The Battle for the Beginning

I tried reading John MacArthur's book "The Battle For The Beginning" and it made me think about my understanding of Genesis chapter 1.  I think this is what he intended. He makes many valid points in the first two chapters, and presumably beyond, however I only made it half way through the second chapter.

The problem I had with the book is that along with some very valid and much needed clarity on the limitations of evolution and uniformitarianism, he plunges creation into as many or more traps than he pulls it out of.

Primarily, his insistance that the only reading of Genesis worthy of being called a "literal reading" is one that translates each occurance of "yom " in the Hebrew as meaning a sequence of consecutive 24 hour periods.  MacArthur argues any other interpretation or translation of this chapter denies the truth of all scripture. Even though Hosea 6 does the exact same thing and many biblical scholars have shown that not only is reading Genesis 1 as seven  24 hours days not the only literal translation, it is probably not even the best one.  


Secondly, MacArthur goes beyond simply asserting scripture's primacy over science to calling all of science into question.  The problem with this approach is when subsequent appeals to scientific information or methodology are required for his arguments, he no longer has any basis on which to do so.


Finally, it seems to me that MacArthur does not follow his own advice to trust that God is capable of creating the universe in such a way that falls outside his readers'  current capacity for comprehending.

What is Poetry?

Is it a description of the beautiful,

or a beautiful description,

Unfamiliar language that increases vocabulary,

or plain words that expose the unfamiliar?

Can the tongue-tied writer do either?

If thoughts don't translate into words can poetry exist?

If words don't exist to describe the unfamiliar  and beautiful 

will the words make the poet 

 or the poet make the words?