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

Hi Phil, you wrote:
 
[PTM] But the point is that they were already there. Unlike the igigi,
Yahweh didn't need to make new human beings in order to have labor for
irrigation during the neolithic. Humans already existed!
 
Agreed. I've said this all along.
 
 
The text says that no cultivated plants grew because there was no man to
do the irrigation. That's in the Bible!
 
Adam could not subsist without water and an irrigation system had to be
established to provide fresh water for Adam's clan, their livestock and
crops. Fish came from the Persian Gulf nearby. So, what's to not
understand? Remember, you are reading archaic Hebrew. It's a quaint
language. It doesn't have the exactitude of New Testament Greek.
Reading it all in English it's easy to forget that.
 
Then the next verse says that God made Adam, which clearly implies that
this is how God solved the problem. And the parallelism with rain makes
this an air-tight argument.
 
I don't see a problem. Nothing is absolutely airtight dealing with Old
Testament Hebrew. Thank God for the Greeks.
 
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org> www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Philtill@aol.com [mailto:Philtill@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:15 PM
To: dickfischer@verizon.net; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Firmament and the Water above was [asa] Re: Slug
 
Dick writes:
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.
[PTM] But the point is that they were already there. Unlike the igigi,
Yahweh didn't need to make new human beings in order to have labor for
irrigation during the neolithic. Humans already existed! The text says
that no cultivated plants grew because there was no man to do the
irrigation. That's in the Bible! Then the next verse says that God
made Adam, which clearly implies that this is how God solved the
problem. And the parallelism with rain makes this an air-tight
argument.
 
In your interpretation this passage is a big disconnect because God
skipped over the fact that there really were men to do the irrigation
and then he made Adam. It would not be an error to say there were no
men that God **liked** enough to give them the job of irrigation; but to
say there was nobody at all available, and then to make Adam (implying
this solved the problem), well -- that is an error (or else your
interpretation isn't correct).
 
 
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.
He certainly could, except that it would take more words to say it.
Consider how he said it here:
 
Wakol siyach hasaadeh Terem yihayeh baa'aarets wakaal-'eeseb hasaadeh
Terem yitsmaach kiy lo' him Tiyr Yahweh 'Elohiym 'al-haa'aarets
wa'aadaam 'ayin la'abod 'et-haa'adaamaah.
 
or,
 
"Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the
field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God [NO SEND] rain upon the earth;
and there was no man to cultivate the ground." (NASB but brackets mine)
 
Even after removing the verb "had not sent" the idea is clear.
 
The 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, no doubt there is a lot that is correct about your interpretation,
and I'm not questioning everything.
 
God bless!
Phil
 

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 23:00:43 2006