I read it literally now

[Rev Randy]

Poetic seems a bit nicer thansome other things I've heard Christians say about Genisis but just as wrong. Poetry flows as poetry even when the original tongue is changed. Or are we saying the penman took some poetic licence in place of the facts? I refuse to buy into either. It's a narritive of historical facts. It's not only that but the begining of science.
I once heard a pastor I once reguarded highly say Genisis was a myth. I was stunned so I asked him if he was saying it wasn't true. He changed his statement to "it's a true myth". That being a bit of an oxymoron we debated this for about a week.
Seems he trusted his high school science teacher a bit more than the Book from which he preached and claimed to believe. Until the 1400's science was that the world was flat and being held up by four elephants. Long before that the scriptures said God hung the stars on nothing. Modern science constantly changes and proves the Bible to be accurate.
Science says that all the nothing in the universe was compressed down to the size of a pinhead and the presure became so great that it exploded in a big bang and walla everything developed from that. Now I've never tried compressing nothing but I doubt if I did that nothing would produce something. I guess I missed that day in science class. Why is it easier to believe a therory than the only explaination that makes any sence at all. I am not a genius. My spelling is terrible, my memory seems to be less reliable as the years go by and I still say stupid things from time to time. But why Christians who have faith won't simply say yea and amen to God's Holy Word is beyond me. OR Perhaps it isn't. Seems my feeble mind remembers 1 Cor 8:1-2. The Song of Songs is written poetically as are the Psalms. None of the five Books of Moses are poems. They are true, historical accounts. That we have a time accepting them as the unvarnished truth is our faith issue and not God's mistake in memory.

 

[Keachian]

Hi Rev Randy,
You seem to be operating under the understanding that TEs do not say yea and amen to God's Holy Scriptures, we do. We also firmly believe that not only has God done it but he is continuing to do it, he is inherently involved in the act of creation and is sustainer of the universe. If we were to deny either of these actions then we either get a desitic view of God (by denying that God is still involved) or we get a God who was not pre-universe (by denying that God was involved at the start)

 

[Rev Randy]

What I'm disputing is Genisis not being true as written, and deciding it's poetry rather than actual fact. I'm not disputing whether a TE believes in Christ. I'm disputing whether the TE believes God's Word as written and without excuse. God really didn't leave a whole lot to our imaginations concerning creation. He told us how long a day was (morning to evening). We have choices. We can believe it, chage the meaning or meditate upon it admitting we struggle with it. The first and last are fine. Saying God told us wrong under the guise of poetry......to me (not that my opinion adds up to a hill of beans in the big scope of things) just
leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Suppose the TE is correct and God used poetic licence. Suppose He really took 6 hundered billion years to create the world. What else then did he use poetic licence on? The Gospel of Christ perhaps? The death resurection and assention. The statement that He's coming again? I know these are extreme examples but just where does the TE draw the line?
If your reading me as angry your mistaken. I'm not of the dark ages where they tortured a believer for questioning God's Word. Questioning is a healthy part of being a good student. We all struggle with passages but in the end God's wisdom prevails. God's not ours. I say that pointing at myself as well. Knowledge and wisdom are not the same thing.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

He told us how long a day was (morning to evening).

I encourage you to look closer at Genesis 1. Rather than speaking of morning to evening, we read "and there was evening, and there was morning", the reverse order! The period from evening to morning describes a night, not a day. This repeated refrain is not defining a day, but rather giving another two sequential events in the narrative. God works during the day, then night falls, then morning comes, and between evening and morning no creative work is described. God takes the nights off, just like a human labourer. Then, God starts work again the next day.

Of course, God doesn't literally take the nights off, and it actually makes little sense to talk about days and nights for a God who is both present around the world and transcendent beyond our planet's day/night cycles. But, God stooped to allow this creative work to be described this way, because part of the reason for Genesis 1 is to demonstrate the framework for the human work week in Israel (see Exodus 20:8-11; 31:12-17).

God doesn't literally work only during the day, and God isn't literally refreshed on the seventh day, but these pictures take God's indescribable work of creation and portray them in a way that humans of any age (from the time it was written to now) can understand, and in a way that serves as a template we can imitate in our own work and rest.

