GENESIS..CHAPTER 1-11

[DHK]

THE GAP THEORY
Many well-meaning Christians believe that God initially created the world in verse one of Genesis one, and that creation may have taken billions of years ago. Then all the geological ages can fit between verses 1 and 2. The second verse is believed to describe the condition of the earth after a great cataclysm terminated the geological ages. This cataclysm, which left the earth in darkness and covered with water, is explained as a divine judgement because of the sin of Satan in rebelling against God.
The main purpose of the gap theory has been to try to harmonize the Biblical chronology with the accepted system of geological ages which was becoming prominent many years ago.
Historically, as well as logically, acceptance of the geological age system of the geological age system is inevitably followed, sooner or later, by acceptance of the evolutionary system.
Any system which accommodates the geological age system must be scrutinized very critically on this account, to ascertain whether or not it is based on sound exegesis. Not only is its motivation suspect, but also its scientific premise is fallacious. The system of geological ages is based completely on the assumption of uniformitarianism (the belief that physical processes have always functioned in the past essentially as they do at present), which of course precludes any worldwide cataclysm such as is required by the gap theory. As a result, no geologist accepts the gap theory, or any other theory requiring a global cataclysm, if he also accepts the geological ages. The gap theory is thus self-defeating scientifically.
The geological age system depends on the supposed evolutionary succession of the fossils preserved in the sedimentary rocks of the earth's crust. The cataclysm of the gap theory would be of such dimensions that it be nothing less than a global explosion, blowing billions of tons of debris into the sky to blot out the sun, and all the rest of the solid earth down into the ocean. Such an explosion would leave no evidence of the "geological ages" which the gap theory is attempting to accommodate.
The gap theory is not only impossible scientifically but also destructive theologically. By accepting the geological age system, the Bible scholar is thereby accepting the fossil record which identifies these "ages." Fossils, however, are dead things! They speak clearly of a world in which suffering, disease, and death were universal realities. If that world existed prior to Adam, then suffering and death existed for a billion years before the sin of Satan and the subsequent sin of Adam.
The Bible also says, however, that death came into the world only when Adam brought sin into the world (Rom. 5:12; 1Cor.15:21). This verse directly contradicts the assumption in the gap theory that death prevailed for ages before Adam.
(Henry Morris, "The Genesis Record")

 

[Smellin Coffee]

DHK: 2Pet.3 refers to the flood of Gen.6-9.

SC: Really? Everywhere else Peter refers to Noah's flood, he uses Noah's name. Why did he omit Noah from this passage? Maybe because Noah wasn't born yet?

I disagree with you because of 3 main points about this passage. First, the scoffers in vs. 3-5 are "ignorant" about the flood. "Ignorant" is the Greek word "lanthano" which is translated elsewhere as "hid" or "hidden" (Mk 7:24, Lk 8:47, Acts 26:26) and "unwares" (Heb. 13:2). Now which flood are these future scoffers going to be ignorant of? Could they be unaware of Noah's flood? They never heard of Noah or the ark? I don't think so. Probaly Lucifer's (pre-Adamic) flood.

As a second point, vs. 6 mentions the "world (kosmos-social order) that then was..." Did the social order set in the Garden of Eden come to an end? If so, then so did his promise to Adam to send His Son. No, the social system was not destroyed, but kept alive through Noah and his family.

Thirdly, I would like to add about verse 7. "...the heavens and the earth which are now..." Now the question. Were the heavens destroyed in Noah's flood? We all admit that the earth was covered with water, but what about the heavens? Nothing drastically changed in them. They remained a constant. Ths sun still existed, the clouds still formed, the stars still shone, the moon still provided gravitational pull, etc. The heavens may or may not have changed to some degree, but were not destroyed and then reestablished.

