Sometimes I feel like apologizing for my beliefs. In our culture, it’s not politically correct to be dogmatic or to try to convince someone else that she might be wrong or have false views. I might sincerely believe what I read in my morning Bible time, yet later, when I’m conversing with a neighbor of a different faith or worldview, I’m tempted to keep my mouth shut and not “impose” my views on her.
Why am I so timid? Do I really think there is a possibility that I’ve interpreted Scripture incorrectly? Do I really think that it’s wrong to make someone else feel badly, even if I think she is believing a lie that has eternal consequences?
I’ve been pondering this a lot lately, partly because I have friends with different beliefs than mine—and I’ve found myself keeping my mouth shut so that I do not offend them. I’ve heard myself apologize for being “opinionated.” I’ve even heard words come out of my mouth that were acceptable to my friends yet in opposition to the Bible. Why do I do that?!
I also wrote a blog post a few weeks back about a Bible curriculum that claims that God’s Word is subject to our own interpretation, and this post spawned a host of comments and blog posts by prominent authors and ordinary women. Some argued that we need to stand up for our beliefs, while others argued that we need to carefully listen to and converse with others who believe differently than we do, because how can we be sure that we are truly interpreting Scripture accurately? Isn’t it wrong to accuse others of being wrong? Isn’t it possible that others are right and we are the ones who are wrong? Is it even possible to know truth at all?
I took a piece of paper and began making a list of the basic beliefs to which I hold.
What makes my “religion” different from all others? Why would I hold to a belief in the Bible, claiming that it is true above all other religious writings? Most of all, why do these differences matter? Why do they give me joy, peace, stability, and calm in a world of change, uncertainty, and confusion? After all, if there is nothing different or better about my beliefs, then I should not be dogmatic. I should welcome others’ viewpoints of God, as long as they are sincere.
The first thing on my list: “I can know truth.”
Most people believe that there is such a thing as truth, but they don’t believe that truth is knowable. What feels like truth to me may actually not be truth. Maybe I just don’t have all the facts, so therefore, it’s not usually possible to be absolutely sure that what I believe is true. As Proverbs 18:17 says, “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him” (NIV).
Therefore, they believe we need to converse with one another, to learn from each other, and to be open-minded about truth.
They believe even language and word usage is subject to error when we interpret them. Words are just tools that we use to talk to each other, and individuals are not always capable of expressing truth properly. My words are subject to how others interpret them, to how others define them, and to the life experiences with which others filter them. When I hear others’ words, I have to realize that I haven’t lived in their shoes, so I shouldn’t be quick to judge their meaning and intent.
Everything is very vague… changeable… subject to our culture, emotions, and experience.
(This is known as “post-modernism,” by the way, and is a common view of the “emergent church.”)
As a culture, we are reacting to abuses of supposed truth in the past. We are rightly concerned about times in the past when humanism set up reason and science as “absolute truth,” violently opposing any whose viewpoints were different. We’re rightly reacting against the atrocities of human history, committed against those whose truth statements differed from the established authorities.
I feel badly for Pontius Pilate on the day that Yeshua stood at trial before him. The Jews were pressuring him to have Yeshua executed, yet he himself couldn’t determine a cause for it. The Roman government had charged him with keeping peace in this volatile Jewish province, yet the crowds were threatening to riot. His own wife had sent him a note, telling him to have nothing to do with situation because she’d been having bad dreams about it. Finally he summoned Yeshua into his palace, to get the prisoner’s side of the story.
Yeshua didn’t make the situation any easier for Pilate. Yeshua claimed to be a king, which is exactly the claim that would get him crucified. Who was right? What was the truth? Which faction should Pilate try to please?
“Yeshua answered, ‘You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.’
‘What is truth?’ Pilate said” (John 18:37-38, NIV).
It was probably more of a groan.
Pilate didn’t believe in absolute truth. He just wanted a little peace in the world, and Yeshua’s bold answer wasn’t making things any easier for Pilate.
