Re: Firmament and the Water above was [asa] Re: Slug

Hi, Dick.
 
Dick wrote:
The phrase you are discussing is Gen. 2: 5-6. The man God formed comes in
Gen. 2:7.
[PTM] Yes, and it says God formed that man precisely because "there was no
man to cultivate the ground" (Gen 2:5b, NASB). Not because God wanted to create
a godly line. Not because He wanted to reveal Himself to a special line of
men. He created this man for the stated reason that "there was no man to
cultivate the ground." This can't be a reference to the neolithic, because there
actually were men living at that time who had arms and legs and brains and they
certainly could cultivate the ground! Some of them were already living in
and all around mesopotamia. They were hunters and small-scale farmers living in
little villages. This Bible verse must reeeeeally be stretched beyond its
reasonable sense if your interpretation is to be true.

Dick wrote:
You have just put over 4 billion years between these verses because the earth
had to have rain to create soil.
[PTM] Yes, the Bible isn't a science textbook and it wasn't trying to create
a timeline. It stated two things that are factually true and relevant to
plant-growth, although to a scientific modern they seem out of place beside each
other. If we try to read the Bible as a science textbook then we get into
error. If you realize it was addressing things that concerned ancient people
without modern scientific timelines then we can begin to understand what the
author was trying to say. He didn't care if there were 4 billion years between the
origin of rain and the origin of man. Both of these were relevant to plant
growth and so he put them together in the same sentence. But there is no
scientific error in doing this.

Dick wrote:
Pre-Cambrian sedimentary rock was formed by watershed. Further, where did
the four rivers in Genesis get their water?
[PTM] The four rivers come in the account **after** God begins the rain. No
problem here.

Dick wrote:
That doesn’t tell you something? On Day Three of creation we have
vegetation, even fruit trees long before the garden was planted or Adam created. How
did they get watered?
[PTM] The two creation accounts are not sequential. The origin of rain is
discussed in the first creation account on Day 2 and plants on Day 3. No
problem there! (Psalm 104 elaborates on this.) The second creation account
addresses rain and plants, too, putting plants after the origin of rain. No problem
there, either!

Dick wrote:
Where have you seen “fog” sufficient to water fruit trees and animals that
were created on Day Three and Five?
[PTM] We see it all the time. The "mist" (water vapor) rises up from the
earth and waters the whole ground in the form of rain. Futato does a good job
arguing this, so I won't try to repeat his entire paper here.

Dick wrote:
Eden was an oases watered by irrigation from the Euphrates. It did not rain
upon the land because Southern Mesopotamia is very dry just as it is today.
[PTM] But the text tells us more than this. It isn't just telling us about
So.Mesop., but rather about the universal origin of man and plants. (I really
don't have time for the argument this is likely to spawn! Can we stick to
discussing the rain and plants?) It says that the wild plants could not grow
because there was a lack of water ("it had not rained"), and perhaps we could
apply that to So.Mesop. if you ignore the native plants in that region. But in
the next breath the author says that "a mist used to rise up from the earth and
water the whole face of the ground." Either he just contradicted himself
(because there actually was water that could make the plants grow) or else this
verse is not usually translated very well. Think about that! How could the
absence of rain be the determining factor so that plants could not grow if the
next verse tells us that there was an abundant source of moisture watering the
whole surface of the earth? It makes no sense! It would raise questions in
the mind of his audience and they would say, "but wait, didn't you just say
plants couldn't grow?" It would be an absurd way for the author to try to
communicate, if that is the correct translation. But Futato argues that the verse
is better translated, "a mist **began** to rise up...," meaning that God
**initiated** the water cycle so that plants could grow. Of course this happened 4
billion years ago. That timing is irrelevant to the ancient author and
audience. So it isn't just telling us that So.Mesop. was dry. It is telling us
that God is responsible for the origin of rain, which is partially redundant to
Gen.1 but having a different overall focus.

Dick wrote:
When Adam was cast out he was forced to toil among thorns and thistles which
were out there all along from when God told the land to bring forth vegetation.
[PTM] Only if you assume the second creation account is sequential to the
first, which is almost never assumed by scholars. Since there is a colophon
between them, there is no reason to assume that they are sequential.
 
Dick wrote:
Genesis is not mysterious. Put in context it all makes good sense. It’s
only when you try to impose on the text demands that it must apply to the whole
earth, or that Adam is the first of the Homo sapiens, or that the flood was
worldwide are you forced into these bad interpretations.
[PTM] It's not mysterious to me! I can see it being a discussion of
mankind's origin and then a localized flood (with an indeterminate amount of time
between them) and it all seems very natural.

Dick wrote:
 If I thought the Bible writers were half as dumb as some of you guys try to
make them out to be I would have looked for some other religion long ago.
[PTM] Gimme a break, Dick. I don't think you even understand my position
very well, judging by the above discussion!

Best regards,
Phil Metzger

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jun 18 23:35:28 2006