Why a literalist presumption?

[Vance]

But, Vossler, you are doing it again! You are stating your interpretation of Genesis as if it is undoubtedly the correct one, without taking into consideration that you could be just plain wrong. You say "Since the Bible tells me that God formed man from the dirt fully formed".

As I stated in my "Faith Presumptions" thread, you are turning what should be an "if" into a "since". Your reading of Genesis to say that God formed man from the dirt fully formed is just that: your reading. What Gluadys is saying is that God has given us Scripture and He has given us nature. We can be correct or wrong about what EITHER are telling us. You seem to refuse to accept that it could be your interpretation of Scripture that is wrong.

Yes, the Spirit can guide us in the reading of Scripture, and it can guide Christian scientists in the study of nature. As I have stated, I am as open to the Spirit as you are (without doubt) and I am fully, 100% at peace (you know, that deep abiding peace) with my interpretation of the creation stories. And I assume you are as well. Now, why would the Spirit either lead us to differing interpretations, or let us be so much at peace with differing interpretations?

The only reason I can think of is that those areas in which we differ MAKE NO DIFFERENCE to the important message of those accounts. The Spirit is fine with us having these differing interpretations on the HOW and WHEN, because we both accept the WHO and WHY. That tells me that it is the WHO and WHY which are what is important, and not the HOW and WHEN at all.

As for the Word of God only being Scripture, you seem to have missed the entire converstation: JESUS is the Word of God, because He is the pure form of the WISDOM of God, the second person of the trinity. The Scripture is the Word of God because (and to the extent that) it reveals the nature of that Wisdom, that Logos, to us.

Every time you read, or even think of the "Word" of God, you need to use the word "Logos", knowing that Logos means wisdom, power, as well as word. The Word is Jesus.

 

[vossler]

But, Vossler, you are doing it again! You are stating your interpretation of Genesis as if it is undoubtedly the correct one, without taking into consideration that you could be just plain wrong. You say "Since the Bible tells me that God formed man from the dirt fully formed".

Genesis 2:7 states: then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." If you want to believe this means he took millions of years to accomplish this that is your perogative, obviously I'm not going to change your mind, only the Holy Spirit is capable of that. But I won't be quiet or made to believe that which I know to be true in my heart isn't so.

As I stated in my "Faith Presumptions" thread, you are turning what should be an "if" into a "since". Your reading of Genesis to say that God formed man from the dirt fully formed is just that: your reading. What Gluadys is saying is that God has given us Scripture and He has given us nature. We can be correct or wrong about what EITHER are telling us. You seem to refuse to accept that it could be your interpretation of Scripture that is wrong.

What is absolutely astonishing to me is how people can read a scripture like Genesis 2:7 and surmise that God did this over millions of years. Yet, like I said before I'm not here to change you and your beliefs, just to give a different view of the same Scripture. If I had any thought or idea that I was wrong in my interpretation, believe me I wouldn't be here posting otherwise.

Yes, the Spirit can guide us in the reading of Scripture, and it can guide Christian scientists in the study of nature. As I have stated, I am as open to the Spirit as you are (without doubt) and I am fully, 100% at peace (you know, that deep abiding peace) with my interpretation of the creation stories. And I assume you are as well. Now, why would the Spirit either lead us to differing interpretations, or let us be so much at peace with differing interpretations?

I can't answer that because as God said in 1 Corinthians 14:33 "For God is not a God of confusion but of peace." It would seem that one of us is confused and we don't know it.

As for the Word of God only being Scripture, you seem to have missed the entire converstation: JESUS is the Word of God, because He is the pure form of the WISDOM of God, the second person of the trinity. The Scripture is the Word of God because (and to the extent that) it reveals the nature of that Wisdom, that Logos, to us.
Every time you read, or even think of the "Word" of God, you need to use the word "Logos", knowing that Logos means wisdom, power, as well as word. The Word is Jesus.

Excuse my simple-minded ignorance, but I just don't see it the way you do. Whenever the term "Word of God" has ever been used in my presence (other than certain times at CF) it has always meant the Bible, nothing more nothing less. Please don't take this personal because it is not meant to be so, but I'm sorry I will not allow a bunch of high-minded, intellectual goobly-gook change how I see a simple and commonly understood phrase just to appease certain intellectual voices here at CF.