Just a couple of points to think about.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
Smellin Coffee why don't you drop by the Baptist welcome forum and introduce yourself to our moderators. I know they would like to get to know you. You stated on your profile you were nondenominational, to post on the Baptist Only Forum you must be Baptist and claim a church affiliation. Those are the rules of the board and you can post anywhere else you like but those restricted areas and need to read our rules to see where you can post... Brother Glen

Thanks, Bro. Glen. I plan on doing so after some time. The original post by Alex was in the creation/evolution section which I believe was originally within my limited area. However, the moderator (or whoever) moved it to this side of the forum. I do not wish to violate forum rules and I apologize for doing so. If you wouldn't mind, I would like to remain on this subject matter. True, I call myself nondenominational but only because I attend a nondenom church. I grew up IFB at First Baptist Church Hammond and graduated from HAC. I attended IFB churches for 29 years. The non-denom church I attend is Baptistic in belief, so I won't bring any weird things to the board. Thanks for your patience with me!

 

[DHK]

"Why did he omit Noah from this passage? Maybe because Noah wasn't born yet?"
---Your reasoning here is quite fallacious. Consider:
Mat.19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
---Why did Jesus omit the names of Adam and Eve? Were the Israelites not intellectually smart enough to know what he was talking about? The name of Noah did not have to be mentioned.

""Ignorant" is the Greek word "lanthano" which is translated elsewhere as "hid" or "hidden" (Mk 7:24, Lk 8:47, Acts 26:26) and "unwares" (Heb. 13:2). Now which flood are these future scoffers going to be ignorant of? Could they be unaware of Noah's flood? They never heard of Noah or the ark? I don't think so. Probaly Lucifer's (pre-Adamic) flood."

lanqanw lanthano lan-than'-o (Strong's)
a prolonged form of a primary verb, which is used only as an alternate in certain tenses; to lie hid
(literally or figuratively); often used adverbially, unwittingly:--be hid, be ignorant of, unawares.
---The same word is used in verse 5 and 8. Don't be ignorant, unaware. Be knowledgeable about these things, unlike the scoffers mentioned in verse 3, who were willingly ignorant, denied themselves the knowledge of the Word of God, and thus scoffed at the truths of God's Word.

"As a second point, vs. 6 mentions the "world (kosmos-social order) that then was..." Did the social order set in the Garden of Eden come to an end? If so, then so did his promise to Adam to send His Son. No, the social system was not destroyed, but kept alive through Noah and his family."

kosmoV kosmos kos'-mos (Strong's)
probably from the base of 2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively (morally)):--adorning, world.
---The word "cosmos" does not seem to be restricted to the definition you give it. It means "world."

"Were the heavens destroyed in Noah's flood? We all admit that the earth was covered with water, but what about the heavens? Nothing drastically changed in them."
---Read the Genesis account of the Flood. The windows of heavens opened up, and it rained upon the earth for 40 days and 40 nights (Gen.7:11,12). That water that initially came down from the "heavens" was the canopy of water that surrounded the earth providing the entire earth with a tropical climate. After the flood there were dramatic climactic changes that hit the earth. The "heavens" (atmosphere) were completely changed. The word heaven can have three different meanings in Scripture: atmosphere, universe, or God's abode.
DHK

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Originally posted by DHK:
"Why did he omit Noah from this passage? Maybe because Noah wasn't born yet?"

DHK---Your reasoning here is quite fallacious. Consider:
Mat.19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
---Why did Jesus omit the names of Adam and Eve? Were the Israelites not intellectually smart enough to know what he was talking about? The name of Noah did not have to be mentioned.

SC: I am going by the track record in Peter's writings. Whenever he mentioned Noah's flood in both I & II Peter, he labeled it as such. He did not put the "Noah" label upon this writing. I beleive the reason he did not remain consistent in his writings is that he was identifying a different situation than Noah's flood. Personal opinion, not doctrinal fact. I am using the penman's consistent patterns in writings in my deduction. Matthew did not consistently record things the same way Peter didand did not convey the same pattern in writing.

