Re: [asa] Nakedness and the Fall of Man

From: <>
Date: Tue Mar 03 2009 - 16:23:41 EST

 Actually, I agree you've got a good point on the location and I've been thinking about asking Mark about this.  I think Mark's perspective is that the text was written while Moses was bringing the Jews into Palestine, and it was written as a polemic against the Canaanite religion, and so it was conditioned by a knowledge of conditions in Palestine, not Mesopotamia.  I think Mark might be right about this, and yet the text is clearly set in Mesopotamia.




-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Fischer <>
To: ASA <>
Sent: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 3:53 pm
Subject: RE: [asa] Nakedness and the Fall of Man

Hi Phil and Gordon:


It isn’t one word.  It’s
the entire context.  He’s missed the location entirely. 
It’s not Israel, it’s Mesopotamia.  Who doesn’t know by now the location of the Garden
is near the Euphrates?  The Bible writer tells us that.  And the first city
there, as did subsequent cities, required irrigation to allow them to grow
crops, water their livestock, etc.  The entirety of these verses is to
tell us that the desert area, where it does not rain, needed some help to make
it fertile and a canal was used to facilitate putting this area into use.


Aside from the Euphrates, there were no other
"rivers" in Babylon (Psa.137:1), only canals. Ezekiel was among the captives by the

river Chebar” (Ezek. 1:3; 3:15, 23), corresponding to nar Kabari meaning the “great
canal,” the largest of three or four navigable canals that watered the
fields of ancient Nippur. Since we are afforded a clear example in Psalms and Ezekiel
where "rivers" are canals, a scriptural basis exists to use the same
definition in Genesis. Archibald Sayce alludes to this “garden of Edin, or Eden, which
Babylonian tradition placed in the immediate vicinity of Eridu.”  In other words, there was a geographical place
called Eden (Akkadian edin),
out of which a canal ran eastward to irrigate the garden, where God placed


I’m not blaming Mark for getting it
wrong, so has nearly everybody else.


Dick Fischer, GPA president

Genesis Proclaimed Association

"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science
and History"


-----Original Message-----

[] On Behalf

Sent: Monday, March
 02, 2009 11:54 PM


Subject: Re: [asa] Nakedness and
the Fall of Man


I'm sure Mark used the words "rain clouds" as a
paraphrase to convey the specific interpretation to a modern reader, but
obviously he agrees with these translations:

> mist - KJV 

> water - NLV 

> water - Good News 

> mist - ASV

since that is what a rain cloud actually is.  An
yhow, I don't put much
stock in arguments based on the definitions of single words, since it is the
popular usage of words that determines their meaning, and the only usage of
ancient Hebrew that we have available to us is in the Bible itself.  This
can lead to circular reasoning when we start talking about words that are not
commonly used or that may have had secondary usages that were not
predominant.  The strength of Mark's argument is that it is based on the
logic of the passage and not upon the meaning of a single word. 




From: gordon brown <Gordon.Brown@Colorado.EDU>


Sent: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:42 pm

Subject: Re: FW: [asa] Nakedness and the Fall of Man

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Dick
Fischer wrote: 


> “Verses 6-7 provide the twofold solution: “So [God] caused
rain clouds to 

> rise up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground

> He’s winging it. This doesn’t follow any other

> streams - NIV 

> mist - KJV 

> fountain - LXX 

> water - NLV 

> stream - RSV 

> water - Good News 

> mist - ASV 


Obviously all the translators can do is guess at the meaning of this word. One
other clue
would be its only other use in the Bible, which is in Job 36:27,
where it has something to do with producing rain. 


Gordon Brown (ASA member) 



To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 3 16:28:33 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 03 2009 - 16:28:33 EST