 

[Vance]

Vossler,

That verse about "from the dust of the ground" has at least three possible readings. First is yours. Second, is one like that of Glenn Morton, who takes the text in a basically literal fashion, but sees "from the dust" as describing the evolutionary process. Third is that held by most TE's, that the entire passage is not meant to be read as a literal, historical account, but instead a figurative account of those events.

You are insisting that only your interpretation can possibly be the correct one and your only reason seems to be personal incredulity. You say it is what your heart tells you is true. I am sure many Christians felt their heart equally told them that Scripture was speaking of a fixed earth and a sun and stars which literally rotated around it. You admit that you can't even consider that you might be wrong on this point.

Yes, I would agree that one of us is definitely wrong in our interpretation of these accounts, but you seem to forget that there is a LOT that we completely agree on these accounts regardless. Could it possibly be that God let's us both be at peace with our interpretations which differ because we BOTH get what is important? I KNOW for a fact, an absolute and stone-cold fact, that the Spirit has given me complete peace in my reading of Genesis, my acceptance of an old earth and evolution.

As for the Word of God issue, basically you are saying "well, I have always thought of it this way, so I am just going to continue thinking of it this way, regardless of what I learn." I definitely can't debate the issue with that starting point.

 

[vossler]

That verse about "from the dust of the ground" has at least three possible readings. First is yours. Second, is one like that of Glenn Morton, who takes the text in a basically literal fashion, but sees "from the dust" as describing the evolutionary process. Third is that held by most TE's, that the entire passage is not meant to be read as a literal, historical account, but instead a figurative account of those events.

I'm sure almost every Scripture has at least three possible readings. If we went on that then none of us would stand too firm on anything.

You are insisting that only your interpretation can possibly be the correct one and your only reason seems to be personal incredulity. You say it is what your heart tells you is true. I am sure many Christians felt their heart equally told them that Scripture was speaking of a fixed earth and a sun and stars which literally rotated around it. You admit that you can't even consider that you might be wrong on this point.

As we stand right now you've stated the same.

I KNOW for a fact, an absolute and stone-cold fact, that the Spirit has given me complete peace in my reading of Genesis, my acceptance of an old earth and evolution.

As for the Word of God issue, basically you are saying "well, I have always thought of it this way, so I am just going to continue thinking of it this way, regardless of what I learn." I definitely can't debate the issue with that starting point.

No, what I'm saying is in all my years of listening to a wide, wide variety of preachers and a variety of books I've read, never have I heard a single person object to the Bible being described as the Word of God. Only here at CF has that thought process ever been introduced, it seems to have a life of its own here. People get incredibly defensive and upset when a person makes such a declaration. I'm still in awe about it! So because you, and a very small minority of others only here, have "educated" me and explained to me how my definition of said expression is wrong, I'm now to cease and desist saying something I've long held to be true. I'm sorry but it's going to take a lot more than that.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Whenever the term "Word of God" has ever been used in my presence (other than certain times at CF) it has always meant the Bible, nothing more nothing less.

Do you really mean that John 1 is talking about the Bible, and not about Jesus?

 

[Vance]

Vossler, do you not think it is possible to stand firm on the essential message of the creation accounts that we all agree upon while being humble enough to accept that our particular reading of those accounts regarding literal/figurative, or old earth/young earth, may not be the correct one?

Can you not just stand firm on "God created the universe or everything in it", or is it necessary to stand just as firmly on "and He did it in 144 hours about 6,000 years ago."

I would direct you again to my signature line.

As for the "Word of God", this is not some minority, fringe thinking. It is standard, orthodox, theology. Pick up any decent Bible dictionary and look up the word "Word" or "Logos" and see what it says. We are not talking about the common parlance use of the term "Word of God" to refer to Scripture, that is perfectly fine and acceptable. What is being discussed are those verses in Scripture which refer to the "Word". This is a very different thing, and it does not simply mean "the Bible" at all. Does John read "In the beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God and the Bible was God"?

 

[SBG]

Gluady's I will respond to your posts in a bit. I don't have much time, but wanted to respond to shernren on his post below real quick.

Well, you seem to be implying then that poems can only be true in a literal way. I.e. when the Psalms say "God speaks" it means He causes His larynx to vibrate to form audio waves with coherent meanings. Question: aren't there poetic forms of truth in which the idea is more important than the details?

I guess what I said either was very unclear or to hard to understand.