Yet in the midst of all the upheaval, Yeshua made three profound statements in these verses:
- There is such a thing as truth.
- He had come into the world to testify to the truth.
- People have to take sides. Those on the side of truth listen to Him (and therefore, we can assume that those on the side of lies do not listen to Yeshua).
I’ve been examining the book of 2 Peter, and I find that this close disciple of Yeshua upheld the truth statements made by Yeshua to Pilate.
There is such a thing as truth.
Pilate sought peace in life by helping people get along together. He wanted the various factions to converse with each other and to reach some sort of compromise.
On the other hand, Peter states that peace only comes through knowledge of God. In other words, Peter tells us that it is possible to know exactly what God is trying to tell us. We can know truth — dogmatically, authoritatively, and with firm assurance. God is knowable; therefore, truth is knowable. This truth alone brings peace to our world.
“Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Yeshua our Master. His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him…” (2 Peter 1:2-3).
“For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge… For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Master Yeshua the Messiah” (2 Peter 1:5-8).
“So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is right to refresh your memory…” (2 Peter 1:12-13).
“I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things” (2 Peter 1:15)
It is obvious from these verses that knowledge of God is available to us and that God wants us to be “firmly established” in it.
Yeshua testified to the truth.
Only hours before standing before Pilate, Yeshua prayed that his followers would be sanctified [set apart from all others] “by the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17). Yeshua didn’t make up truth; He only taught what was in agreement with His Father’s words, and the words of the coming “Spirit of truth” would also agree.
“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him… He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me” (John 14:16-17, 24).
As Peter reminds us that, although he was an eyewitness to the majesty of Yeshua, his sure basis in truth was not on his experience but on the prophecies of Scripture, the 39 books of the “Old Testament” canon. These words were not subject to human interpretation but were breathed out by God Himself.
“We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Master Yeshua the Messiah, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty… We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.
“And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:16-21).
Words spoken in the past, in “the holy prophets,” are to be taken as truth, as God’s very words and with His authority.
“Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Master and Savior through your apostles” (2 Peter 3:1-2).
God’s Words were written down by the prophets and apostles, and Peter seems to make it very clear that they are truth, that they have been passed down to us, and that their commands are to be obeyed.
Those on the side of truth listen to Yeshua.
Peter also makes it clear that not everyone will be on the side of truth. As much as we might wish that everyone “just get along,” there are indeed those who are “false prophets.”
“But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies [choices or preferences], even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute” (2 Peter 2:1-2).
One of the evidences of a false prophet is that he despises authority or having others govern over him (see 2 Peter 2:10).
“But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct… They have left the straight way and wandered off… For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him…” (2 Peter 2:12, 15, 18-19).
“First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, ‘Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.’
[Note the tactic of making believers doubt what God has said in His Word.]
“But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water” (2 Peter 3:3-5).
They have access to the truth of God as revealed to us in His Word, but they do not accept or welcome it (see 1 Corinthians 2:13-14).
“If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Master and Savior Yeshua the Messiah and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them” (2 Peter 2:20-21).
We can know the truth
So we see that God’s opinion is different from our culture’s. God says that we can know truth, that truth is revealed in his Scripture, that truth has been accurately and faithfully passed down to us by His prophets and apostles, and that we are to obey this truth.
Truth isn’t made truth because someone “said so.” Truth is truth because God said so. Truth is written in plain language in the Bible. Truth can be understood by all, and truth can be passed down faithfully. Truth can be correctly interpreted. Truth does not change according to culture or time period.
This means that there are absolute truths, such as creation, an unchanging God who will judge me someday, the fact that I am a sinner, the blood of Jesus, and the eternal law of God.
This does not mean that I will always correctly interpret truth. However, God holds me accountable for misinterpreting the Bible, and He calls me a “false prophet” if I teach Scripture to others incorrectly. This assumes, of course, that there is only one right interpretation of His Word, and this also assumes that God thinks I will be able to figure it out.
