Bible Study: Genesis 1

[Anonymous1990]

Hi everyone. Today I decided not only to read my bible, but to actually ‘study’ it like I would an academic text, noting down uncertainties and asking more experienced catholics about their interpretations. Since I’m not part of a youth group or anything, I thought I’d post my interpretations here just to see what other people on the forum thought.

First, I’m using the King James translation. Is this the correct version of the bible for catholics to use?

Okay, now onto my interpretations (Genesis 1).

Genesis 1:2- And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

I think this line actually is talking about outer space. ‘void’, ‘darkness’ and ‘without form’ are terms that all resemble space to me, and keep in mind this is afer 1:1, which says God created Heaven and Earth. Does anyone agree / disagree?

Genesis 1:4- And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

This is after when God created the sun. I think by ‘dividing light from darkness’ (creating both day and night), God is actually defining the physical values of our universe; eg the relation of atomic mass and weight to gravitational pull, etc. This defintion would cause the planets to rotate and thus the Earth would experience both day and night. Without gravity, one half of the Earth would be in eternal day, and the other half in eternal night.

Genesis 1:7- And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.

In this line, the ‘firmament’ is actually heaven (as stated in 1:8). But the strange thing is, 1:7 mentions water above and below heaven. What does this mean? Unless he means to say that there is water in heaven and water on earth? God is somewhat reputable for using repetition in his designs; similar organic systems in different species, and we are infact made in his image. It makes sense now that I think about it that God might re-use some of the designs of earthly materials in his heavenly creations. Angels are, after all, humans with dove-like wings and a higher intellect.

Genesis 1:17- And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Here, it says that god placed the stars, sun and moon in heaven (the firmament), but we do know that these things are actually in outer space. This made me think; in the older days we used to believe that heaven was literally ‘up’, out of our world. Nowadays we’re more inclined to believe that heaven is a different plane of existence entirely. This line suggests to me though that heaven and outer space must actually be related somehow. Particularly, I wondered if heaven might be at the edge of our physical universe. What are your thoughts on that?

Genesis 1:27- So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Here is another interesing point; man was created in god’s image. Does this mean that God also had male genitalia, which was designed for reproduction? If so, wouldn’t that mean that god too is capable of reproducing (which sort of did happen asexually though with regards to our saviour, Christ).

Genesis 1:28 - And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

The main point of interest in this line is ‘be fruitful and multiply’. Assuming that Adam and Eve were not ‘wed’ through a sacrament as we are today, does this mean that any heterosexual couple who declare their unity before god and god alone would be seen by him as married; that is, they wouldn’t really need to go through the church for them to be seen as web by God?

Thats all I have for Chapter 1. I’m very interested to see what other people have with regards to their interpretations of these lines, and their thoughts on my interpretations.

Thanks.

 

[NotWorthy]

You ask a lot in 1 posting!

First of all, the KJV, you might find, is missing 7 books from the Catholic Bible, so I’d suggest something else.

Here’s a real simplistic rendering of the first three “days”
**Day #1: **Light separated from darkness;

**Day #2: **Divided the waters to separate the earth from heaven;
**Day #3: **The land appears, separated from the water, and God created vegetation.
These three days of Creation can be summarized as: **Day #1 = Time; Day #2 = Space; Day #3 = Life: **all of which is judged to be “good”.

On the 4th day He made the sun, moon, stars and the planets to rule or govern the day and night. On the 5th day He created birds, fish and sea creatures to rule the sea and the skies, and on the 6th day beasts of the land and man. Man was to rule over all the Earth.
**
CREATES REALMS**** ------------------------------FILLS WITH RULERS**
TIME [light from darkness] -----------------------SUN, MOON, STARS, PLANETS
SPACE [heaven and the seas] -----------------FISH, BIRDS
LAND/ LIFE [dry land ------------------------------BEASTS AND MAN
and vegetation]

[this view of Creation is known as the “framework hypothesis”]

There literal interpretation of your first few verses - I’m not saying they’re irrelevant - but they are not necessary to understand. As Catholics, we must believe 9 things from the Creation account of Genesis:
WHAT CATHOLICS MUST BELIEVE ABOUT CREATION

1. The creation by God of all things at the beginning of time

2.  The special creation by God of man

3.  The formation of woman from man

4.  The unity of the human race

5.  The original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice

6.  The divine command laid upon  man by God to prove obedience

7.  The transgression of that command at the instigation of the devil in the form of a serpent

8.  The fall of our original parents from their primitive state of innocence.

9. The promise of a future redeemer

 

[NotWorthy]

Genesis 1:27- So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Here is another interesing point; man was created in god’s image. Does this mean that God also had male genitalia, which was designed for reproduction? If so, wouldn’t that mean that god too is capable of reproducing (which sort of did happen asexually though with regards to our saviour, Christ).