If you look at what I asked previously, if you read that you will see that I asked specifically if YOU think that because something is written as poetry can it still be true? Examples, which I gave you, were: God is righteous, God is Holy, God is Just, God is loving, God is kind, God is merciful, God is faithful, etc.

These descriptions are found throughout the Psalms. They are set in poetic style. I am asking you - understand I am not stating something about myself but asking you - can these descriptions be true about God, even though they are set in a poetic style?

My belief, which you seem to think is contrary, is that even in a poetic or in a prophetic setting, it can still explain things that are literally true. There are also figures of speech found in there as well.

If you don't agree, then I must conclude that you are saying God is not Holy, God is not righteous, God is not just, God is not kind, God is not merciful, etc. I am positive that this is not your view of God. Of course you could prove me wrong.

Since, I am assuming this is your view that God is all of those things, then you do take parts of the Psalms to be literally true. What basis do you have to do so? Can you explain that? This is not a point of disagreement, I would rather like to see how you explain why you understand somethings in a poetic or prophetic setting to be literally true.

Since you claim - I believe you do(?) - that Genesis 1-2 is nothing more than a poetic or mythical passage, can you show me the similarities between Genesis and the Psalms that proves the are in the same setting?

I believe that whatever God desires will be accomplished. I don't believe, just because of that, that God has a vibrate-able larynx. Do you?

You know, I believe the same. But, there seems to be a difference between us - maybe it isn't, but it appears that way - I do not believe God needs to have a vocal box in order to speak audible sounds that we can hear. I do not believe God is governed by the same physical laws as us. I do not believe God must conform to the physical universe.

God can speak words that we can hear, just as we hear one another speak, if God so chooses, without a Him having a vocal box. And if you agree, why then bring this up: that God can't speak because He doesn't have a vocal box?

I was quoting the tense used in Genesis 1. The overwhelming use of 'amar appears to be speak, yes, but not the universal use. I'd say it's like how "sharp" normally can be replaced with "pointy", but "pointy words" makes much less sense than "sharp words". Right?

I agree, but do you understand that 'amar is even more specific than 'sharp?' And do you understand the context that 'amar is used in Genesis 1 suggests God actually did speak the universe into existence. And if you do not want to accept that, even after the numerous verses stating 'God said' look else where in God's Word and you will find that it states the same.

I gave you a verse in Psalms that does say God spoke the universe into being.

Can you tell me why there are some here who are against the teaching that God spoke the universe into being? And do you realize that when you take such a stance that you are not arguing against me or another, but against what God says? It is not my interpretation that says God spoke the universe into being, it is written in the Bible that God did do just that. So if you claim you do treat the Bible with care, why do not believe what God says about this?

 

[invisible trousers]

"My intepretation of scripture is the only correct one and I will never be wrong and anyone else who disagrees with me disagrees with God."

Could you telegraph your motives any clearer?

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I asked specifically if YOU think that because something is written as poetry can it still be true? Examples, which I gave you, were: God is righteous, God is Holy, God is Just, God is loving, God is kind, God is merciful, God is faithful, etc.

These descriptions are found throughout the Psalms. They are set in poetic style. I am asking you - understand I am not stating something about myself but asking you - can these descriptions be true about God, even though they are set in a poetic style?

I'm jumping in here, but I certainly believe descriptions can be both true and poetic.

Since, I am assuming this is your view that God is all of those things, then you do take parts of the Psalms to be literally true. What basis do you have to do so? Can you explain that?

For me, a key is what type of a description is being used. Is it using physical imagery to describe something spiritual? If so, it's probably figurative. It's true, but the truth lies in grasping the meaning of the description rather than taking it literally. On the other hand, all the descriptive phrases you mentioned ("God is righteous, God is Holy, God is Just, God is loving, God is kind, God is merciful, God is faithful") are not physical descriptions. As such, there is no reason to take them as imagery describing something more profound, because they do not use imagery.

Does this difference make sense to you?

I do not believe God needs to have a vocal box in order to speak audible sounds that we can hear. I do not believe God is governed by the same physical laws as us. I do not believe God must conform to the physical universe.

