Undeniable Truths for Theological Reflection (#15)

And so we come to the end of my mostly tongue-in-cheek list of “Undeniable Truths for Theological Reflection.”

15. The practice of doing theology requires the honest appropriation of lessons learned from history. We cannot handle the text of Scripture honestly today if we ignore, or even worse, disparage the work of theologians in our near or ancient past. This is true both of those theologians with whom we agree, and with whom we disagree. To borrow a phrase, “Those who do not learn from history (or past theology) are doomed to repeat it.” History is a beautiful thing.
15.a.  However, the above truth does not mean that we slavishly follow every conclusion reached by earlier theologians. We must read theology with a discerning eye, knowing that all humans are capable of great spiritual insight, and all humans are capable of great sin. We are to respect our forefathers and foremothers, not worship them.

This “truth” reveals a long-simmering pet peeve of mine, which I find within congregations of the Churches of Christ, but also within virtually every nook and cranny of Christianity (real or imagined). That peeve is that this generation believes that this generation is the ONLY generation to have everything all figured out, that earlier generations were populated with ignorant boobs, and that future generations will only screw up what this generation has perfected.

I am so tired of a cabal of cultural observers who have anointed the coming generation of “millennials” as the smartest, the brightest, the most observant and intellectually astute generation to have ever walked the face of the earth. I remember reading a report by someone who had interviewed a group of graduating theology students that was so gushing it was nauseating. According to that observer, the group of 22-25 year olds that he was visiting with was so theologically radiant as to overcome the light of the sun.

Really? A generation that has not, or has barely, reached their 30th birthday, and they have already “understood all mysteries and have obtained all knowledge”?

A little confession here, but I am half-way through my fifth decade, and I am only now starting to understand the questions, let alone have any idea about the answers.

Which brings me to my point in Undeniable Truth #15 and 15a. Theology is second only to the field of History that is bound to a study of the past. The old maxim that we are gnats standing on the shoulders of giants is hyperbole, but a warranted hyperbole. We cannot understand our present, let alone make any projections about the future, unless we have a deep and broad understanding about our past.

Where this particular truth disturbs me the most is within my fellowship of the Churches of Christ. To be blunt: the average member of a Church of Christ is pathetically ignorant of his or her spiritual heritage. I don’t just mean historically foggy – I mean historically blind. I hear it in comments both from the pulpit and from the pew. It is embarrassing to hear it from the pew – it is revolting to hear it from the pulpit. For far too many people, the past 2,000 years of Christian theology simply do not exist. It is not that this history is minimized – it is excised! But what that leaves is a person who is struggling to live the life of discipleship with no memory. Imagine waking up each morning with absolutely no memory. How could you function? Yet, we attempt the same impossible task each and every time we disparage or remove any attempt to learn from Christian history.

[A mea culpa here – how can people learn what they have not been taught? Church leaders who do not insist on a basic understanding of church history (including Restoration History) are impoverishing their congregations. A course covering some aspect of church history must be a part of any healthy Christian education curriculum, preferably beginning in the high school years, but continuing on a rotating basis throughout an adult education program. Sermon over.]

The opposite extreme is by no means any improvement. An ignorance of our spiritual heritage has caused some to idolize certain figures who have obtained some measure of notoriety. It is a curious truth: those who are the most historically ignorant tend to idolize historical figures the most. The only problem is, it is not the real person (or the person’s teaching) that they turn into an idol. Being ignorant of the real historical person (or teaching) the modern sycophant creates a straw man (or ideology) and then reads that gilded idol back onto the pages of history.

I have just one teensy, tiny little example. How many members of the Churches of Christ revere some understanding of Thomas and Alexander Campbell? Now, how many of those same members also hold very firmly (even obstinately) to the hermeneutic of “Command, Example, and Necessary Inference” to discover how the Christian is to live his or her life today? Okay, now, how many of those who revere Thomas and Alexander Campbell, and who hold unswervingly to the hermeneutic of “Command, Example, and Necessary Inference” are aware that Thomas Campbell was firmly convinced of the command part, was reticent about the example part, and was emphatically against using any kind of human inference in determining Christian doctrine! You read that last part right – Thomas Campbell flatly rejected “necessary inference” in his hermeneutic – at least as it related to binding one’s conclusions on others. Yet, if you challenge “CENI” today you better be wearing a bullet-proof vest.