When my interpretation or human science doesn’t agree or make sense with other sections or with the entirety of Scripture, it is I or science who must change, not Scripture. This means that I have to be humble enough to accept reproof from others, when that reproof is backed by absolute truth as revealed in Scripture.
It does not mean that I should accept false prophets, though, all in a spirit of keeping peace and “not judging others.”
“Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Master and Savior Yeshua the Messiah” (2 Peter 3:17-18).
I believe in absolute truth as long as it is absolutely grounded in the Bible. I believe I can read the Bible, correctly interpret it, and know what it means. I believe I must obey it.
This is one of the key things that makes my “religion” different!
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture in this blog post taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
Oh, Anne — you hit the nail on the head! So much of the “world” is in our lives these days, making us think that truth is lies, and lies are truth! Being bombarded by ungodly images, being bombarded by the papers and the magazines and the books and even conversations with others, making us question whether or not it’s ourselves who are being limited or unfair or unjust.
Thank you for teasing it all out through a deep reading of the Bible. (I wish you were giving our sermons on Sundays!)
I am so grateful for God’s promise, He says, If I seek, knock an I will find. In His eyes, there are no dumb questions. He will reveal the truth to those who seek Him. The answer is in seeking HIM, Jesus who is all truth. “He seeks are those who worship in spirit and in truth. The truth will be revealed by the Holy Spirit, who has been given to guide us into all truth” (John 16:13)
The big mistake is.. when we seek to know His word so that we can fit into our way of thinking, Are we twisting the words to make them fit? Or do we change our way of thinking to align with THE truth? I admit, there I times, I am not ready to accept the truth. It would require change and for me to give up what I have CHOSEN to believe. Thankfully the Lord is patient with me,
He doesn’t stop with my seeking, He declares His wonders all day long, He expresses through creation Who He is..And the mysteries can be sought out. His truth before me in many ways, sometimes I stumble over it, sometimes I rest in it, sometimes I FIND it as gold, sometimes I just taste it like honey,
When we seek the truth of God’s word, we will always find it like “honey for sweetness,” simply because it is always true. Ezekiel 3:3. “Put forth the end of the rod in his had, and dipped it in an honeycomb, and put his hand to his mouth; and his eyes were enlightened” – (I Sam.14:27)
Amazingly, when we see it, hear it RHEMA, we know it! His word is the bread of life, I will live on it, His words are truth, they bring life. The unsearchable riches found in Christ, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” John 1:1-2
May we seek it, search it out. “So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding: If thou seekest her as silver, and searches for her as for hid treasures. Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God. For the Lord giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding” – (Prov.2:2-6)
His Word is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path (Ps.119:105)
It is always good! “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (2 Tim.3:16-17)
I will stop, I can go on and on…It is unsearchable, the riches found in Christ, The living word.
Thank you, Anne, for your thoughtful, insightful, biblical analysis and commentary!
I appreciate so much, especially, how you begin: “Why? . . . Why do I do that?” –So few people, it seems, take a lot of time for that kind of self-applicatory meditation on the Bible and their own lives.
*********
I wanted to respond to a few things you said.
You referenced a blog post of mine in the midst of a series of questions. Because of their close juxtaposition, I thought it might behoove me to make clear (lest someone get the wrong idea):
I believe we need both to “stand up for our beliefs” and to “carefully listen to and converse with others who believe differently than we do.”
I also believe we need to speak with humility lest we discover that we have interpreted–or we are interpreting Scripture inaccurately.
You ask: “Isn’t it wrong to accuse others of being wrong?” –My opinion/conviction (based on Scripture, culture, and common sense): No! Of course it is not wrong to accuse others of being wrong. But we had better be careful how we do it. Depending on the kind of error or evil or misdeed, and how sure we can be that we are perceiving the error/evil/misdeed accurately, we may need to alter the manner in which we make the accusation.