No disagreement. However, you're describing how God would speak to us. In Genesis 1, God speaks to the seas and the earth. Just as God wouldn't need a voice box to speak to us, God wouldn't need to make audible sounds to speak to the sea. In fact, a normal audible voice wouldn't really get the sea's attention, since it lacks an ear to hear it. When God speaks to the universe, he is causing the universe to obey his will. I think tying this to an audible voice is as limiting as tying God speaking to us to a voice box. The truth of the metaphor does not depend on actual sound waves.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

No disagreement. However, you're describing how God would speak to us. In Genesis 1, God speaks to the seas and the earth. Just as God wouldn't need a voice box to speak to us, God wouldn't need to make audible sounds to speak to the sea. In fact, a normal audible voice wouldn't really get the sea's attention, since it lacks an ear to hear it. When God speaks to the universe, he is causing the universe to obey his will. I think tying this to an audible voice is as limiting as tying God speaking to us to a voice box. The truth of the metaphor does not depend on actual sound waves.

thank you

 

[Vance]

"the truth of the metaphor"

Exactly.

 

[SBG]

"My intepretation of scripture is the only correct one and I will never be wrong and anyone else who disagrees with me disagrees with God."

Could you telegraph your motives any clearer?

If this was to me, you mind pointing to where I said this? This is serious misrepresentation if someone did not say what you have quoted.

 

[vossler]

Do you really mean that John 1 is talking about the Bible, and not about Jesus?

If you can show me where John 1 says "Word of God" then we've got something to discuss.

 

[SBG]

I'm jumping in here, but I certainly believe descriptions can be both true and poetic.


For me, a key is what type of a description is being used. Is it using physical imagery to describe something spiritual? If so, it's probably figurative. It's true, but the truth lies in grasping the meaning of the description rather than taking it literally. On the other hand, all the descriptive phrases you mentioned ("God is righteous, God is Holy, God is Just, God is loving, God is kind, God is merciful, God is faithful") are not physical descriptions. As such, there is no reason to take them as imagery describing something more profound, because they do not use imagery.

Does this difference make sense to you?

I understand what you saying, but I don't think you have to conclude that if something is being physically described that it cannot be literally true. When Revelation says Jesus has white hair, neither of us can argue that He cannot have white hair. We can agree that it is a figure of speech, but we have not yet witnessed the second coming to see if Jesus does or does not have white hair.

Same respect, the Bible says God spoke the universe into being. It seems you and others are arguing against this. Yet, neither you or I was there. So if the Bible says God did speak the universe into being, why do you argue that He did not? It didn't have to be an audible voice that we could have heard, but it could still have been speaking. The Bible is rather clear that God spoke the universe into being.

The prophets claimed God spoke to them, do agree or disagree that God spoke to the prophets? Did God have to make an audible voice that everyone could have heard, in order for Him to speak? Or could have God spoken only to that individual, and only that individual could have heard God? And if that only individual could hear God, does this mean that God did not speak to the prophet?

Or do we now want to claim that God didn't speak to the prophets?

No disagreement. However, you're describing how God would speak to us. In Genesis 1, God speaks to the seas and the earth. Just as God wouldn't need a voice box to speak to us, God wouldn't need to make audible sounds to speak to the sea. In fact, a normal audible voice wouldn't really get the sea's attention, since it lacks an ear to hear it. When God speaks to the universe, he is causing the universe to obey his will. I think tying this to an audible voice is as limiting as tying God speaking to us to a voice box. The truth of the metaphor does not depend on actual sound waves.

God can speak to us in many different ways, whether audible for all to hear or only so that we can hear, no matter how close another stands next to you. Are you suggesting that God can only speak if it is audible for all to hear?

God speaks to my heart and yet no audible voice can be heard, but God still spoke.

I am assuming that many of you just want to argue on semantics. That in order to speak, it has to be audible for everyone to hear. That God cannot speak unless everyone can hear Him do so. That if God only speaks to individual, where no audible sounds are heard, but the individual hears God, that God isn't actually speaking.

I believe that this discussion has become sidetracked on this point because of my statement that the method of creation was God speaking it into being, not evolution. This again shows me how much of a need there is among many of you to uphold evolution at all costs. I don't understand why you need to do so, even if it means arguing against what the Bible says.

 

[Vance]

If you can show me where John 1 says "Word of God" then we've got something to discuss.

Ah, well, if you are willing to make that distinction, then it is different. Since you used the term "Word of God" capitalizing "Word", then I think most assumed you were equating the term with the "Word" passages in Scripture, as in John 1, and "God's Word" in various places in Scripture, which refer to Logos.