I do not want to worship any human being – and believe me I have my theological heroes! Every human that ever lived has lived in some measure of error – except, of course, our Lord. However – from the second century church fathers all the way through history down to and including such modern writers as N.T. Wright – great minds have wrestled with the teachings of Scripture and the questions of human life. Not all of their answers have been right, and a good many have been wrong. We can no more erase their contributions from our understanding of the Christian life than we can erase our memory of what happened yesterday or last year.

We are who we are because of those who have walked before us. If we see greater truths in the Scriptures (and, let’s hope that we do!) it is because we stand on the shoulders of giants. Let’s just remember that they too, were gnats standing on the shoulders of their giants.

Undeniable Truths for Theological Reflection (#s 12 and 13)

Undeniable Truths for Theological Reflection, numbers 12 and 13, probably came from a time when I was really struggling to express how the two biblical concepts of grace and faithful response to that grace relate to each another. This relationship has posed problems for the church from its very earliest days, and I do not consider my feeble attempts at dissecting it to be the last word in the discussion. However, phrasing it the way I have has helped me understand the correlation of the two subjects. Hopefully it will help you . . . and if not maybe it will spur your thinking to create an understanding that is first of all biblical, and applicable as well.

12.  Grace always precedes covenant. This is illustrated by the covenants of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Likewise, covenant always follows grace.
13.  The practical work that flows from theology, then, must follow this pattern. We are drawn to God by his grace, but in order to thrive in a relationship with God we must be bound by God’s covenant.

The theological problem, and therefore the practical problem, that arises from this discussion relates to the elevation of either one of these two concepts above the other. For example, most evangelical theologians emphasize grace over faithful response. In fact, some will even go so far as to say that grace eliminates the need for faithful response. The thinking is thus: if God wills you to be saved, and if God’s will cannot be defeated, and if God’s grace is efficacious (and who would argue otherwise?), then you will be saved and nothing you do or do not do will change that verdict. This is Calvinism in the extreme, and is increasingly being promoted by a young and vociferous cadre of Calvinist theologians.

On the other end of the continuum are the radical Arminians, those who believe that Christians have to put a chair on top of a table, and then put a ladder on top of the chair, and then we have to climb to the top rung of the ladder, and then we have to stretch out our hand to God, and then, and only then, will he condescend to reach down and offer his grace. They do not deny grace, but grace is only extended when man has bathed himself in the sweat of climbing Jacob’s ladder.

I opine that both extremes are equally wrong, and pernicious. I believe that while grace is prior to a faithful response, it in no way precludes the necessity of a faithful response.

Without listing numerous passages (I have listed examples of grace preceding covenant, and covenant following grace above), I believe the consistent message of Scripture is that God always bestows his grace on mankind first, but that grace always contains an element of covenant, whether is it explicitly stated or not. The explicit covenants are numerous enough. God blesses first; but God always expects a faithful response.

Where “the rubber meets the road” for many people is the debate over the importance of baptism. I believe I can say with some measure of confidence that the prevailing attitude among evangelical writers and preachers is that individuals are saved when they “believe” or “accept Jesus in their hearts as their personal savior.” Some would ascribe the repetition of the “sinner’s prayer,” but even that is not a universal stipulation. Baptism, then, might be an appropriate response to one’s salvation, but is by no means necessary, and is believed by many to be a “mere” human work that does nothing other than signify the person’s willingness to become a member of a church.

Biblically speaking, nothing could be further from the truth! Baptism is NOT a human work. Baptism is always (and I repeat always) referred to as a passive act in the New Testament. Baptism is a submission to a command, that is true, but it is far more – it is a submission to a person, it is a submission to God’s act of grace demonstrated by Jesus’s death on the cross. We submit to baptism, we do not baptize (or save!) ourselves!

God’s grace is that Jesus died for our sins. God’s covenant with the believer begins with his or her submission to that death in the waters of baptism.

If you do not enter the covenant, how can you be covered by the grace?

We do not put a chair on the table, and a ladder on the chair, and reach up helplessly hoping God will somehow take notice of us. We are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8, if you are curious), but the same author stressed that the only way we can come into contact with that grace is by participation in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus through the waters of baptism (Romans 6:1-11, if you are curious).

