which they were assembled. Note that that Proverbs verse uses the feminine "reshit" just as genesis did, and instead of "rosh," the masculine noun which is far more common.

Except this seven word prose does not continue. You’re making a mountain of a molehill. It doesn’t, like for example a Shakespearean sonnet, follow a strict set of rules. And it is not repeated in Scripture else where. As for the et that is explained in John 1:1 who makes reference to Genesis 1:1 the et or word as it is known in Hebrew or logos as it is translated into Greek. Gen2:4 emphasizes that it was God who created though Gen1:1 says it was God the word (the same word vav’et) confirmed John1:1. And to repeat EVEN IF it were poetic it doesn’t make it untrue, inaccurate or non historical.

Proverbs 8 is referencing the personification of wisdom. It is not speaking of Jesus nor of the Holy Spirit. And wisdom is not the only word personified. Also the coming forth is in reference to wisdom and not to the waters. You’re reading that wrong. Notice v24 says springs no water, a spring needs water to be a spring in other words there was no water. Also wisdom is feminine and yet it switches to master workman because wisdom is not a person it is personified. Lastly wisdom is not created as in conceived but brought forth meaning wisdom existed with God prior to the beginning of creation.

Sophia (the word used in the Septuagint in proverbs 8/9 for wisdom) can be synonymous with Logos (John 1:1). This was true for Philo of Alexandria who wrote before John. Furthermore, the wisdom feast of proverbs 9 is bread and wine, exactly like the eucharist. While John also captures the torah in his use of the term "logos," we can see parallels between Sophia/Chokma/Wisdom and the feminine holy spirit (ruach/pneuma). This would indicate that Christ was conceived by the holy spirit or wisdom principle. I am aware that that is quite an off-topic digression. But I like it.

I am merely sharing the insight of the Jewish scholar Nahum M. Sarna (who is responsible for the JPS - Jewish Publication Society - Torah Genesis Commentary) from 1989. He ends his intro go the commentary with the following (pg 4): "the Narrator employs the device of number symbolism, the heptad, to emphasize the basic idea of design, completion, and perfection. The opening proclamation contains seven words; the description of the primal chaos is set forth in twice seven words; the narrative's seven literary units feature seven times the formula for the effectation of the divine will ..."

Thought I'd move this here instead. Thanks so much for your detailed comments!

Another note. "Master Worker" in Proverbs 8:30 is not an anthropomorphization of wisdom, but a simile - "as a master craftsman, as his daily delight". Furthermore, the hebrew word there, amon, is only present in that location, and it is unclear what this and the "daily delight's" genders are since they are never present as the subject of a verb or with a plural ending in the canon.

It is interesting to see that Proverbs 8:30 ends with Wisdom "rejoicing" which is here a feminine participle (again referring to the feminine athropomorphization of wisdom). But nowhere in Proverbs 8/9 is a verb used to describe wisdom that is conjugated masculine, it is always feminine.

Sorry but wisdom and logos are not synonymous. That’s a major stretch. Proverbs 8 is not speaking about Jesus and there are many problems with this if this is speaking of Jesus.

And again it’s wisdom that came forth and not the depths. It is clear that Genesis 1:1 is the beginning of Creation and day one of all material existence visible and invisible, including heavenly hosts (angels). Only God precedes Creation

Of course proverbs 8 is not speaking about Jesus, the character of "Jesus" is speaking about proverbs 8! blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/…, There is the lexicon entry for Logos.

"In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds."

That's the strong's concordance entry for logos bud. It matches many other texts contemporary to John from Philo (before) to Ireneus (after).

Logos is clearly synonymous with Sophia