If you just mean "Word of God" in the colloquial sense of a reference to the Bible, that is entirely different, and not at all what the entire conversation in this thread has been about. You can understand the confusion, then.

 

[vossler]

Vossler, do you not think it is possible to stand firm on the essential message of the creation accounts that we all agree upon while being humble enough to accept that our particular reading of those accounts regarding literal/figurative, or old earth/young earth, may not be the correct one?

You probably think I'm being unreasonable with my approach. I don't wish to come across as close minded, I really don't, but in this matter it would take the Holy Spirit's intervention in order for me to open my mind to a non-literal interpretation. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 states: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." I'm just standing firm, and this applies to the quote below also.

Can you not just stand firm on "God created the universe or everything in it", or is it necessary to stand just as firmly on "and He did it in 144 hours about 6,000 years ago."

The first and the second are all part of the same. Science can attempt to show otherwise, but for me it hasn't presented a convincing case. Now most TEs would probably say, maybe not publicly (thank-you ), that I'm probably not intelligent enought to adequately interpret the data and that's why I need them. The thing is, they're probably right! I suppose I follow the beat to a different drummer.

I would direct you again to my signature line.

The thing is, even your signature line says: "In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision" I don't see Genesis as obscure in the least.

As for the "Word of God", this is not some minority, fringe thinking. It is standard, orthodox, theology. Pick up any decent Bible dictionary and look up the word "Word" or "Logos" and see what it says. We are not talking about the common parlance use of the term "Word of God" to refer to Scripture, that is perfectly fine and acceptable. What is being discussed are those verses in Scripture which refer to the "Word". This is a very different thing, and it does not simply mean "the Bible" at all. Does John read "In the beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God and the Bible was God"?

I actually understand the point you're making, I'm just not acknowledging it because its aim is to get to a level of nit-picking with word usage that just isn't found anywhere else in the church. If all the wonderful preachers and pastors that I'm acquainted with have no problem with saying "Word of God" when refering to the Bible, then I'm not going to have a problem with it either.

 

[vossler]

Ah, well, if you are willing to make that distinction, then it is different. Since you used the term "Word of God" capitalizing "Word", then I think most assumed you were equating the term with the "Word" passages in Scripture, as in John 1, and "God's Word" in various places in Scripture, which refer to Logos.

If you just mean "Word of God" in the colloquial sense of a reference to the Bible, that is entirely different, and not at all what the entire conversation in this thread has been about. You can understand the confusion, then.

Vance, I don't want to give you a hard time, but c'mon. I've stated over and over again that "Word of God" is a term or reference to the Bible.

I thought this thread was about having a "literalist presumption?" Aren't you the OP and if it isn't about that then what is it about?

 

[gluadys]

gluadys, just when I was beginning to think we have very little in common you come up with this post. Go figure. God even works in Christian Forums.

I can't speak for anyone else but for me the Bible and only the Bible is the Word of God.

Yet John's gospel identifies the Word of God with Christ. How do you deal with that?

Here are some additional reasons I would give for not considering the bible and the Word of God absolutely identical:

The Word is eternal.
The bible had a beginning.

The Word is an active creative agent which brought the universe into being.
The bible came into being within the universe.

The Word was given to the prophets directly, not through a written document.
For much of human history there was no bible or only portions of the bible.


So how can the bible be identical with the Word?

In catechism class some of the non-biblical forms of the Word of God we discussed were the sacraments, the sermon, the inner witness of the Holy Spirit.

As Presbyterians, we often look to Calvin for some insight on these subjects. In the aphorisms with which he closes his Institutes of the Christian Religion he speaks of the ways of knowing God, naming three ways in particular.

1. The true wisdom of man consists in the knowledge of God, the Creator and Redeemer.
2. This knowledge is naturally implanted in us.... (He goes on to speak of how this natural knowledge has been corrupted and then says
4. It is also from another source that [this knowledge] is derived--namely from the structure of the whole world, and from the Holy Scriptures.

Calvin can hardly be charged with undervaluing scripture, but clearly he also saw creation playing a significant role as a vehicle of God's Word.

So, no, I cannot agree that the Word of God and the bible are one and the same thing, though I would certainly agree that the bible is primary as the source of teaching about salvation and Christian living.

