Re: Second-hand sign? (was Re: Noahic Covenant)

From: Vernon Jenkins (vernon.jenkins@virgin.net)
Date: Sat Jul 06 2002 - 17:54:08 EDT

Next message: Shuan Rose: "RE: sciDocument.rtf"

Previous message: PASAlist@aol.com: "Re: sciDocument.rtf"
Maybe in reply to: Vernon Jenkins: "Second-hand sign? (was Re: Noahic Covenant)"
Next in thread: gordon brown: "Re: Second-hand sign? (was Re: Noahic Covenant)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Gordon,

Thanks for writing.

You said:

Should I understand you to imply that a sign of a covenant can only be
something that never existed prior to the covenant? Are you sure that
there was no circumcision before Abraham? Were there any sabbaths before
the Exodus (Exodus 31:13)?

In my response to David I have already addressed the point you make about
circumcision. However, your query concerning Ex. 31:13 seems to be answered by
the earlier verses, Ex.20:8-11. I note that the earliest reference to
"sabbath" appears to be in Ex.16:23. So it does appear that this observance
was already in place before the Exodus.

You further commented:

Genesis 2 is not about the Flood. Genesis 2 and 3 are about the Garden of
Eden and the Fall of Man. In Genesis 2 we see that the Garden was planted
in a region that had previously been desolate, devoid of vegetation (vs.
5). Two reasons are given for this, namely, absence of rain and absence of
a man to cultivate the ground. This is how things work today. Go to an
uninhabited region that lacks for rain, and it also lacks vegetation. So
this verse gives us no reason to believe that there was a different system
before the Flood. If plant life could flourish without rain, then this
verse wouldn't make sense. The two problems are corrected in the next two
verses (6 and 7). Then in verses 8 and 9 we see plant life flourishing.

But what do you make of "But there went up a mist...and watered the whole face
of the ground." (Gen.2:6) ? Hardly desert conditions! And how do you explain
the existence of the river flowing out of Eden (Gen.2:10) - there being no
rain?
Again, it must have represented a substantial flow of water for we read that
it divides into "four heads".

Sincerely,

Vernon

gordon brown wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> > The Scriptures first mention this "bow in the clouds" in Gen.9:13 where
> > - following the Flood - it is described
> > as "a token of the covenant between me (God) and the earth" - a
> > perpetual reminder of His promise never
> > again to destroy all flesh that is upon the earth by water. What is
> > surely implied here is, (a) the rainbow
> > was a _novelty_ and therefore, (b) untill the Flood, the Antediluvians
> > had never known _rain_.
>
> Vernon,
>
> Should I understand you to imply that a sign of a covenant can only be
> something that never existed prior to the covenant? Are you sure that
> there was no circumcision before Abraham? Were there any sabbaths before
> the Exodus (Exodus 31:13)?
>
> > These far-reaching conclusions are supported by Gen.2:5,6 where we read,
> > "...the Lord God had not caused it
> > to rain upon the earth...but there went up a mist from the earth and
> > watered the whole face of the ground."
> > [Quoting Henry Morris (The Genesis Record, p.84): "The original
> > hydrologic system was thus drastically
> > different from that of the present day."]
>
> Genesis 2 is not about the Flood. Genesis 2 and 3 are about the Garden of
> Eden and the Fall of Man. In Genesis 2 we see that the Garden was planted
> in a region that had previously been desolate, devoid of vegetation (vs.
> 5). Two reasons are given for this, namely, absence of rain and absence of
> a man to cultivate the ground. This is how things work today. Go to an
> uninhabited region that lacks for rain, and it also lacks vegetation. So
> this verse gives us no reason to believe that there was a different system
> before the Flood. If plant life could flourish without rain, then this
> verse wouldn't make sense. The two problems are corrected in the next two
> verses (6 and 7). Then in verses 8 and 9 we see plant life flourishing.
>
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395

