RE: The Curse - Upon All Creation or Just Mankind?

From: gordon brown <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>
Date: Tue Sep 28 2004 - 12:06:25 EDT

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Mike Tharp wrote:

> I don't believe that Genesis 2:5 is referring to desert areas in which
> plants could not survive. Verse 6 continues by saying, "But there went up a
> mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

We need to look at this passage in context in order to help us interpret
it. The account does not begin with a lush garden as in vv. 8 and 9, but
rather with the prior condition of the region, which was very different.
The Garden could not yet exist for two reasons: lack of rain and absence
of a man to work the garden. Verse 6 corrects the first problem. Verse 7
corrects the second problem. If there had been an alternative to rain to
allow the existence of the plants of the Garden, lack of rain could not
have been blamed for absence of this vegetation. There has been some
disagreement as to how to translate verse 6. There have been several
translations of the word that your translation calls mist. Fountain and
streams are some others that have occurred in some translations. This word
occurs in the OT only here and in Job 36:27, where it is associated with
producing rain. I have seen a suggestion that it might mean rain cloud.

> Your comment regarding "very good, not perfect" got me to thinking. (I
> know; scary concept!) Wouldn't God, in His perfection, have created
> perfection originally? In other words, wouldn't the original creation have
> been perfect until God cursed it because of man's disobedience?

The Book of Revelation describes an existence in which there is no night
and no Satan. The implication is that this is better than the original
creation.

Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0395
Received on Tue Sep 28 13:39:01 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 28 2004 - 13:39:03 EDT