In human nature man’s offspring receive life and human characteristics like eye and hairs color, etc. But God is spirit and so God gave His human children His spiritual attributes. Man was created infused with the very life of God = grace. In chapter 2 God breathes His very breath into man. The first man is created in the image of righteousness, in the likeness of holiness, and receives the gift of grace–a gift of divine son-ship! He is created to be an immortal, sinless being. This unique condition separates man from the beasts that are created on the same day. Man has a soul created by God and from that time forward, the spiritual soul of every human being will be created by God to be immortal; the soul will not perish but will only separate from the body at death [see CCC #s 355-366]. Infused with grace, Adam and Eve are uniquely united to God not just as “Creator” but as “Father”. The first Adam was created to be an immortal, sinless, son.

BTW, I’m getting the information on posts #2 & #3 from AgapeBibleStudy.Com

 

[NHInsider]

First off, good for you in your desire to undertake a deeper study of the Word! It is an inexhaustible treasure.

Next, your King James Version is in fact a Protestant translation. If you like the old-fashioned English, the Catholic equivalent is the Douay-Rheims/Challoner translation. You can read it online here

For Genesis you won’t find very many differences. But the D-R version uses a different numbering system in some books than the modern translations, which can make it difficult to consult study guides and such.

We had a brief discussion about translations a couple of weeks ago, and wound up with links to most of the Catholic English translations online- check out this thread.

I think your reflections on the various actions of God are thoughtful and interesting. I believe tho that the creation of light precedes the creation of the heavenly bodies in the account, which to me seems to be in accord with what science suggests, in that there would have been enormous light associated with a primodial explosion, and the heavenly bodies would have formed later, as their elements cooled and coalesced.

“Firmament” refers to the heavens in the sense of the sky/space, which the ancients thought of as a sort of giant upside-down bowl. So water above the firmament would be the waters that come down in rain and snow, and water below the firmament would be the surface waters of the earth. Even today we sometimes refer to the sky as “the heavens above.”

Finally (and this by no means exhausts your observations) I think your question about marriage is over-reaching a bit. We know that marriage of some kind existed in every primitive society and Scripture tells us that God made us to be complementary to one another (that’s as in complete, with an “e,” not to be nice with an “i,” although that is also an important part of marriage ) How marriages are created and sealed has varied from one time and place to another, and the Bible does not specify the way that it should be done, only that it should be. Catholics are bound by the rules of the Church in forming marriages, not because of what is in the Bible but because we accept the authority of the Church.

Finally again (I know, I already said finally) I would suggest that your in-depth study not begin with Genesis, despite the fact that it is at the beginning of the book. I’d start with one of the gospels - probably Luke.

And I would encourage you to make use of some of the excellent Catholic study guides that are available on line. There are riches in the Word that will be more easily mined when you have the guidance of others who’ve been there before you!

 

[LoyalViews]

As you mentioned that man was made in God’s image, it may not be use, but our soul. The earth was created in seven days - remember, 1 day to God is a thousand days. 1 minute is a thousand minutes, 1 hour is a thousand hours, etc.

 

[rcjones]

I apologize for my answer in advance since you particularly asked for Catholic opinions.

I commend you for your desire to read the Bible. I would caution you against the method of interpretation which says, “This is what I think it means, let’s vote on it then I’ll pick the one I like.” I am not accusing you of that, simply that an invite like yours may lead into a discussion along those lines.

The first rule is let the Bible speak for itself, the second is let it always speak of Christ, and the third is If the Christ it speaks of isn’t the Christ that the saints have known through the ages, then you’re reading it wrong.

You won’t find those rules stated that way, but the intent is stated by saints throughout the ages.

So along those lines, firmament means “beaten down”.

The images of Christ in the tabernacle are many which portray him being beaten: the candlestick, the oil, the cherubims. (Observe the pronoun used when referring to the candlestick):

Ex 25:31
31 And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made: his shaft, and his branches, his bowls, his knops, and his flowers, shall be of the same.

The firmament likened to ice

Eze 1:22

And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal [ice], stretched forth over their heads above.

So we have something like ice between two waters.

Ice is used to indicate 'Forsaken’

Jer 36:30

30 Therefore thus saith the LORD of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost.

How was Christ forsaken? The Father left him on the cross… “Why have you forsaken me?”

Christ is the forsaken mediator between the waters of law and grace. So the firmament is a picture of Christ. Though the method is foreign to most, the message is always a picture of Christ. You will find that some of the earliest Fathers used this method.