Suppose the TE is correct and God used poetic licence. Suppose He really took 6 hundered billion years to create the world. What else then did he use poetic licence on? The Gospel of Christ perhaps? The death resurection and assention. The statement that He's coming again? I know these are extreme examples but just where does the TE draw the line?

And what of those Christians who take Jesus' statement of the Lord's supper, "this is my body", figuratively? Where do they draw the line? The answer is that we all use discernment in what we take figuratively and what we take literally. There is no single place in Scripture where this line is drawn, but rather each account, sometimes even each statement, is interpreted on its own merits.

I'm quite sure you do this just as much as I do! And maybe, you don't even consider it "questioning God's Word" or "not being true as written" when you seek to understand whether "this is my body" or "a man had two sons" or "God rested and was refreshed" or any other statements are intended as literal history or something else.

 

[Papias]

benelchi wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

As many of us know, the books in the Bibles (especially Genesis) are not monolithic books like many modern books we read today. They often contain many levels of meaning and including interweavings of multiple genres. Modern books are often just one literary style. So many of the books in many of the Bibles contain a mix of poetic elements mixed in with any number of other kinds of text. This means that while books today are often "100% pure poetry" vs. other books that are have "0% poetic nature", many books of the Bibles are somewhere in between,

Actually, in this respect, the books of the bible really are like the the books we read today.
​

As I pointed out earlier with scholars, there are plenty of poetic elements scattered throughout the Old Testament. I don't know what books you commonly read, but I don't see anything near that level of mixing in books today. For instance, in the article you said you "looked at", but didn't see anything about Gen 1 being poetic has:

Popular poetry, not connecting itself with priestly ritual, touches life at moments of crisis and pours out its grief over death. Much of all this Holy Scripture has handed down to us. The Book of Lamentations is founded on the Kinah, the wailing chant improvised by women at funerals in a measure curiously broken, one full verse followed by one deficient, which reminded St. Jerome of the pentameter. It seems to be aboriginal among Semites (cf. Amos 5:2; Jeremiah 48:36; Ezekiel 19:1; Psalm 19:8-10). Martial songs, of which Judges 5, Numbers 21, Joshua 10 and 1 Samuel 18 are specimens, formed the lost "Book of the Wars of the Lord". From another lost roll, the "Book of Jashar", i.e., of the Upright or of Israel, we derive the lament of David over Saul and Jonathan, as well as in substance Solomon's prayer at the dedication of the Temple (2 Samuel 1:3; 1 Kings 8:53). However we interpret Canticles, it is certainly a round of wedding-songs and is high poetry; Psalm 45 is an epithalamium of the same character. The song of the vineyard may be added to our list (Isaiah 5:1).

The poetic and prophetic books are typically poetry, the rest of the books are typically narrative.

You are still claiming that a text in scripture is either 100% poetry, OR 100% narrative text. As pointed out in my previous post (with scholars such as Bruce Waltke), and pointed out by other people on this board, a text can be both, especially a text of scripture. Some of the many cases of poetic elements interwoven into an overall narrative text are given in the post from the Catholic site above, in addition to those mentioned earlier.

​

and Genesis is a great example.

Actually, the book of Genesis is almost entirely narrative with a few lines of poetry sprinkled very occasionally within the 50 chapters of narrative text.

I'm glad that we now agree that Genesis has poetic elements (or poetry) in it (and I hope we agree that these are more concentrated in chapters 1-3). Since we are mostly concerned with Genesis 1-3, the fact that Genesis has dozens of other chapters only helps emphasize my point that the earlier chapters are more poetic than the later ones, (all of the chapters being concurrently narrative, of course).

I think we both agree that Genesis has significant poetic makeup (especially when looked at by chapter), while not being as purely poetry as some other sections of the Bibles.

I don't think we agree on this point. Again, scholars that debate the poetry in Genesis center their debate on only a handful of single poetic lines contained within 50 chapters of narrative.