Since the Bible tells me that God formed man from the dirt fully formed and then man tells me that we "evolved" from some other form, yes I would be ashamed if man were right and God was wrong. That would make God out to be a liar.

Now if you had stopped at "from the dirt" without adding "fully formed" I would agree this is what the bible says. I don't see "fully formed" in the bible, so I don't know that that is what the bible says. And there is still the question of literal vs. non-literal readings.

Today "we think" we have more accurate ways of measuring things like the age of the earth and other things.

No, we don't think so. We know so.

If science, through all the modern wonders, were to catagorically declare that an asteriod large enough to immediately kill the majority of people on earth were to impact earth in 6 months would you respond accordingly? For me, it would have little or no effect. Not because I don't fear death, but because I don't, according to God's Word, believe it will happen.

I don't fear death either. But I would believe the evidence that the asteroid would strike.

Are you questioning the reliability and authenticity of the words written by the apostles???

No. I am asking you how you know their testimony is reliable.

This is a good comparison. If a poll of 1,000,000 people all agreed 100% with the statement that "the earth is flat" it wouldn't make it so. That's how I see scientific measurements of things that were never actually seen but were extrapolated through all sorts of "scientific" means. Means which, depending on what your theology is can say whatever you want them to say.

You are confusing the results of the poll with the process of the poll. When a poll is accurate, that means it has accurately measured the opinions of those sampled. It doesn't mean the opinions are right. So in your example, you are right that even 100% opinion in favour of a flat earth would not make the earth flat. But the poll would still be accurate, because it is not deciding if the earth is flat, but measuring how many people believe this.

It should be accountable to the ultimate and absolute truth of God's Word, the Bible.

Since the point of science is to discover the truth about nature and its processes, whenever it discovers such truth, it is being accountable to the absolute truth of God's Word.

If that is not evident to you, it is probably an indication that you haven't read the bible correctly.

 

[Vance]

Vossler, remember, Augustine was actually talking about the Genesis creation accounts when he described some Scripture as obscure and unclear. And he was much brighter than either of us! :0) A vast amount of the church doctrine taught by your preachers is based on what he thought, and yet he found Genesis so unclear that he also said it is folly to cling to one interpretation too strongly.

I can definitely understand your feeling that you would need confirmation by the Spirit before you would accept a non-literal reading of these Creation accounts. As long as you accept the fact that many of us are deeply at peace with the idea already precisely because the Spirit HAS given such confirmation.

As for this thread, it has been all over the place, but most recently the discussion has been over whether Scripture is speaking of, well, Scripture, when it uses the term "Word". Very often people will point to verses in Scripture talking about the "Word" and equate that with Scripture when it was almost assuredly not intended that way.

 

[shernren]

I understand what you saying, but I don't think you have to conclude that if something is being physically described that it cannot be literally true. When Revelation says Jesus has white hair, neither of us can argue that He cannot have white hair. We can agree that it is a figure of speech, but we have not yet witnessed the second coming to see if Jesus does or does not have white hair.

Same respect, the Bible says God spoke the universe into being. It seems you and others are arguing against this. Yet, neither you or I was there. So if the Bible says God did speak the universe into being, why do you argue that He did not? It didn't have to be an audible voice that we could have heard, but it could still have been speaking. The Bible is rather clear that God spoke the universe into being.

Ok, let me try my best to go completely parallel to your argument so that we don't miss each other again.

Revelations says Jesus has white hair when He comes back.

Literalist says that means Jesus' hair will indeed be white i.e. His hair will reflect the entire visible spectrum of light.
Poeticist says that Jesus' white hair is a description of His authority and wisdom, and the actual physical colour and absorption spectrum of His hair when He returns is irrelevant to that.

Can we say yet that either is irrefutably correct? No. We agree, right?

So Genesis and Psalms says God spoke the universe into being.

Literalist says this represents the production of audible sound waves with meanings interpretable by human language, directly causing the existence of the universe. (or have I misunderstood you again?)
Poeticist says this reflects the fact that the universe exists solely and completely at God's desire and perfect will, and that God originated and commanded its existence, and that its actual means of production and existence (at God's pleasure) is irrelevant to that.

Can we say right now that one is irrefutably correct and the other irrefutably wrong? No... I believe that these are at least equally acceptable readings of God's word. Would you agree? If not, why not? Mercury has expressed it far better than I can.