“Isn’t it possible that others are right and we are the ones who are wrong?” –Absolutely! Of course!
“Is it even possible to know truth at all?” –Yes. To deny such a thing is, in itself, to declare that one knows the truth. One knows the truth that it is impossible to know truth . . . which, of course, is logically inconsistent and self-refuting. I think the questions come down, more, to such things as: How sure can I be that I know what I think I know?
But before getting further into your post, I’d like to jump to the top of the paragraph from which I just quoted.
At the beginning of that paragraph, you say you wrote a blog post concerning “a Bible curriculum that claims that God’s Word is subject to our own interpretation”–and you linked to your post about Peter Enns’ curriculum.
!!!!????
Now, I am at a disadvantage compared to you. I have not read Enns’ curriculum. (I have read his book Inspiration & Incarnation that eventually got him kicked off the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary.) But I saw nothing in your original post, nor have I seen anything in Inspiration & Incarnation that would lead me to think the Bible curriculum “claims that God’s Word is subject to our own interpretation.”
Would you mind developing that theme a bit? Where and how does Enns’ curriculum claim that God’s Word is subject to individuals’ own [personal? private?] interpretation?
Based on what you and, even more (primarily because she actually quoted Enns), LeaAnn Garfias wrote, I share a lot of your deep concern about and, potentially, antipathy for or towards Enns’ curriculum. I am offended by some of the things he says. (Please, read my referenced post for the specifics.) But I don’t see the basis–in your post or in LeaAnn’s–for your charge that Enns advocates for the idea that God’s Word is subject to our own [personal/private] interpretation.
I jump on that point a bit primarily because, if it is true that Enns’ curriculum advocates for private interpretation, this is the first I’ve heard of it and, as far as I can see, your description of your post from a few weeks back is either defective in describing your post or it is defective in describing Enns’ curriculum. I don’t know which. But I sense it is defective.
I think that, in general, is what has disturbed me about many people’s comments about Dr. Wile’s post, too: Rather than paying close attention to what he actually said, they jump all over him for saying or advocating for things he did not say and for which he did not advocate (and never has advocated).
Then one last major concern.
In discussing your first basic belief, you write, “Most people believe that there is such a thing as truth, but they don’t believe that truth is knowable.” I don’t know the statistics about what people do or don’t believe. I am comfortable with the idea that many people believe this way. But whether it is “many” or “most,” I am disturbed at how you follow up that comment. Because while I, for example, believe there is truth and that truth is knowable (i.e., therefore, I am not a member of the “many” or “most” to which you refer), I find myself agreeing pretty wholeheartedly with almost everything you say in the next many lines.
If I may modify your statements slightly, I find myself agreeing with the following:
Supposing that such concerns on my part at least parallel what you were trying to express, and supposing your next sentences were meant to describe people like me, I would want to object to your characterization of such thoughts, attitudes and behaviors as being “post-modern.”
Post-modernism, as the article to which you linked notes, “emphasizes . . . that religious truth is highly individualistic, subjective and resides within the individual” and declares that “[t]here is no absolute version of reality, no absolute truths.”
Being careful in one’s speech; being attentive to the fact that I may misunderstand you; seeking clarification from and understanding of the thoughts, feelings, values and sensibilities (not to mention sensitivities) of those with whom I am trying to communicate does not mean I must validate (what post-moderns would call) their [supposed] “truth.”
Once we get beyond these points in your post, I really appreciate the emphases and flow of your Scriptural meditations. A couple of minor quibbles: You may be correct, but I have a feeling you may be speaking a bit anachronistically when you refer to “the 39 books of the ‘Old Testament’ canon” in Peter’s day. (See this and this.) And I’m not sure what you mean when you say that the words Jesus spoke (John 14:16-17, 24) “were not subject to human interpretation.”