There are strict rules guiding the discovery of such pictures. They are called sensus plenior.

 

[peary]

Hi everyone. Today I decided not only to read my bible, but to actually ‘study’ it like I would an academic text, noting down uncertainties and asking more experienced catholics about their interpretations. Since I’m not part of a youth group or anything, I thought I’d post my interpretations here just to see what other people on the forum thought.

First, I’m using the King James translation. Is this the correct version of the bible for catholics to use?

It’s fine.

Okay, now onto my interpretations (Genesis 1).

Genesis 1:2- And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

I think this line actually is talking about outer space. ‘void’, ‘darkness’ and ‘without form’ are terms that all resemble space to me, and keep in mind this is afer 1:1, which says God created Heaven and Earth. Does anyone agree / disagree?

Sounds good to me.

Genesis 1:4- And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

This is after when God created the sun. I think by ‘dividing light from darkness’ (creating both day and night), God is actually defining the physical values of our universe; eg the relation of atomic mass and weight to gravitational pull, etc. This defintion would cause the planets to rotate and thus the Earth would experience both day and night. Without gravity, one half of the Earth would be in eternal day, and the other half in eternal night.

Genesis 1:7- And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.

In this line, the ‘firmament’ is actually heaven (as stated in 1:8). But the strange thing is, 1:7 mentions water above and below heaven. What does this mean? Unless he means to say that there is water in heaven and water on earth? God is somewhat reputable for using repetition in his designs; similar organic systems in different species, and we are infact made in his image. It makes sense now that I think about it that God might re-use some of the designs of earthly materials in his heavenly creations. Angels are, after all, humans with dove-like wings and a higher intellect.

The Bible states that water came up from the earth, sort of like geisers, and this is how the oceans were formed. But we now know that in the early days of the planet, it rained and rained and rained for thousands of years…continuously, and everywhere. This is not the Flood (which came later) but occurred in the first billion years of earth’s geologic history.

Genesis 1:17- And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Here, it says that god placed the stars, sun and moon in heaven (the firmament), but we do know that these things are actually in outer space. This made me think; in the older days we used to believe that heaven was literally ‘up’, out of our world. Nowadays we’re more inclined to believe that heaven is a different plane of existence entirely. This line suggests to me though that heaven and outer space must actually be related somehow. Particularly, I wondered if heaven might be at the edge of our physical universe. What are your thoughts on that?

The ‘firmanent’ is from the Hebrew raqia meaning the ‘expanse’ aobe the earth. Beyond that were the stars which were like ‘peepholes’ (very bad imagery here!) where the Light of Heaven manifested.

Genesis 1:27- So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Here is another interesing point; man was created in god’s image. Does this mean that God also had male genitalia, which was designed for reproduction? If so, wouldn’t that mean that god too is capable of reproducing (which sort of did happen asexually though with regards to our saviour, Christ).

No. God’s image is immortal, eternal. The second part of the verse explains the first part. It has nothing to do with male or female; that was the physical creation.

Genesis 1:28 - And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

The main point of interest in this line is ‘be fruitful and multiply’. Assuming that Adam and Eve were not ‘wed’ through a sacrament as we are today, does this mean that any heterosexual couple who declare their unity before god and god alone would be seen by him as married; that is, they wouldn’t really need to go through the church for them to be seen as web by God?

This was God’s first commandment to humanity: be fruitful and multiply. It was a sacred act deemed good by God.

Thats all I have for Chapter 1. I’m very interested to see what other people have with regards to their interpretations of these lines, and their thoughts on my interpretations.

Thanks.

 

[NotWorthy]

I apologize for my answer in advance since you particularly asked for Catholic opinions.

I commend you for your desire to read the Bible. I would caution you against the method of interpretation which says, “This is what I think it means, let’s vote on it then I’ll pick the one I like.” I am not accusing you of that, simply that an invite like yours may lead into a discussion along those lines.

The first rule is let the Bible speak for itself, the second is let it always speak of Christ, and the third is If the Christ it speaks of isn’t the Christ that the saints have known through the ages, then you’re reading it wrong.

You won’t find those rules stated that way, but the intent is stated by saints throughout the ages.

RC, I think you are trying to feed meat to people who need baby’s milk. Whether you are using sensus plenior correct is a different topic (because I think it CAN be abused most easily), but one must first understand the author’s intent (the baby’s milk) before one should apply sensus plenior (meat). This is especially true if one hasn’t read the entire Bible several times.

In other words, you’ve got to have a pretty firm grasp of the entire Bible before you can apply sensus plenior.