Scholars debate whether or not there is a huge amount, or only a smaller amount of poetic nature in Genesis. Both those positions agree with me that there are plenty of recognizable poetic elements, and there is a lot of agreement that these are more prevalent in the first few chapters.
​

As you have seen and supplied yourself, Robert Alter points out some of the poetic elements in Genesis, including saying that the first line of poetry in the Bible is in Genesis (2).

I supplied this example because it showed that Alter doesn't believe the text of Genesis is poetic; again we are talking about a few lines of debated poetic language contained in a narrative that is 50 chapters long.

It seems that Alter doesn't believe Genesis to be pure, 100% poetry. Of course he doesn't - no one, not me, nor anyone, is claiming that. It's a strawman to say that my position is one of Genesis being pure, 100% poetry. Of course the narrative is 50 chapters long - it's a long narrative, with poetic elements in the first few chapters, where the text is both narrative and sometimes poetic.

Ronald Hendel points out poetic elements in Gen 1, as have others who pointed out that Gen 1: 4-6 parallels 1: 1-3, and that the repetitive nature of the verses (shown in my previous post) is itself an element of poetry.

The parallelism you are speaking of is in regards to the days of Genesis i.e. days 1-3 being parallel to the days 4-6; while the significance of the parallelism is debated, no scholar looks at this aspect of parallelism as an indication of poetry. The theory of Creation that is based on the parallel structure of the account in Genesis is called the "Framework" theory and it is the theory I personally hold. It has nothing to do with poetry.

OK, can you cite a source that Hebrew poetic verse cannot use parallelism?

Here is a Jewish source that says that "It is now generally conceded that parallelism is the fundamental law, not only of the poetical, but even of the rhetorical and therefore of higher style in general in the Old Testament. "

PARALLELISM IN HEBREW POETRY - JewishEncyclopedia.com

​

Bruce Waltke, in his book "Genesis", gives his view of whether Genesis chaps 1, 2 and 3 are myth, poetry, science or history by saying they are "all of the above". So yes, Bruce Waltke does say it is poetry, while also being narrative, and so on.
​

I would like to see the exact quote in context.
​

He specifies Gen 1-3. Go ahead and check it out yourself. It is in his book "Genesis", around page 76. Amazon.com: Genesis: A Commentary (9780310224587): Bruce K. Waltke, Cathi J. Fredricks: Books

This sounds like something Waltke would say about the entire bible but not about Genesis 1-3. Here is a quote from Waltke (entirely in his words) dealing with the specifics of Genesis 1.

"To construct a proper model of cosmogony special attention must be given to Genesis 1. The reason is that this text is written in precise prose, wheras other biblical passages bearing on cosmogony are poetic, imaginative, evocative, and not didactic."
The Creation account in Genesis 1:1-3, Bruce K. Waltke

That's fine, it doesn't contradict his calling Gen 1-3 both narrative and poetry. What wonderful scripture we have that combines genres, while still being such precise prose!
​

This was recognized long before these Protestant scholars. The poetic nature of Genesis is often taught in Catholic institutions, and the Catholics G. d. Eichthal, Bishop Clifford, and others pointed out poetic elements in Genesis over a century ago. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Hebrew Poetry of the Old Testament

I looked at this link, and didn't see anything about Genesis 1 being poetic.

You didn't see this part?

G. d'Eichthal, a Catholic, first undertook in his "Texte prim. du premier recit de la Creation" (1875) to show that Genesis, i, was a poem. The same contention was urged by Bishop Clifford ("Dublin Review", 1882), and C. A. Briggs ventures on resolving this narrative into a five-tone measure. Of late, other critics would perceive in the song of Lamech, in the story of the flood and of Babel, fragments of lost heroic poems.

​

Papias
​

 

[Papias]

Rev Randy wrote:

Suppose the TE is correct and God used poetic licence. Suppose He really took 6 hundered billion years to create the world. What else then did he use poetic licence on? The Gospel of Christ perhaps? The death resurection and assention. The statement that He's coming again? I know these are extreme examples but just where does the TE draw the line?

Often in the same places you do. Rev Randy, you've already crossed that bridge long ago, and so we all draw the lines as is right and good. How would you respond if someone wrote this?

