Comment I made on a website (https://creation.com/genesis-not-poetic)
If Genesis 1 is poetry (which it is not), this would not itself bear on its facticity.
For
example, the Australian folk song 'Waltzing Matilda' is poetry, but
that doesn't mean there were no jumbucks, tucker bags, troopers, or
swagmen. Nor does it not mean there was no late 19th century drought.
Indeed, in ancient times, poetry was typically the form of conveying
stories (including about actual events).
What
is inferred by the claim is that Genesis is figurative or symbolic.
However, it doesn't use figurative or symbolic language, it uses
historical. If it was 'merely' figurative, then it would tell us nothing
about the real world, because it uses concrete language it embeds
itself in the real world and sure, it is not about the details of
creation, but is clear on the 'how' God's word, because this is
intimately connected to the why: God creating in love. The other details
of Genesis 1 are also essential to its theological significance, but
only because they happened in the world which is the setting of its
theological significance. It is modern philosophical conceit that
pretends to be able to separate the two.