Clearly, 2 Peter 1:20 teaches us that “no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.” And I agree with you when you say that the “[w]ords spoken in the past, in ‘the holy prophets,’ are to be taken as truth, as God’s very words and with His authority.” But I’m not sure we would agree as to how that truth is to be applied, in practice.
If you or others among your [and, now, with this comment, “my”] readers would actually want me to affirm with amen’s every other statement you make, I would do so gladly. Please assume that that is what I am doing (because I am).
I would like to quibble with your statement, fourth paragraph down in the midst of your discussion of “We can know the truth,” that God’s holding you accountable for misinterpreting the Bible and/or teaching Scripture incorrectly “assumes, of course, that there is only one right interpretation of His Word, and . . . also . . . that God thinks I will be able to figure it out.”
I’m not sure why God’s hands would be tied with respect to holding you or anyone accountable in case He didn’t think that the referenced person was able to figure out the correct interpretation! I think there have been and are many false prophets in the world whom God had neither called nor equipped to teach the Scriptures.
Continuing on from that point, I “amen” all your statements . . . right to the very end.
******
Now. One last point that strikes me.
The issue that blasted Ham and Enns and Wile to the forefront of the debate that has rocked the American Christian homeschool world for the last few weeks had to do with certain statements Ham made about Enns. Most particularly, the manner in which Ham made his comments.
After reading your post to which I am here responding, I noticed your site lists a number of “Related Posts.” I followed the link to your Is God’s Law for Us Today? . . . and from there to a couple of your Headcovering posts (I also looked at your earlier post on the subject).
May I note that your attitude, your demeanor, your approach, your words are very different from Mr. Ham’s. I don’t see or hear you “thundering from the mountain” about how all of us who eat pork, or who [among the women] don’t cover our heads during church services, or who [among the women] actually wear pants (and/or panties), etc., etc. . . . –I don’t see or hear you “thundering from the mountain” about how we are all “compromisers,” “biblioskeptics,” people who follow a “false ‘Christianity’ that glorifies man & the world’s kingdom & humanly imagined ’solutions,’” and so on and so forth.
Why is that?
Why don’t you use the kind of language Ham uses toward any- and everyone whose teaching does not conform to his perspective on the age of the earth and his perspective on the manner in which God created the universe?
Is it because you believe our [Christians’] convictions about the age of the earth and the manner in which God created the universe is so much more important than what we [husbands and wives and members of the Christian community] eat and how we dress and how we behave in church?
Somehow, I don’t think so. I imagine it may have something to do with your (rightful) understanding that, as important as some of these practices are to you, and as helpful as you have found some of these things to be in your own walk with the Lord, you recognize that maybe your view is not binding on the church as a whole. Maybe. And/or, maybe, despite the fact that you have found yourself drawn to these practices out of the very words of Scripture, maybe (it is possible that) these are not issues worthy of breaking fellowship over. They really don’t quite merit you charging others with teaching “heresy” if they disagree with you.
And one last set of comments.
It is interesting to me that I don’t find any Young-Earth Creationists (including Ham and company) charging anyone with “compromise” for advocating the (non-Biblically-based) modern (scientifically-based) Copernican cosmology. Nor do I find them charging people with biblioskepticism for advocating the (non-Biblically-based) idea of a non-solid firmament.
Finally, while we’re at it, I’d like to question why no one charges Christian medical personnel of using “a brain and reasoning powers distorted by the curse” (Dr. John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research), “a fallible methodology of sinful humans” (Dr. Danny Faulkner in an article published in the Creation Technical Journal), or “impos[ing] ideas from the outside” on the Word of God (Ken Ham) when said medical personnel permit modern scientific inquiry to modify the clear biblical teaching about how we are “knit together” by God in our mother’s wombs (Psalm 139:13).