Suppose the Round Earth Christian is correct and God used poetic licence in Job 37 and 38, Matthew, and Daniel. Suppose He really made the earth a sphere and not flat. What else then did he use poetic licence on? The Gospel of Christ perhaps? The death resurection and assention. The statement that He's coming again? I know these are extreme examples but just where does the Round Earth Christian draw the line?

Papias

 

[gluadys]

What I'm disputing is Genisis not being true as written,

You are overlooking that people can have different ideas as to what "true as written" means. It tells us nothing about how Genesis is written to say it is true as written.

and deciding it's poetry rather than actual fact.

As if poetry cannot express actual fact? Or actual fact cannot be stated poetically?

This is a truly nonsensical contrast.

I'm disputing whether the TE believes God's Word as written and without excuse.

Sure we do. We believe God Word is true as written, with the proviso that we have our own opinions on what "as written" means.

He told us how long a day was (morning to evening).

Defining "day" in the story doesn't take the day out of the story.

Suppose the TE is correct and God used poetic licence. Suppose He really took 6 hundered billion years to create the world. What else then did he use poetic licence on? The Gospel of Christ perhaps? The death resurection and assention. The statement that He's coming again? I know these are extreme examples but just where does the TE draw the line?

TEs don't need to draw the line because we don't define "poetry" as "lie".

Why do you?

 

[Rev Randy]

I encourage you to look closer at Genesis 1. Rather than speaking of morning to evening, we read "and there was evening, and there was morning", the reverse order! The period from evening to morning describes a night, not a day. This repeated refrain is not defining a day, but rather giving another two sequential events in the narrative. God works during the day, then night falls, then morning comes, and between evening and morning no creative work is described. God takes the nights off, just like a human labourer. Then, God starts work again the next day.

Of course, God doesn't literally take the nights off, and it actually makes little sense to talk about days and nights for a God who is both present around the world and transcendent beyond our planet's day/night cycles. But, God stooped to allow this creative work to be described this way, because part of the reason for Genesis 1 is to demonstrate the framework for the human work week in Israel (see Exodus 20:8-11; 31:12-17).

God doesn't literally work only during the day, and God isn't literally refreshed on the seventh day, but these pictures take God's indescribable work of creation and portray them in a way that humans of any age (from the time it was written to now) can understand, and in a way that serves as a template we can imitate in our own work and rest.


And what of those Christians who take Jesus' statement of the Lord's supper, "this is my body", figuratively? Where do they draw the line? The answer is that we all use discernment in what we take figuratively and what we take literally. There is no single place in Scripture where this line is drawn, but rather each account, sometimes even each statement, is interpreted on its own merits.

I'm quite sure you do this just as much as I do! And maybe, you don't even consider it "questioning God's Word" or "not being true as written" when you seek to understand whether "this is my body" or "a man had two sons" or "God rested and was refreshed" or any other statements are intended as literal history or something else.

I assure you I question God's Word daily. It's the method by which I study. It's not to say God is wrong but rather to say I don't understand. BTW I accept Jesus at His Word when he spoke of the bread and wine. But that takes more explaination. Jesus is God. God is a spirit. He was speaking spiritually (IMHO). I also take no issue with those who take it as a phyisical statement as I wasn't at that Passover meal. Some say sacrament I simply say holy.I suppose I'm a Baptacathlacostal I was ordained in the CoG then later ordained a priest in a Charismatic anglican Church. Makes me a difficult cuss to figure out.
That line I speak of is within our mind without doubt. I do prefer poetic over true myth. I just simply disagree with the poetic notion.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I assure you I question God's Word daily. It's the method by which I study. It's not to say God is wrong but rather to say I don't understand.

Okay, fair enough! I'm in the same boat with much I don't understand. And, I agree that it's very important for us to not confuse our confusion with God's confusion.

BTW I accept Jesus at His Word when he spoke of the bread and wine. But that takes more explaination. Jesus is God. God is a spirit. He was speaking spiritually (IMHO). I also take no issue with those who take it as a phyisical statement as I wasn't at that Passover meal. Some say sacrament I simply say holy.