Let us put aside Calvin and Arminius and focus on the Bible. So much rancor and division could be ended if we could all agree to ascend – by bowing lower.

Formal or Dynamic; Word-for-Word or Thought-for-Thought?

Sorry for the egg-head stuff here. This post is the result of a rabbit that I was chasing while preparing my sermon for last week. In a recent post explaining my Undeniable Truth for Theological Reflection (#9) I discussed two major translation theories, formal (or literal) and dynamic (or thought-for-thought). This post is an interesting (at least to me) example of the significance of these two theories.

Our test passages are Acts 9:7 and 22:9. These verses are embedded in the accounts of Saul of Tarsus’s conversion. The first is told in the third person by Luke, the second is Saul’s (now Paul’s) first, first-hand recounting of that event (Paul would repeat the story again in chapter 26). Reading the two verses in the Revised Standard Version, one is struck with an immediate contradiction: in Acts 9:7 the traveling companions of Saul hear the voice that was speaking to Saul; and in Acts 22:9 they do not hear the voice.

Now, if you do not know Greek, but you have an idea about what might be happening, you might think two different words are being used for the English word, “hear.” Nice try, but no, its not true. In 9:7 the companions hear (from the word we get our English acoustics) the voice (from the word we get our English phonetics); in 22:9 they do not hear the voice. So, being the translation nerd that I am, I set off to see how other translations handled the two statements.

I checked a baker’s dozen translations. In 9:7 every single one had some form of the word “hear,” either as a verb or as a participle. Where it got interesting was in the translation of the same word in 22:9. Here is how they broke down:

Some form of the verb “hear” – King James Version, New King James Version, Revised Standard Version, Holman Christian Standard Bible, Common English Bible, The Message, and the American Standard Version. I have to admit, seeing the CEB and The Message in this column really surprised me. I really did not expect them to use the word “hear.”

The word “understand” or equivalent – English Standard Version, New International Version (1984 edition), Gods Word Bible, the NET Bible, and the New Living Translation. Those I sort of predicted. However, the one that really surprised me in this column – the New American Standard Bible! That’s right – one translation that claims to be among the most formal, or literal, actually chooses a more dynamic translation word here.

So, there you have it. Out of my 13 different translations, seven kept the same meaning in both verses for the word “hear.” Six had the more common translation for the Greek word in the first occurrence, but in the second verse they realized that if they kept the translation identical, there would be an inherent contradiction with 9:7. That is, you cannot have the companions hearing and not hearing at the same time. That makes either Luke or Paul ignorant of what was going on.

However, one legitimate (although less common) connotation of the word used in both verses is “understand, comprehend.” So, taking the context of the two verses into mind, the translators of the ESV, NASB, NIV, God’s Word, NET, and NLT all realized that the companions heard the words that were spoken to Paul, but they did not understand, or comprehend them. The two passages are not in contradiction – they make perfect sense. Only if you insist on a overly rigid translation principle is there a problem.

[By the way, here is where the preacher in me comes out. I think Paul is making a subtle point here as he speaks to his Jewish adversaries. Just because you hear some words does not mean that you understand them. It takes a willing heart – Jesus called it “ears to hear” – to take the words of Jesus and to accept them. The Jews to whom Paul was speaking in Acts 22 had no doubt heard Jesus and the apostles, but just like his companions on the road to Damascus, were unwilling to comprehend them. They heard, without hearing. End of sermon]

Here is the moral to the story: if you insist on a direct 1:1 translation theory, arguing that “a literal word-for-word” translation is always best, sometimes you can get yourself in a interpretational bog. By accepting that sometimes you need to look past a strict 1:1 equivalency, you can actually create a far better translation, one that conveys the actual sense of a passage.

By the way, as I stated in my earlier post, I really do like the RSV. But, it is not always perfect, and in this situation I do not like that they stayed with the same English word for the Greek word used. Using just the RSV, someone with no understanding of translation theories could, and most probably would, come away with a belief that Acts 9:7 and 22:9 contradict each other. That is unfortunate, and our translators owe us a more carefully nuanced product.

Undeniable Truths for Theological Reflection (#11)

This post shall be rather brief (I’m trying to make promises I can keep) –

11.  The choice of imagery used in Scripture has as much value as the message communicated by those images. Example: the many metaphors used to describe the “people of God.” (Which is in itself a metaphor).

