I think you've begun to answer your question.
How do we find the balance?
How about this? I think maybe we don't worry quite so face-on about the balance between what we conceptualize as poetry or prose and engage two old fashioned, intuitive techniques (lead by the Holy Spirit as He pleases with a willing heart) --really two techniques in one, called contextual criticism.
First, to read as the writing asks to be read (within its immediate context)...
and,
Second, to read by "comparing Scripture with Scripture" (as the Logos also asks us to read itself) granting God His place and that He has given us words of which we may come to a sufficient understanding, in the place He gives us, even if that understanding is grossly deferred to the regenerate's completed understanding.
Why read the Logos the way the Logos asks us and not assume any higher or much more pithy point of view? Because "In the beginning," the Logos intiates all of our true knowledge.
As poetry or prose? As one very, very humble.
And what about all that other knowledge we all have, especially by 2/20/2004? Well, let Logos and His sent servant Rhema interpret that, too.
There -- hope I'm not too much of a spoil sport for you, Lady Jean. ;-`
(What I write isn't necessarily either information nor poetry ;-)
I used to read and research the Bible exhaustively with maps, lexicons, commentaries and the whole nine yards. In fact, I used to refer to it is as "the inerrant Word of God."
Then one day the Spirit led me to a much better understanding through the Gospel of John. The Word of God is God, is from the beginning and Jesus is the Word made flesh. The Scriptures came after the beginning and thus, the Scriptures are indeed inerrant and reveal God truly, but not fully.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14
This is how Jesus has become my food and my drink:
Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. John 6:43-59
First, to read as the writing asks to be read (within its immediate context)...
[And, I would add at least try to understand through whatever methods available to us the original meaning] and,
Second, to read by "comparing Scripture with Scripture (as the Logos also asks us to read itself) granting God His place and that He has given us words of which we may come to a sufficient understanding, in the place He gives us, even if that understanding is grossly deferred to the regenerate's completed understanding.
Good post, Unspun. I suppose we could all just spiritualize all of Scripture and allow each of us his/her own post-modern understanding. Or, we could presuppose that, just as we presuppose there is only one explanation for the phenomenal, that God has one specific universal purpose in his Scripture.