Interesting. By the way, while I think that passage is a good example, I don't raise it because I have an axe to grind about it. I'm quite tentative about my own view, and can see the plausibility of the views advanced by Catholics and Lutherans (and many others).

What would you think of those who, perhaps on the basis of Hebrews 3-4 and John 5:16-17, view the seventh day of creation in Genesis 2:1-3 as God speaking spiritually as opposed to physically?

 

[benelchi]

benelchi wrote:

As I pointed out earlier with scholars, there are plenty of poetic elements scattered throughout the Old Testament. I don't know what books you commonly read, but I don't see anything near that level of mixing in books today. For instance, in the article you said you "looked at", but didn't see anything about Gen 1 being poetic has:


You are still claiming that a text in scripture is either 100% poetry, OR 100% narrative text. As pointed out in my previous post (with scholars such as Bruce Waltke), and pointed out by other people on this board, a text can be both, especially a text of scripture. Some of the many cases of poetic elements interwoven into an overall narrative text are given in the post from the Catholic site above, in addition to those mentioned earlier.

​

I'm glad that we now agree that Genesis has poetic elements (or poetry) in it (and I hope we agree that these are more concentrated in chapters 1-3). Since we are mostly concerned with Genesis 1-3, the fact that Genesis has dozens of other chapters only helps emphasize my point that the earlier chapters are more poetic than the later ones, (all of the chapters being concurrently narrative, of course).

Scholars debate whether or not there is a huge amount, or only a smaller amount of poetic nature in Genesis. Both those positions agree with me that there are plenty of recognizable poetic elements, and there is a lot of agreement that these are more prevalent in the first few chapters.
​

It seems that Alter doesn't believe Genesis to be pure, 100% poetry. Of course he doesn't - no one, not me, nor anyone, is claiming that. It's a strawman to say that my position is one of Genesis being pure, 100% poetry. Of course the narrative is 50 chapters long - it's a long narrative, with poetic elements in the first few chapters, where the text is both narrative and sometimes poetic.

OK, can you cite a source that Hebrew poetic verse cannot use parallelism?

Here is a Jewish source that says that "It is now generally conceded that parallelism is the fundamental law, not only of the poetical, but even of the rhetorical and therefore of higher style in general in the Old Testament. "

PARALLELISM IN HEBREW POETRY - JewishEncyclopedia.com


​

He specifies Gen 1-3. Go ahead and check it out yourself. It is in his book "Genesis", around page 76. Amazon.com: Genesis: A Commentary (9780310224587): Bruce K. Waltke, Cathi J. Fredricks: Books





That's fine, it doesn't contradict his calling Gen 1-3 both narrative and poetry. What wonderful scripture we have that combines genres, while still being such precise prose!
​

You didn't see this part?

G. d'Eichthal, a Catholic, first undertook in his "Texte prim. du premier recit de la Creation" (1875) to show that Genesis, i, was a poem. The same contention was urged by Bishop Clifford ("Dublin Review", 1882), and C. A. Briggs ventures on resolving this narrative into a five-tone measure. Of late, other critics would perceive in the song of Lamech, in the story of the flood and of Babel, fragments of lost heroic poems.

​

Papias
​

I noticed that you left out the conclusion I.e. "But of this no feature seems really discernible in the Hebrew Genesis (consult Gunkel, "Genesis", and "Schoepfung und Chaos")."


The reality is that in Gen. 1-3 there are only four verses that are even debatably poetic and scholars don't even agree on the poetic nature of these two verses. Other books have larger poetic sections I.e. the songs of Moses and Miriam in Exodus. For example the phrase

מי כמוך באלים יהוה מי כמוך נאדר בקודש

Comes from a lengthy poetic passage in Ex. 15; note the clear parallel structure.

If you want to go on believing the fairytale that this poetic structure exists in significant portions Genesis 1-3 them I am not going to put any more effort in trying to explain the truth. You can choose to believe the lie if you want.

 

[benelchi]

TEs don't need to draw the line because we don't define "poetry" as "lie".

Why do you?