My point here was (and is) that we should not view Scripture as a “flat” piece of literature. The Bible contains some excruciatingly boring lists of genealogies, some breathtaking poetry, some captivating narrative, and some mystifying views of the future. To treat the genealogical material in the opening chapters of Chronicles with the same significance as the parables of our Lord is just wrong. As Jesus himself said, there are “weightier” matters, and by definition that means there are less weighty matters.

Over the years I have come to love the Scriptures as literature. I have come to recognize the artistry of each gospel writer, I have been shown both the tenderness and the pugnacity of the apostle Paul, and, in particular, I have been enthralled with the deep layers of the book of Revelation. I cannot explain all of this in a tidy little blog post, so I will end with as simple an encouragement as I know how: as we sit down to read the Bible, let us open our minds – and our hearts – to absorb the words of Scripture with all the variety and beauty that they have to offer.

Once we recognize, and value, the beauty of the presentation, we can far more deeply recognize, and value, the content of the message.

Undeniable Truths for Theological Reflection (#9)

A little more wordy that the others, but just as undeniable as ever . . .

9. In regard to the point above, [truth #8, see previous post] it is especially important if you are unable to read the original languages to refer to as many translations of the Scriptures as you possibly can. To limit your study to one translation is to limit yourself to one perspective, one set of translation principles. Reading from multiple translations allows for other ideas and concepts to inform your final conclusions.

To make sense of this truth, a little explanation might be in order. Many people wonder, “Why are there so many translations of the Bible. Isn’t one good enough. And with all the choices, how do I know which one is ‘best’?” To answer the first question, the English language is a “live” language, not a “dead” language. Meanings of words constantly change. New words creep into our vocabulary. Old words disappear. Even the rules of grammar change, and certainly styles of writing change (more on that in a moment!) So, publishers and translators are always busy making sure that God’s word is available in a translation that they believe is both faithful to the original languages, and is also readable by a majority of English speaking customers. MAJOR POINT HERE – READ THE INTRODUCTION TO THE TRANSLATION! It is in the introduction, or forward to the reader, that the translators will identify their guiding translation principle. You will also find critical information about footnotes, and other translation issues. If your particular edition does not have an introduction or forward, get on-line and research the translation. Virtually every translation has such an explanation, although you may have to dig a little to find it.

[Technical aside here: why is reading the introduction important? I give you an example from the New American Standard Bible. If you open to just about any page, you will see a number of words printed in italic type. Today, the standard practice to emphasize a word is to print it in italics. However, the original printers of the NASB used italic type to reveal to the reader that the word in italics was NOT in the original manuscripts, but was provided by the translators in order to give the text its intended meaning. Therefore, what we now would view as a special emphasis on a given word, is actually a word that does not exist in the original! If a student does not understand this, all sorts of awful conclusions can be drawn from a passage of Scripture. Let the reader beware!]

Regarding what is “best” for a particular reader, two concepts must be understood. On one end of a continuum there is a concept of translation known as “formal” or “literal” or “word-for-word.” The best example of this theory (at least in my experience) is the old American Standard Version, although the New American Standard Bible comes in a close second. On the furthest end of the continuum away from the “formal” concept is the “dynamic” or “thought-for-thought” practice. The best example in my experience here is Eugene Peterson’s work, The Message. I actually consider Peterson’s work to be a paraphrase, which is actually more commentary than translation, but Peterson defenders harrumph at my alleged denigration of his work. Very close to Peterson’s paraphrase is the New Living Translation, which is a committee translation, but is still very much a dynamic translation.

Which is “best”? It all depends upon the purpose for which you are reading the Bible. Are you trying to do a word study? Then you need as close to a formal translation as you can get and still understand the words. Are you a new Christian, or are you trying to reach out to non-believers, who have no background in “churchy” language? Then you want to use a translation that is more readable, and that inevitably points you to a more dynamic translation.

Here is the point as it relates to Undeniable Truth #9 – if you cannot read the Bible in the languages in which it was originally written (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), then you are forced to use a translation. Each translation has its strengths, and each translation has its weaknesses! This cannot be denied. No translation is perfect, for the very reason that you cannot make a perfect translation from one language into another – especially when the source languages are as idiomatic (using phrases to communicate thoughts) and as non-technical as were Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Regarding that last point – you can translate a technical manual relatively perfectly (depending on the source and receptor languages). However, translating a song or a poem becomes exponentially more difficult, depending on the level of poetic artistry and the range of vocabulary used.

