>"The Heb word for "subdue" in Gn 1:28 is very strong:
>
>"3533. kabash. kaw-bash'; a prim. root; to tread down; hence
>neg. to disregard; pos. to conquer, subjugate, violate:--bring
>into bondage, force, keep under, subduw, brong into subjection."
>(Strongs)
>
>The Earth was "good" but not perfect. Man's intervention was required
>to complete God's plan. Similarly, there is no reason to limit God's
>freedom to intervene directly in developing His biological creation.
>The desire to limit God's involvement in His living creation, to only
>His immanent working via providence, stems from human philosophy,
>not the Bible.
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
I totally agree that we cannot infer from the Genesis text that God created
the world perfect. It was very good, but that is not the same as perfect.
I wrote
>BH>Anyway, I would expect it [the Hebrew word translated "subdue" in Gen 1:28]
>to be strong. When God trains men, if
>>indeed that's what He's doing, He doesn't pull any punches. To be a
>>perfect training environment, earth would _have_ to be challenging.
>
This is Stephen again
>Fine, but this seems to be shifting the deinition of "perfect"? A
>perfect training environment could even be a fallen world!
Good point. In much of the creation/evolution debate we throw terms like
"good" and "perfect" around and fail to qualify them. I should not have
used the word "perfect" above. Maybe "suitable" or "appropriate" would
have been more appropriate.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)