--------------9015E6C8D6895DE91013D7D5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Gordon,
Thanks
for writing.
You
said:
Should I understand you to imply that a sign of a covenant can only
be
 something that never existed prior to the covenant? Are you sure that
 there was no circumcision before Abraham? Were there any sabbaths before
 the Exodus (Exodus 31:13)?
In
my response to David I have already addressed the point you make about
circumcision. However, your query concerning Ex. 31:13 seems to be answered
by the earlier verses, Ex.20:8-11. I note that the earliest reference to
"sabbath" appears to be in Ex.16:23. So it does appear that this observance
was already in place before the Exodus.
You
further commented:
Genesis 2 is not about the Flood. Genesis 2 and 3 are about the Garden
of
 Eden and the Fall of Man. In Genesis 2 we see that the Garden was planted
 in a region that had previously been desolate, devoid of vegetation
(vs.
 5). Two reasons are given for this, namely, absence of rain and absence
of
 a man to cultivate the ground. This is how things work today. Go to
an
 uninhabited region that lacks for rain, and it also lacks vegetation.
So
 this verse gives us no reason to believe that there was a different
system
 before the Flood. If plant life could flourish without rain, then this
 verse wouldn't make sense. The two problems are corrected in the next
two
 verses (6 and 7). Then in verses 8 and 9 we see plant life flourishing.
But
what do you make of "But there went up a mist...and watered the whole face
of the ground." (Gen.2:6) ? Hardly desert conditions! And how do you explain
the existence of the river flowing out of Eden (Gen.2:10) - there being
no rain?
 Again,
it must have represented a substantial flow of water for we read that it
divides into "four heads".
Sincerely,
Vernon
gordon brown wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> The Scriptures first mention this "bow in the clouds" in Gen.9:13
where
 > - following the Flood - it is described
 > as "a token of the covenant between me (God) and the earth" - a
 > perpetual reminder of His promise never
 > again to destroy all flesh that is upon the earth by water. What
is
 > surely implied here is, (a) the rainbow
 > was a _novelty_ and therefore, (b) untill the Flood, the Antediluvians
 > had never known _rain_.
Vernon,
Should I understand you to imply that a sign of a covenant can only
be
 something that never existed prior to the covenant? Are you sure that
 there was no circumcision before Abraham? Were there any sabbaths before
 the Exodus (Exodus 31:13)?
> These far-reaching conclusions are supported by Gen.2:5,6 where we
read,
 > "...the Lord God had not caused it
 > to rain upon the earth...but there went up a mist from the earth
and
 > watered the whole face of the ground."
 > [Quoting Henry Morris (The Genesis Record, p.84): "The original
 > hydrologic system was thus drastically
 > different from that of the present day."]
Genesis 2 is not about the Flood. Genesis 2 and 3 are about the Garden
of
 Eden and the Fall of Man. In Genesis 2 we see that the Garden was planted
 in a region that had previously been desolate, devoid of vegetation
(vs.
 5). Two reasons are given for this, namely, absence of rain and absence
of
 a man to cultivate the ground. This is how things work today. Go to
an
 uninhabited region that lacks for rain, and it also lacks vegetation.
So
 this verse gives us no reason to believe that there was a different
system
 before the Flood. If plant life could flourish without rain, then this
 verse wouldn't make sense. The two problems are corrected in the next
two
 verses (6 and 7). Then in verses 8 and 9 we see plant life flourishing.
Gordon Brown
 Department of Mathematics
 University of Colorado
 Boulder, CO 80309-0395</blockquote>
</html>

--------------9015E6C8D6895DE91013D7D5--

Next message: Shuan Rose: "RE: sciDocument.rtf"
Previous message: PASAlist@aol.com: "Re: sciDocument.rtf"
Maybe in reply to: Vernon Jenkins: "Second-hand sign? (was Re: Noahic Covenant)"
Next in thread: gordon brown: "Re: Second-hand sign? (was Re: Noahic Covenant)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 06 2002 - 17:55:41 EDT