Re: Second-hand sign? (was Re: Noahic Covenant)

From: gordon brown (
Date: Sun Jul 07 2002 - 21:31:37 EDT

  • Next message: Robert Schneider: "Re: The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind"

    On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Vernon Jenkins wrote:

    > But what do you make of "But there went up a mist...and watered the
    >whole face
    > of the ground." (Gen.2:6) ? Hardly desert conditions! And how do you explain
    > the existence of the river flowing out of Eden (Gen.2:10) - there being no
    > rain?
    > Again, it must have represented a substantial flow of water for we read that
    > it divides into "four heads".


    If one takes vs. 6 to be simultaneous with vs. 5, then one must still ask
    why those plants were absent. On the other hand, when you get to vs. 8,
    the situation in vs. 5 no longer exists. Could vs. 6 be one of the
    reasons? Judging from the various translations, it is not too clear what
    is meant by mist. It is also translated fountain (LXX) or streams. The
    only other occurrence of this word in the OT is in Job 36:27, where it
    appears to be associated with rain. This could prepare the ground for

    I see no reason for the word 'erets in vs. 5 to have to refer to any
    region much more extensive than that which is the location of the events
    relating to Adam and Eve in Gen. 2 and 3. (I hope we don't have to have
    another discussion of the meaning of that word.) The dry conditions did
    not need to be global. Many large rivers flow through deserts. They have
    their sources in regions that receive much precipitation.

    Gordon Brown
    Department of Mathematics
    University of Colorado
    Boulder, CO 80309-0395

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 07 2002 - 22:05:40 EDT