To be consistent, shouldn’t we–beginning with Morris, Faulkner and Ham–be up in arms for such “compromise”? After all, there is nothing in Scripture to give us any reason to doubt that God really and truly, literally, “knits us together”! So why do we not charge these (obviously secular, God-hating??) embryologists and obstetrician-gynecologists with pursuing that which is “falsely called knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20) when they tell us about sperm and egg and mitosis and meiosis and all the other details of what they call the “birthing process”?
Similarly when it comes to meteorology: Is there a biblical basis for calling into question the “obvious” teaching of Genesis 7:11; 8:2; Deuteronomy 28:12; Job 38:22; Psalm 135:7; Jeremiah 10:13; etc. concerning where the rain and snow and wind really come from and how they are made to impact us when and where they do?
Based on the testimony of Morris, Faulkner and Ham, shouldn’t we charge any- and everyone who speaks of the water cycle and all the naturalistic means by which modern scientists seek to explain the action of the wind . . . –Shouldn’t we charge such people with sacrilege for their ungodly, “scientific,” man-made explanations of these phenomena? Aren’t they preaching atheism when they refuse to acknowledge that God is in control? “God said it; I believe it; that settles it”: yes?
Or no?
Ultimately, if Morris, Faulkner, Ham and their followers are to be consistent, do they really leave any room for scientific inquiry?
The fact is, I know of no one–even the most devout, Bible-believing Christian–who gets upset when meteorologists create computer models and use Doppler radar and thermometers and all the other instruments of modern meteorology to predict the weather for us . . . despite the fact that Scripture clearly teaches us that God controls the weather. And, as far as I’m aware, none of us gets upset when geneticists and embryologists and other students of human development study how human beings reproduce . . . despite the fact that, we are told, it is God who knits us together in our mothers’ wombs. Similarly, we don’t turn to Scripture in order to understand planetary motion or how to send a rocket into outer space . . . despite the fact that, again, the Bible tells us God placed the sun, moon and stars where He wanted and controls their motion by His will.
If we don’t become upset about these scientific inquiries that call into question the literal meaning of words like raqiya (“firmament”–now “expanse”); or the idea that our bodies are, somehow, literally knit together directly by the hand of God; or the idea that God has literal storehouses for the wind and rain and literal floodgates for water: why do we become upset about the studies and discoveries of scientists who believe they have found evidence that calls into question the idea that God spoke and–bam! instantaneously–“it was”? Why should we out of hand, without any willingness to consider the evidence, determine that such non-literal interpretations absolutely cannot be true?
Please understand: I am open to evidence and arguments on both sides–evidence and arguments of the same nature and presented with the same humility and grace that you show in your posts about abstaining from pork and wearing a headcovering. I find it rather off-putting, however, to be confronted by people like Mr. Ham who are unwilling and/or unable to permit anyone to call their views into question and who, instead, prefer always to maintain an attack mode: “You question my teaching? Then you are ‘not just compromising Genesis, [but you are teaching] outright liberal theology that totally undermines the authority of the Word of God. [Your views are] an attack on the Word—on Christ.'”
*******
Thanks for “listening” . . . and for engaging with us (and me!).
To me the most tellingly obvious thing about Genesis 1 in comparison and contrast to Genesis 2 is that Genesis 1 goes into some minimal detail on God’s creating everything EXCEPT man and woman, and that Genesis 2 provides that detail on God’s creating man and woman. To me, this suggests not only that the two accounts are like a marriage (G1 is as a man, and G2 is as a woman), but that this same idea applies to various portions of Genesis 1 itself, beginning with v. 1. Like this:
v.1. The general Heaven and is special Earth;
v. 2. The Earth, as its own general, in its relation to its likewise cosmically unique possession: an abiding maximal abundance of open liquid water;
vs. 3-10. Likewise, that water and its special cycle;
4. The water cycle and its special beneficiary and member, life;
5. Life and its special category, animal life (plant/animal/mineral = animal);
6. Animal life and its special category, human life;
…7.