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

Hi Phil, you said:
 
>> 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 is consistent with the Sumerian idea that man was created to toil
for the gods. We Christians have the zany idea that God wished to
reveal himself and to be known and to bring mankind into accountability
and to make available the promise of eternal life. I don't see how you
infer purpose in these verses.
 
>>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.<<
 
In the north in Anatolia and Iran there is sufficient rainfall such that
irrigation was unnecessary. The Hassuna populations cultivated wild
grain but as to whether they practiced farming is questionable due to
their small settlements and ability to live on what the land itself
could provide. When the Ubaidans moved gradually into the area of
Southern Mesopotamia they found rich soil but insufficient rainfall.
Irrigation solved that and they could build small cities.
 
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.<<
 
"We" also get into error when we attempt to project a local condition
onto the world in general.
 
>>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!
 
Please understand there is no verb tense in Hebrew. The Bible author
couldn't have said "it had not rained" even if he wanted to. The
translators offered a hermeneutical helping hand when one wasn't
necessary. Reading the entire text entirely within the context of
southern Mesopotamia alleviates those nonsensical issues you raised. It
did not rain upon the land (Heb. eretz) and man (or Adam) could not
cultivate the soil until a "fountain" or "stream" was established by way
of an irrigation canal so they could grow crops. Now look at the
ancient city of Eridu and all those things were true in every detail,
and low and behold, it's located near the junction of the Tigris and
Euphrates just like the Bible says. Imagine that!
 
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org> www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 19 11:52:37 2006