Re: [asa] water above the solid dome in Genesis

From: <philtill@aol.com>
Date: Mon Apr 14 2008 - 19:19:36 EDT

Hi Dick!

you wrote:

What Genesis says specifically is that “Adam” was not there, the Hebrew ‘adam translated “man” throws us off here. 

Gen.2: 5 says there was a time prior to the existence of plants, and it provides an explanation:

1.  there was no rainfall to wet the land/earth
2.  there was nobody to cultivate (irrigate) the land/earth

If it only meant "Adam" as an individual was not present, then it would hardly explain the lack of irrigation since anybody else could have irrigated the land and grown plants.  It would be like saying, "there were no vehicles on the road because there was no Dick Fisher to drive them."  Even if somebody did write this, then surely the reader would understand that "Dick Fisher" represents all humans. 

Either way, "there was no adam (or Adam) to irrigate the earth" presents a picture that God hadn't made mankind, yet, since only as a universal statement can it mean that there was no potential for irrigation.

Phil

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 14 19:21:21 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 14 2008 - 19:21:21 EDT