 

[rcjones]

NW,

I would wholeheartedly agree with you if we ignore the Holy Spirit’s role in interpretation. But since Jesus told his disciples on the road to Emaus that all the scriptures spoke of him, we might as well start looking for him right from the start.

The real point of my post was that it is better to let the Bible interpret itself than to take votes on opinions.

The children of Abraham are called dust, beach sand and stars. Is it coincidence that one has no water, one is near the water and one is in the firmament (Christ) and the children of Abraham were without the word (Ishmael and his children), near the word (Isaac and Israel) , and in Christ (the church)?

We now have something tangible to discuss rather than if you like what I think about it or not. Without Christ at the center, the descriptions of the children of Abraham are redundant poetic words which mean that there will be a lot of them. With him at the center, the scriptures are an interwoven tapestry of the truth of Christ.

Children watch adults eat meat.

 

[grannymh]

o the frost.
How was Christ forsaken? The Father left him on the cross… “Why have you forsaken me?”

Christ is the forsaken mediator between the waters of law and grace. So the firmament is a picture of Christ. Though the method is foreign to most, the message is always a picture of Christ. You will find that some of the earliest Fathers used this method.

There are strict rules guiding the discovery of such pictures. They are called sensus plenior.

The first line of a psalm would serve as a title indicating which psalm was being prayed. Also, be aware of the different parts in a Psalm.

Please read all of Psalm 22 (My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.) to understand what it means.

Psalm 22: 25 “For he has not spurned nor disdained the wretched man in his misery, Nor did he turn his face away from him, but when he cried out to him, he heard him.”

.

 

[NotWorthy]

NW,

I would wholeheartedly agree with you if we ignore the Holy Spirit’s role in interpretation. But since Jesus told his disciples on the road to Emaus that all the scriptures spoke of him, we might as well start looking for him right from the start.

The real point of my post was that it is better to let the Bible interpret itself than to take votes on opinions.

The children of Abraham are called dust, beach sand and stars. Is it coincidence that one has no water, one is near the water and one is in the firmament (Christ) and the children of Abraham were without the word (Ishmael and his children), near the word (Isaac and Israel) , and in Christ (the church)?

We now have something tangible to discuss rather than if you like what I think about it or not. Without Christ at the center, the descriptions of the children of Abraham are redundant poetic words which mean that there will be a lot of them. With him at the center, the scriptures are an interwoven tapestry of the truth of Christ.

Children watch adults eat meat.

The problem with sensus plenior, rc, is that sometimes a bird is just a bird.

For instance, Jesus spent 7 miles (at the most) explaining to them (as Scripture says), Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures. He doesn’t say “all scripture spoke of him”. He says what “referred to him from all the Scriptures”. In other words, he doesn’t show that all Scriptures pointed to Him, but what parts from all Scripture.

Now, granted, we must read all Scripture in the Light of Christ. Amen! But… sometimes a bird is just a bird.

 

[NHInsider]

The problem with sensus plenior, rc, is that sometimes a bird is just a bird.

[snip]

Now, granted, we must read all Scripture in the Light of Christ. Amen! But… sometimes a bird is just a bird.

And as Catholics we are commited to the principle of 2 Peter 1:20. Private interpretation must be in accord with the magesterium. Since our brother rcjones is not Catholic and explicitly states that he can figure out the sensus plenior without reference to any other sources except the Bible, we need to be careful with his conclusions - albeit they are sometimes interesting.

 

[rcjones]

, we need to be careful with his conclusions -

Actually they are offered as observations, not conclusions. They must correlate with everything the scripture says about a subject in the literal AND hidden. So until that is done they are just observations.

And although I don’t know much about the magesterium, I believe I have indicated that due respect is given to the history of the church. I do believe there is a formal statement from the church saying that there are four layers of meaning to every verse. I will have to dig that out for you. If that be the case, then a bird is never just a bird.

If the Christ it speaks of isn’t the Christ that the saints have known through the ages, then you’re reading it wrong.

Also, some will presume that because I am not Catholic that I am Protestant or anti-Catholic. I am neither. Thanks for your kindnesses.

 

[NHInsider]

Also, some will presume that because I am not Catholic that I am Protestant or anti-Catholic. I am neither. Thanks for your kindnesses.

Actually, if I were going to jump to a conclusion it would have been Mormon - just because of your location! But I see you are trying to be independent. And that’s fine. But I think someone who comes to Catholic Answers seeking the view of the Church on a subject should be aware that what you are sharing is not necessarily the view of the Church - not because it’s anti-catholic, which I don’t think you are, but simply because we are historically (and validly) wary of private revelation or interpretation.