How does this Undeniable Truth affect theological reflection? If you must use a translation, you need to use as many different translations as possible, in order to arrive at a range of possible meanings, and to discover how different translation committees approached different texts. Note: using three “formal” translations really does not help very much, nor does using three “dynamic” translations. In order to compare translations of a text, you really need a formal translation (ASV, NASB), a more “middle of the road” type of translation, and a good “dynamic” translation (I do like the NLT here, although I will consult the Common English Bible). Where it gets tricky is is in the “middle.” Most newer translations all claim to be somewhere between a strict formal or a strict dynamic translation (i.e., the English Standard Version, the Holman Christian Standard Version). Chances are they will lean one way or another. I personally like the ESV (because it is virtually a recasting of the older Revised Standard Version, the one in which I did all my undergraduate study.) I also like the HCSB (which, if I am not mistaken, is now marketed under the Christian Standard Bible moniker).

We will all have our favorite translation. One of my very good friends swears that the ASV is the one that God gave to Moses (just kidding, but he does love the ASV!) Like I said, I prefer the RSV, and now use the ESV almost exclusively from the pulpit. I used to use the NIV, but with the latest “update,” the NIV has become so politically correct that I can no longer recommend its usage. In terms of public reading, translations such as the NLT flow much more smoothly (they use shorter sentences, more explicit nouns, fewer pronouns), but they lose a measure of technical precision that sometimes has to be corrected by sermon or class.

Bottom line: read your favorite translation in your private devotions, and for your personal enrichment. However, for careful study that is both broad and deep, invest in a number of translations and use all of them to arrive at the best interpretation of the text that you possibly can.

Undeniable Truths for Theological Reflection (#8)

We all want to be right. I mean, who wants to be known as always being wrong? This explains why we resort to quoting statistics so often. If one thousand, or ten thousand, or better yet one hundred thousand people agree with me, then chances are I am right, right? Ditto for “celebrity” endorsements. Obviously if some TV or sports star says the same thing that I do, well, that pretty much closes the case!

It seems like we will stop at no extreme to prove that we are right. Hence “Undeniable Truth #8” should cut pretty deep for a significant number of us:

8.  If you have to rely on just one single verse of Scripture, or some obscure variant reading of the original text, or an obscure definition of grammar or of a word or phrase in the original language, then your conclusion regarding that passage of Scripture is in serious trouble.

The examples I could use here to prove this truth are legion. I guess the easiest “low hanging fruit” would be the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (the Jehovah’s Witnesses) translation of John 1:1. Rejecting the conclusions of every Greek scholar outside of their own tradition, they persist in suggesting that “the word was a god” instead of “the word was God.” (Funny, but subsequent passages in the gospel of John that teach the deity of Jesus are not similarly excised. That just goes to prove the narrowness of their approach.)

However, the JWs are not the only guilty culprit here. Entire forests have been felled in the attempt to prove that the liquid that Jesus created from the water in John 2 was not really wine, but just grape juice. (Sorry, folks, the word is “wine.” And the context – remember the importance of context – proves that what Jesus created was the finest wine, not the ordinary or lower quality “cheap stuff.”) Neither time nor space allow me to discuss the myriad of ways in which the “day” of Genesis 1 has to be a 24 hour period (otherwise the evolutionists win, right?) or that the flood of Genesis 6-8 has to be global because the word “earth” is used.

I cannot get into the technicalities of anarthrous nouns, or the metaphorical use of periods of time, or the general use of hyperbole in the Bible. The point I am trying to make is this: if you are trying to make (or prove) a point regarding Scripture, and you have to rely on an extremely narrow definition of a word, or an obscure use of grammar, or if you have to rely on some obscure variant of the text itself, you are more than likely wrong in both your interpretation and application of the text.

This truth strikes at the heart of what I refer to as “single verse theology” or better yet, “bumper sticker theology.” I would not stake my life on any statement found in Scripture if it appeared in only one verse, or if I had to rely on specialized knowledge in order to make any sense of that statement. (By the way – this is especially relevant to the study of the book of Job, and also the book of Revelation, both of which are fertile grounds for heretical doctrines.)

