I maintain that when you actually read the Scripture, I mean actually read the Scripture – dig in, get under the pages, and really read it – Scripture becomes a lot more interesting. Obviously Mitchell is doing that. First, from a while ago, here. And now?
Now Mitchell is actually reading the text and grappling with it – and maintaining his faith in Scripture.
If you applied the same amount of literalism to Genesis 2 – the second creation story – as many do to Genesis 1, then you will by necessity create contradictions. Yet, if you read it as you should, Genesis 1 becomes clear through Genesis 2 and there is no real contradictions.
I like your general point, but how can a completely contradictory follow-up story make the original story clearer? That logic doesn’t jibe, man…
I think it makes it clear that whoever stuck the stories next to each other was not doing history in the usual sense of the word. Or maybe any sense of the word.