The bigger question is why do you believe the lie that Genesis 1-3 is poetry?

 

[gluadys]

The bigger question is why do you believe the lie that Genesis 1-3 is poetry?

I don't claim that it is.

It is mostly prose narrative, but with very tight structure that speaks of literary crafting for a purpose--at least in Genesis 1:1-2:4a which is clearly a distinct unit.

Genesis 2:4b ff has a different sort of structure, and not much of a poetic feel to it.

What I do claim is that the purpose of the narratives is not to provide a literal history of the origin of the cosmos.

One might say that they are theological narratives and the truth they tell is principally theological.

The question of whether or not the first creation account is poetry really falls beside the point. Being poetry doesn't make it any the less narrative--even historical narrative if that is your belief. And not being poetry doesn't make it any more historical than if it were poetry.

 

[Calminian]

....What I do claim is that the purpose of the narratives is not to provide a literal history of the origin of the cosmos. .....

Why though? Can you cite the texts that lead you to this conclusion?

It appears you're saying it's different therefore it must not be literal. That seems arbitrary.

 

[Calminian]

Poetic seems a bit nicer thansome other things I've heard Christians say about Genisis but just as wrong. Poetry flows as poetry even when the original tongue is changed. Or are we saying the penman took some poetic licence in place of the facts? I refuse to buy into either. It's a narritive of historical facts. It's not only that but the begining of science.
I once heard a pastor I once reguarded highly say Genisis was a myth. I was stunned so I asked him if he was saying it wasn't true. He changed his statement to "it's a true myth". That being a bit of an oxymoron we debated this for about a week.
Seems he trusted his high school science teacher a bit more than the Book from which he preached and claimed to believe. Until the 1400's science was that the world was flat and being held up by four elephants. Long before that the scriptures said God hung the stars on nothing. Modern science constantly changes and proves the Bible to be accurate.
Science says that all the nothing in the universe was compressed down to the size of a pinhead and the presure became so great that it exploded in a big bang and walla everything developed from that. Now I've never tried compressing nothing but I doubt if I did that nothing would produce something. I guess I missed that day in science class. Why is it easier to believe a therory than the only explaination that makes any sence at all. I am not a genius. My spelling is terrible, my memory seems to be less reliable as the years go by and I still say stupid things from time to time. But why Christians who have faith won't simply say yea and amen to God's Holy Word is beyond me. OR Perhaps it isn't. Seems my feeble mind remembers 1 Cor 8:1-2. The Song of Songs is written poetically as are the Psalms. None of the five Books of Moses are poems. They are true, historical accounts. That we have a time accepting them as the unvarnished truth is our faith issue and not God's mistake in memory.

God bless you, RR. May your tribe increase.

 

[Calminian]

....Suppose the Round Earth Christian is correct and God used poetic licence in Job 37...

Papias

Oy! TE's are still quoting Elihu whom God rebuked. In fact, God seems to rebuke Elihu more than the rest my immediately talking to Job about cosmology and the creation. "who is this guy, Job, who darkens council...." This is the guy you're using as a proof text?

I'll never understand why TEs quote Job 37. You may as well quote all the false prophets of the Bible for your theology.

 

[gluadys]

Why though? Can you cite the texts that lead you to this conclusion?

Sure: Gen. 1:1-2:4a

 

[Calminian]

Sure: Gen. 1:1-2:4a

That's a bit of a copout, don't you think?

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Oy! TE's are still quoting Elihu whom God rebuked. In fact, God seems to rebuke Elihu more than the rest my immediately talking to Job about cosmology and the creation. "who is this guy, Job, who darkens council...." This is the guy you're using as a proof text?

Cal, are you aware that the interpretation you've offered of Job 38:2 (that Elihu is the person God is referring to as darkening counsel by words without knowledge) is extremely unusual and goes against most conservative and traditional readings of that text?

Even among those who believe that Elihu's words are not to be trusted, few would read Job 38:2 as speaking about him. God is addressing Job and giving him a dressing-down, not Elihu. Elihu is conspicuously absent from the rest of the book of Job, and this verse is no exception. At least, that is how that passage is normally read. In the commentaries I checked, none even present the possibility that it could be directed at someone other than Job.

