From: gordon brown (gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu)
Date: Sun Oct 12 2003 - 20:10:22 EDT
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, allenroy wrote:
> gordon brown wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, allenroy wrote:
> > > I suppose it depends upon which translation of the Bible you choose to read. For instance, the NIV reads:
> > > Gen 2:4b [NIV]
> > > When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-- [a reference to the Creation Week]
> > > (vs. 5
> > > 1. and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [a post-sin development]
> > > 2. and no plant of the field had yet sprung up [a post-sin development]
> > > 3. for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [a post-sin development]
> > > 4. and there was no man to work the ground, [a post-sin development]
> >
> > Biblical doctrine should be based on the original, not on some favorite
> > translation.
> >
> > I don't think you can harmonize Genesis 1 and 2 by introducing
> > discrepancies that aren't really there, but that is what I see you doing,
> > especially when you say that certain things are post-sin developments.
>
> Points 1 and 2:
>
> In Genesis 1:11 we find these hebrew words used.
> "Let the land produce vegetation: ( dese' ) (from NIV Exhaustive Concordance Hebrew Lexicon)
> "seed-bearing plants ( 'eseb zara' zera' )
> "and trees bearing fruit with seed ( 'es zara' peri zera')
>
> In Genesis 2:5
> and no shrub of the field ( siah ha-sadeh )
> had yet appeared on the earth
> and no plant of the field ( 'eseb ha-sadeh )
> had yet sprung up
>
> The vegetation of Gen 1:11 is not the same mentioned in Gen. 2:5. This is developed further below.
>
> 1. What does the Bible have to say of "Siah ha-sadeh?"
>
> "Siah ha-sadeh" is only found in Gen. 2:5. And, "Siah" is only used two other places in the Bible.
>
> Gen. 21: 14, 15
> "She went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of
> the bushes [siah]."
>
> Job 30:3-7
> Haggard from want and hunger, they roamed the parched land in desolate wastelands at night.
> In the brush [siah] they gathered salt herbs, and their food was the root of the broom tree.
> They were banished from their fellow men, shouted at as if they were thieves.
> They were forced to live in the dry stream beds, among the rocks and in holes in the ground.
> They brayed among the bushes [siah] and huddled in the undergrowth.
>
> From this we it appears that a "siah" is a desert plant. This may be confirmed by a parallel passage in Genesis 3.
>
> In Genesis 2:5
> and no shrub of the field ( siah ha-sadeh )
> and no plant of the field ( 'eseb ha-sadeh )
>
> Genesis 3:18
> It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
> and you will eat the plants of the field. ( 'eseb ha-sadeh )
>
> "Shrub of the field":"Thorns and thistles" as "plant of the field":"plants of the field" So, "shrub of the field" likely
> "thorns and thistles" that came into existence due to the curse after sin. So we have desert plants that have thorns and
> thistles.
>
> 2. Where as 'eseb is found through out the Bible, 'eseb ha-sadeh is only found in Gen. 2:5 and 3:18. In the context of
> 3:18-19, 'eseb ha-sadeh provides the food for which Adam must labor hard.
>
> Gen. 3:17 - 19
> "Cursed is the ground because of you;
> through painful toil you will eat of it
> all the days of your life. ...
> "It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
> and you will eat the plants of the field.
> "By the sweat of your brow
> you will eat your food
>
> So, together, "siah ha-sadeh" and "'eseb ha-sadeh" represent the weeds and food crops with which Adam is cursed because of sin.
>
> Point 3
>
> "for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth."
>
> The first mention of rain, outside of Genesis 2:5 is in Genesis 7:4 which is long after the entrance of sin to the world.
>
> Point 4
>
> "and there was no man to work the ground"
>
> The work of man in Gen 1:26 was to "rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the
> earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
> God gave man "every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will
> be yours for food." Gen 1:29 And God "put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it." Gen 2:15
>
> Man did not 'work the ground' until he was banished from Eden.
> Gen 3:23
> So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.
>
> Gen 3:17, 19 tells us "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
> ... By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food." It is only after sin than man had to work the ground in order to grow
> the plants needed to eat and to remove the weeds. Before sin, they ruled the world while eating nuts and fruit and taking care
> of the Garden. Only, after sin did painful toil of the ground begin.
>
> To conclude, all four points are post-sin developments.
>
> > Surely Genesis 1 is intended to say that God created everything in the
> > universe including the vegetation mentioned in Gen. 2:5. Its
> > previous absence from the area where the Garden of Eden was to be planted
> > was not attributed to its not having been created, but rather to the
> > absence of rain and absence of a man to till the soil. Something had to
> > change before the Garden could exist.
>
> The existence of the Garden had nothing to do with "siah ha-sadeh" and "'eseb ha-sadeh," rain, or painful toiling the ground.
> Tending a garden free of weeds and cultivation is easy duty.
>
> > I think the other problem is corrected in verse 6, and that is not a
> > post-sin development. Translations vary as to whether it refers to mist,
> > vapor, fountains, streams, et al. The word so translated occurs only here
> > and in Job 36:27, where it is associated with the formation of rain. Such
> > an association would also fit the context of Gen. 2.
>
> Or, the formation of dew on plants rather than falling as rain.
>
> > In order to harmonize Genesis 1 and 2, you also need to interpret the days
> > of Genesis 1 as being something other than 24-hour days.
>
> Nothing you've said so far would require anything more than single rotations of the planet per day.
>
> Allen
Allen,
I don't have time to respond to you point by point.
You seem not to take into account that the Garden of Eden was different
from what surrounded it. Adam and Eve were kicked out into a different
environment, one that presumably was different to begin with rather than
something newly created.
As for the meaning of day in Genesis 1, consider that Adam and Eve were
both created on the sixth day after the creation of all sorts of animals.
In Genesis 2, there are many events between the creation of Adam and the
creation of Eve including the planting of the Garden, the growth of the
trees, the naming of the animals, the anesthetizing of Adam for surgery,
and the surgery itself. When Eve is formed, Adam gives an exclamation that
means something like "At long last". This phrase is not very common in the
OT. Leah uses it after she has borne children to Jacob and thinks that he
will then love her. It suggests a long time. This doesn't make sense if it
was really only a couple of hours or so.
A further point: How can a three-day drought cause a barren landscape
(Gen. 2:5)?
In Gen. 2:17 Adam is told that if he eats of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil, he will die the same day. How could he possibly understand
what this meant if he had only experienced a tiny part of one day?
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0395
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 12 2003 - 20:10:50 EDT