Like you, I compare parallel translations. I used to keep multiple translations on my bookshelf but there are websites these days, of course, that make it very time efficient to compare many translations at once. Also like you, I consult commentaries…especially those written by folks who have studied not just the Scriptures but comparative history and other relevant literature to give insight as to how the biblical authors’ words might have been understood in their day. My use of Strong’s combined with the robust cross references (which are idea-related not word-related) found in the NASB is the means to an end - the end being “letting Scripture interpret Scripture,” as they say. One key aspect of this approach, at least for me, is the concurrent application of the principle stated in 2 Cor 13:1 and elsewhere: Let two or three witnesses - not one - decide important matters. Therefore, when I see two or three scriptures lining up to the make the same point - especially when found in different parts of Scripture and independent of whether they employ precisely the same terms - I have much more confidence in the point than if I see it resident in only one place.
Would I like to be able to read the Scriptures directly in their original languages? Absolutely. It’s just not a practical option for me, and my hope is that the Holy Spirit does not altogether avoid me on account of such a limitation.
Through my interactions with others here, and particularly through my interaction with @GJDShere, I have come to realize that the conflict I see between Genesis 2:1-3 and creatio continua can also be understood, and stated, as a conflict between Genesis 2:1-3 and any form of progressive creation - if I am understanding progressive creation properly as God gradually creating over long periods of time (i.e. millions or billions of years instead of six 24-hour days).
Guys and gals, I’m out of here because you guys have zero % sense of humour When people bring to Genesis 1 and Exodus 31 pseudo-discussion of the form, ‘How many angels can fit on a pin head?’, rather then God’s elementary relevation of how and when, if you can’t get the basics accurate, then in the real world I inhabit we say, “You’ve lost the plot and have no right to preach”. Sad. Really, really sad.
I would add this - Gen 1 and 2 teach us that God’s Creation is a gift and not a necessity to God. The Bible is written to teach us within our obvious limitations, so Genesis must be read as it was written, and the entire biblical message is obtained for us from the entire Bible as the Word of God.
On progressive creation, like so many views nowadays, it is more a derivation from science and should be treated as such. Within such a framework, we would speak of God completing the creation as a transcendent being, and the entire creation (from beginning to the end) is known to Him and conforms to His will. Other expressions that seek to contradict this orthodoxy, are of an open system that is “tweaked from time to time”; our view is of a closed (completed) system, subject to God’s will, sustained by God, and the result of His energies.
Much has been written on the latter, but when all is said and done, Genesis accounts of creation are not in conflict - our debates inevitably result from attempts to include our limited scientific understanding into theological discussions…