I'm not saying your interpretation is impossible, but it is unusual, and it is odd to see you advocating such a nonstandard reading with the harsh rhetoric you used above.

 

[Calminian]

Cal, are you aware that the interpretation you've offered of Job 38:2 (that Elihu is the person God is referring to as darkening counsel by words without knowledge) is extremely unusual and goes against most conservative and traditional readings of that text?...

That interpretation is totally impossible. I dealt with that common mistake a few threads ago. Look at the response carefully. Is God speaking of a counselor (one who is counseling)? Or is God addressing a counselee (one who is being counseled)?

Job 38:2 “Who is this who darkens counsel By words without knowledge? ​

God is speaking to Job about a counselor. Was Job just talking? Was Job just counseling? Of course not, it was Elihu was counseling. Any honest reading of the text will admit Job is the counselee and that this is a rap on Elihu. Most good bible commentators agree with me (if I could be so bold).

BTW, I've never been one to just go along with the majority as a rule. I don't recommend that as a very useful nor even wise hermeneutical practice. Here's a very good commentary on this passage. I would recommend getting into the text, and arguing from it. Saying "I'm with the majority" is a fallacious way to argue.

JOB 37

THE CONCLUSION OF ELIHU'S LONG-WINDED REMARKS

This writer cannot accommodate to the opinions of some very respected commentators who understand Elihu's speeches as not merely commendable, but actually appropriate as an introduction to what God Himself would say in the following chapters.

For example, Meredith G. Kline wrote that: "Though the Speaker from the whirlwind does not mention Elihu by name, He does not ignore him. For by continuing Elihu's essential argument and endorsing his judgments concerning both Job and his friends, the Lord owns him as his forerunner."F1

We believe that God did indeed ignore Elihu, not only refusing to mention his name, although mentioning the names of all others named in the book, God also interrupted and terminated Elihu's remarks with a question addressed to Job, "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge"? (Job 38:2). Such an evaluation as that cannot be applied to Job's words, because God Himself said that, "My servant Job has spoken of me the thing that is right" (Job 42:7,8). Moreover, God specifically stated that the three friends, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar had spoken "folly" (Job 42:8); and Elihu's words, in almost every particular, are the same as those of the three, only more vituperative and derogatory toward Job. There is no way that we could accept Elihu's long and ridiculous speeches as any kind of a proper introduction to what the Lord would say out of the whirlwind. God answered Job and his friends by name, and ignored Elihu altogether, except in the derogatory words in the Lord's opening question to Job.

Also, Kelly in Layman's Bible Commentary, wrote that, "Elihu, in this chapter, says that God is infinitely great and righteous, and does not himself violate the principle of righteousness in dealing with men. His righteousness, therefore, is unimpeachable; it is not to be called in question but is to become the basis of godly fear in men. A sounder prelude to the speeches of the Lord ... could hardly be imagined."F2 It is true that some of the things Elihu said were true; but it is what he meant by them which is offensive to this writer, For example, when Elihu said that God is not unrighteous in his dealings with men, he means that Job is a dirty sinner and that he should confess it, the same being proved by Job's sufferings. There can be no wonder that God refused even to mention Elihu, because Elihu's one motive was that of compelling Job to renounce his integrity.

There are also some very positive and definite traces of pagan mythology in the things Elihu said in this chapter, as pointed out by Pope. See on Job 37:22 in this chapter.

Instead of this chapter being some kind of profound introduction to God who appears in Job 38, "Elihu is like one who is introducing a great man with much elaborate praise; and the great man (God) suddenly interrupts him and accuses the speaker of a lack of knowledge of his subject; and the irony is even greater, because, in Elihu's case, he did not even know that he was introducing God."F3

"In this chapter, Elihu is arguing that nature itself teaches that God rewards and punishes men according to their deeds."F4 But of course, that is not true at all. He also argues in Job 37:13b that, "The lightning can be regarded as an instrument of God's love."F5 Pope also noted that, "It is hard to see how this could be regarded as true," adding that, "Maybe it could be argued that the love and mercy is toward the people that the lightning misses"! Of course, this must be added to a fantastic list of things that Elihu said that had no relation whatever to the truth. Nature reveals nothing whatever of God's love, mercy, truth or justice. Knowledge of such things is found only in Divine Revelation.