Stated rather baldly, what God wanted us to know with certainty, and what our eternal destiny depends upon our believing, is taught clearly and repeatedly throughout Scripture! If a doctrine is foundational, it is also taught clearly, and in varying contexts that illustrate its importance and its clarity.

Faith in the creator God, the deity of Jesus the Christ, salvation by grace through faith, the importance of obedient faith (including, but not limited to baptism), the importance of a pursuing a sanctified life – these are non-negotiable concepts, and as such, are taught in numerous ways in numerous places in the Bible.

I do not for one moment intend to denigrate the thoughtful research and study of difficult or debated issues in biblical interpretation. That is, after all, why God gave us the minds that we have to read and understand his Word. The study of anarthrous nouns and biblical metaphors and the lexical meanings of Hebrew and Greek words is vital to our complete understanding of the Bible. But Jesus said it best when he said there are weightier matters of the law, and there are less important matters in the law. Practicing love and mercy outweigh counting leaves of mint.

Let’s get the basics right before we pull out our calculators.

Undeniable Truths for Theological Reflection (#7)

In my original list of “Undeniable Truths,” number seven was the last one. Funny how lists grow – kind of like fish after you catch them. Nothing ever stays the same size. But, I digress . . .

7.  While some passages of the Bible may be open to more than one application, very few have more than one interpretation. Otherwise, Scripture would be meaningless.

If some others of my “Undeniable Truths” only get nodding agreement, this one probably gets denied quite frequently. But, it would appear to me that this one is also self-evident. Maybe self-evident is not the same as “true” to some people.

Just stop and think about something for a moment: if someone makes a statement, he or she clearly had a meaning attached to that statement. Now, that intent might be to confuse, or to flat out deceive, but those are still undeniable intentions. I find it one of the most incredible ironies of our time, but philosophers and theologians will repeatedly argue that we cannot know the intent of, say, Matthew or Isaiah, but we, their readers, are supposed to understand their (the modern author’s) intent perfectly.

So, we are supposed to accept that certain passages of Scripture can have almost an infinite number of interpretations, depending upon the reader’s culture, gender, economic standing, even historical setting. That is to say, a wealthy, male, aristocrat might legitimately interpret 1 Timothy 2:8 in one way, while a poor, female servant might legitimately interpret the same passage in a diametrically opposite manner a century later.

I might be in the very smallest minority here, but the logical conclusion to this way of thinking makes the Bible utterly meaningless. If two interpretations conflict with each other, then one or the other is false, or perhaps they both contain a measure of error. Two contradictory interpretations cannot both equally be true.

This truth (pardon the uber-modern language) has so many ramifications. Acts 2:38 cannot be both a command and a relative suggestion. 1 Corinthians 12 cannot be referring both to individual church members and to separate denominations. We cannot pick and choose which verse of 1 Corinthians we prefer in terms of women’s roles in the church. Jesus, or Paul, or Peter, or whoever, had only one intent when he spoke or penned his words. Only one interpretation can be correct. All others must be wrong, to a lesser or greater degree.

I am not fool enough to suggest that the process of identifying the intent of these passages is universally easy or clear. I suppose I am fool enough to suggest that the study of Scripture is important enough for us to expend the effort to make sure we come as close as we possibly can to identifying that intent.

I also want to emphasize that, once identified, the interpretation of a particular passage may have more than one application. Example: Jesus clearly intended the rich young ruler to “sell all and follow me.” Does that mean that every Christian must become a mendicant preacher? I do not think so, because Jesus did NOT make the same demand of Zacchaeus (ref. Luke 18 and 19). Likewise, Paul told Timothy to “drink a little wine for your stomach’s sake.” Does that mean that every Christian must have a bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon in their pantry? Once again, I do not think so – Paul’s point is that if a region’s water is causing you gastric distress, do something about it, don’t just keep drinking the water!

One of the great sins of modern “Christianity” is the false idea that we can all have our own interpretation of Scripture and all will be well. In other words, it does not matter what you believe, just believe something. This, I believe, is Satan’s first and most effective lie. Did he not deceive Adam and Eve with the question, “Did God really say . . . ”

Ere it be forgotten, please keep Undeniable Truth #1 always in mind.