Cheryl Schatz

Don,
I still honestly do not understand you.

As far as the NT gospels, I can put the gospel accounts together and make a solid story even though I understand that putting it together discounts some of the personal style. Matthew is one who has his own style and I think he walked with the beat of a different drummer – very different than the other gospels. I have really come to love Matthew because I feel so much like him sometimes – all over the map, yet very deep and attentive to details.

However as far as the Genesis accounts, they are all written by God Himself as the ultimate author with no outward human author appending his name to each account. There is a sense of unity between the different “views” of creation and God alone was there to see creation so any truth told had to be God’s account since no human experienced it on his own (other than Adam seeing parts of creation and I don’t know anyone who teaches that Adam wrote any part of Genesis). So what is it about the three accounts that makes you take one or two accounts or parts of each account as a piece of poetry and other parts or accounts as the facts of creation? What other witness do you use that interprets the “poetry” of Genesis? And do you see poetry as the actual facts of creation put into a certain flow of words while still presenting the actual truth, or is poetry actually a myth or a story that isn’t true but which presents some spiritual value outside of factual truth? I am wondering if the word “poetry” is meaning something different to each of us.

I do view old earthers as brothers in Christ, but I do see problems with the Genesis account that must be glossed over in order for one to be an old earther.

I also see a problem in Genesis 2 if the passage is not allowed to be fit together with Genesis 1. Genesis 2 is primarily sequential and there is no food provided for animals until after Adam is created. So either Genesis 2 is wrong or the old earth theory is wrong or animals could live millions of years without food. I accept the Genesis 2 account as truth without any disbelief at all. I have never yet run into problems with that view. I assume that you see Genesis 2 as a myth or a parable or a mystery that says one thing but means another. If you could help to clear up your understanding that would be great. If you don’t want to engage, don’t worry. You aren’t going to hurt my faith because I trust in the two or three witnesses test and have yet to find any problems.