From: gordon brown (gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu)
Date: Sun Oct 26 2003 - 20:49:46 EST
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> Hi Gordon,
>
> I read in the Hebrew of Gen.2:5 that the pristine earth experienced no rain;
> and in 2:6, a brief reference to the alternative hydrologic cycle that then
> obtained. Later, following the Mabbul, I find reference to the covenant of
> the rainbow - the reasonable inference being that this was a novelty; a
> complete surprise to Noah and his family. Yet you say, "It is very
> discouraging that certain pastors whose ministry has so much to commend it
> and who have influence over so many people prefer to get their teachings on
> certain issues from Henry Morris rather than by careful study of the
> Scripture."
Vernon,
One must read Scripture in context. Genesis 2 is part of the account of
the Fall. It gives some background. The Garden of Eden is essential to the
account. The region around Eden was barren before the Garden was planted.
Gen. 2:5 tells us this. It also tells us why. The hydrologic cycle was the
same then as it is now. Vegetation couldn't exist without either rain or
human help. If there had been another hydrologic cycle in place, the
author was mistaken in his assignment of the cause of this desolation. One
or the other or both of these two conditions had to change before the
Garden could exist. Certainly the second was changed in verse 7. How does
verse 6 fit into the context? Isn't this the correction of the first
problem? The word that has been variously translated as mist, vapor,
fountain, or streams occurs only here and in Job 36:27. In Job it is
associated with the formation of rain.
Why should the sign of the Noahic covenant be a novelty? Was circumcision
unknown before Abraham? Were bread and wine unknown before the Last
Supper?
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 26 2003 - 20:52:03 EST