 

[rcjones]

Yep. I am not Mormon either. I doubt that doctrinally concerning the nature of God, man sin and salvation that I am too different from Catholicism. I am happy to answer direct questions about my doctrine if it would help.

There is one God revealed in the Bible as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. These are not mere titles. We are told there are some things the Father knows that the Son and Holy Ghost don’t. The Son is distinct from the Holy Ghost as indicated at his baptism and else where.

Jesus shared the same flesh as ours, and was fully divine at the same time, though by way of kenosis had chosen not to actively use the attributes of deity while in the flesh.

God has determined all things and accounted for our free will in the process. From birth we have the freedom to sin, or to accept his invitation of grace, after salvation we have the freedom to perform the works that he created for us… The effective works of salvation were accomplished by Jesus on the cross, enabling us to perform the good works that he has created for us from the beginning.

God wrote his word in creation, the works of men, the works of Christ and the church. The Bible is a collection of some of the word of God by the authors as directed by God to reveal Christ to the world. It is the only unique propositional truth from God to men, all others being discernible by understanding it first.

Jesus was the only man who is “the express image of God” and we will be like him. Together we fulfill Gen 1 being made in his image and likeness. He took on the flesh so that we can take on His spirit, which in no way makes us gods, but makes us compatible as a bride to a bridegroom.

The purpose of this life is to offer the better sacrifice of obedience, learned through trials as we put off the old man and put on the new. When this ideal is realized, all trials and tribulations may be accepted with joy as from the Lord as an opportunity to practice the ways of the new man, giving peace which passes understanding in the midst of circumstances.

I also am wary of private interpretation, even that of my own, however, I do not use that wariness to excuse me from studying to show myself approved. I would hope that you would feel free to correct me with the scripture should it be necessary. I would appreciate knowing the difference between your private interpretation and that of the magesterium. Naturally one carries more weight with me than the other.

My hope in sharing is first to see if others are making the same observations, then seeing if we are interpreting them correctly against historical church doctrine. If my observations are mere invention, then I have no interest in them myself.

If they are really sensus plenior, then I would hope to learn how to interpret them correctly, since in theory they would have the same weight of authority as the literal.

I have found some indication in the early church fathers of the practice, but have yet to find a contemporary theologian well versed in it. I would be delighted to find one here.

The Catholoic catechism recognizes four senses of scripture (usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.shtml)

115

According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116

The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117

The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction."85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

Before I found this, I identified the four senses as four voices of God:
The King speaks the literal words of literal events.
The Judge speaks in hidden words, Gods morality about the literal events.
The Prophets speaks in hidden words of the Jesus’ life in the flesh. (Christ as man)
The Priest speak speaks in hidden words of the hidden Eternal Divine plan. (Christ as God)

These are not too different from the catechism and is one of the reasons I am here hoping that someone knows more about it than I do.

Thanks again for your kindnesses.

 

[rcjones]

The first line of a psalm would serve as a title indicating which psalm was being prayed. Also, be aware of the different parts in a Psalm.

Please read all of Psalm 22 (My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.) to understand what it means.

Psalm 22: 25 “For he has not spurned nor disdained the wretched man in his misery, Nor did he turn his face away from him, but when he cried out to him, he heard him.”

.

Thank you for this reference. Whenever there are scriptures that are apparent contradictions, our framework for understanding must hold them together. In this case I see no contradiction since there is a progression at the beginning of the Psalm to the end, even as there is a progression of the happenings on the cross.

So at the time he declares “Why have you forsaken me” he fulfills the specific prophecy of the Psalm as well as all the images of desolation throughout the rest of the Bible. Ultimately he was restored and or reconciled with the Father while bringing us along for the reconciliation. So ultimately his cry was heard and he was not forgotten in the grave.

I believe that the reference to 2 Cor 8:9 in the NAB published at the US Conference of Catholic Bishops reflects this same sentiment:

10 The dialectic of Jesus’ experience, expressed earlier in terms of life and death (2 Cor 5:15), sin and righteousness (2 Cor 5:21), is now rephrased in terms of poverty and wealth. Many scholars think this is a reference to Jesus’ preexistence with God (his “wealth”) and to his incarnation and death (his “poverty”), and they point to the similarity between this verse and Phil 2:6-8. Others interpret the wealth and poverty as succeeding phases of Jesus’ earthly existence, e.g., his sense of intimacy with God and then the desolation and the feeling of abandonment by God in his death (cf Mark 15:34).

Though the reference does not go on to speak of the later reconciliation, (which most of us know) the specific reference to Mark 15:34 in the context of desolation and abandonment, I believe supports my reference to the same.

Thank you.