As we have stressed all along, "Nature is red in tooth, and fang and claw," and there's absolutely nothing in nature that supports Elihu's vain arguments. And look at the irony in these two chapters (Job 36--37). In the very middle of Elihu's speech about nature's endorsement of his evil notion that Job was a wicked sinner, "Even while Elihu is arguing ... God suddenly appears in nature and demands to know who is darkening counsel without knowledge."F6​

source

 

[Marshall Janzen]

That interpretation is totally impossible.

This is the kind of rhetoric that I find surprising on this issue. It is one thing to argue for a nonstandard interpretation. It is quite another thing to do so with guns blazing and no trace of humility as to the possibility that one may be personally in error. As I said, I don't consider your reading impossible (though after further study, I do find it extremely implausible).

I dealt with that common mistake a few threads ago. Look at the response carefully. Is God speaking of a counselor (one who is counseling)? Or is God addressing a counselee (one who is being counseled)?

Since you didn't provide a link, I'm just going by your summary here. Three problems:
1. One who "darkens counsel" need not be the same one who presents counsel.
2. Modern, technical definitions of the English translation do not determine the meaning. The Hebrew word is not limited to counselor/counselee situations (eg. Job 5:13; 10:3; 12:13; 18:7; 21:16, 18).
3. Counsel is not only used within a therapist vs. patient metaphor, but also a legal counselor vs. accused metaphor. Both are present in the book of Job.

God is speaking to Job about a counselor. Was Job just talking? Was Job just counseling? Of course not, it was Elihu was counseling.

Job himself believed that God was speaking about him:

Then Job answered the LORD:
“I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
‘Hear, and I will speak;
I will question you, and you declare to me.’
I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:1-6, NRSV)

Note that Job specifically quotes the phrase we are discussing and repents for it. He is not doing this on Elihu's behalf. He is repenting himself. Job understood God to be speaking about him.

Interestingly, the source you quoted acknowledges this in their commentary:

Who is this that hideth counsel without knowledge
(Job 42:3). In this Job repeats the question which God had asked in Job 38:2, admitting that he spoke out of limited knowledge, too confidently of things too wonderful for him to understand.F3 In our interpretation of Job 38:2, we applied the words to the speech of Elihu; but we do not believe that Job's accepting the application of the words to himself in this verse is a contradiction of that which we alleged earlier. As a matter of fact, all of the speakers in the Book of Job fall under the same blanket indictment, but Job is to be blamed far less than any of the others. Job's knowledge of God has been greatly expanded; and he has a new appreciation of the extent, complexity and marvelous wonder of God's creation. (source)

So even this source later softens their position. Rather than Job 38:2 being a direct rebuke of Elihu, they take it as a general statement that applies to everyone who has spoken, including Job and Elihu. (And of course, if this is the case, your argument above about counselor/counselee would not hold.)

Most good bible commentators agree with me.

Only if you define a good Bible commentator as one who agrees with you. But, in that case, what is the purpose of such a circular statement?

The very source you quoted to support your interpretation does not make their case in such an arrogant manner. They begin, "This writer cannot accommodate to the opinions of some very respected commentators who understand Elihu's speeches as not merely commendable, but actually appropriate as an introduction to what God Himself would say in the following chapters" (source). So, they acknowledge one of the more standard interpretations of the passage, and rather than saying that those who disagree are not "good Bible commentators", they charitably call them "respected commentators." They disagree, but do so charitably.

Saying "I'm with the majority" is a fallacious way to argue.

Indeed. But you raised this issue by chastising TEs for not following your idiosyncratic interpretation of this passage, even as you presented your interpretation as if it were the uncontested interpretation plain to all (except TEs, perhaps). But, hardly any interpreters agree with you. The interpretation you hold may be right (though I do consider that unlikely), but you are not in a position to ridicule those who disagree.