DHK---""Ignorant" is the Greek word "lanthano" which is translated elsewhere as "hid" or "hidden" (Mk 7:24, Lk 8:47, Acts 26:26) and "unwares" (Heb. 13:2). Now which flood are these future scoffers going to be ignorant of? Could they be unaware of Noah's flood? They never heard of Noah or the ark? I don't think so. Probaly Lucifer's (pre-Adamic) flood."

lanqanw lanthano lan-than'-o (Strong's)
a prolonged form of a primary verb, which is used only as an alternate in certain tenses; to lie hid
(literally or figuratively); often used adverbially, unwittingly:--be hid, be ignorant of, unawares.
---The same word is used in verse 5 and 8. Don't be ignorant, unaware. Be knowledgeable about these things, unlike the scoffers mentioned in verse 3, who were willingly ignorant, denied themselves the knowledge of the Word of God, and thus scoffed at the truths of God's Word.

SC: My point exactly. The scoffers refused to look at God's word as truth. They refused to acknowledge the idea of God's past judgement when He destroyed the entire earth and EVERY living thing. In vs. 8, Peter tells the people not to be ignorant about God and His eternal existence and His control over the earth. My point still stands.

DHK--"As a second point, vs. 6 mentions the "world (kosmos-social order) that then was..." Did the social order set in the Garden of Eden come to an end? If so, then so did his promise to Adam to send His Son. No, the social system was not destroyed, but kept alive through Noah and his family."

kosmoV kosmos kos'-mos (Strong's)
probably from the base of 2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively (morally)):--adorning, world.
---The word "cosmos" does not seem to be restricted to the definition you give it. It means "world."

SC: Kosmos is mentioned about 187 times in the New Testament. Every time but one, it is translated "world." There are a few of those times where kosmos refers to "world" in a planetary sense (John 21:25, Acts 17:24, Rom. 1:20), but the majority of the time it refers to the social order. For example. John 3:16, "For God so loved the world (the mountains, rivers, mother nature) that He gave His Son..." I think we both agree that that is definitely the wrong interpretation. It is stating that God so loved the human race, or Adam's social order. How about Rom. 5:12? "Wherefore as by one man, sin entered into the world (the surface of the earth, mountains, trees, etc.)" We know this is not the case. Lucifer roamed on this planet and he was filled with pride as well as other sins. Hence, sin entered the human race through Adam, not entered the planet through him. More examples? Satan offered Jesus "all the kingdoms of this world (kosmos)" (Matt. 4:8). Jesus told His followers that "Ye are the light of the world (kosmos)" (Matt. 5:14). John the Baptist referred to Christ as the "Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world (kosmos)" (John 1:29). So when Peter speaks of "the world (kosmos) that then was," he is contrasting a pre-existing social order with the one in which we are a part. He further reinforces the idea of a destroyed world and re-made by stating "the heavens and earth which are now."

DHK--"Were the heavens destroyed in Noah's flood? We all admit that the earth was covered with water, but what about the heavens? Nothing drastically changed in them."
---Read the Genesis account of the Flood. The windows of heavens opened up, and it rained upon the earth for 40 days and 40 nights (Gen.7:11,12). That water that initially came down from the "heavens" was the canopy of water that surrounded the earth providing the entire earth with a tropical climate. After the flood there were dramatic climactic changes that hit the earth. The "heavens" (atmosphere) were completely changed. The word heaven can have three different meanings in Scripture: atmosphere, universe, or God's abode.
DHK

SC: Who says the canopy still existed in Noah's day? Who says the entire earth was a tropical paradise? When did God create clouds? If He did so in Gen. 1, then He created them WITHOUT purpose (if your idea of a continuing canopy is true). Cloud were created to hold moisture and thus water the earth (Job 38:4-9, 25-30, Ps. 104:2-3, 13-14). However, I lean toward another view, that the clouds were created BEFORE the recreation in Gen. 1. When you are referring to Gen. 2:6, the rising of vapors and fog from the earth and condensing to dew (Ps. 135:7, Jer. 10:12-13) would just be a natural result of the DIVIDING of the waters in Gen. 1:6-7. Why should we believe it to mean that God watered the earth by a canopy for over 1600 years between the time of Adam and the time of Noah when there is no biblical evidence? Clouds have existed since creation to give rain on the earth. There was no rain in the six days before Adam was created and before vegetation was in the ground. If clouds existed with no ability to rain, the very purpose of clouds would be nullified.

Now looking at Gen. 7:11-12. The windows of heaven opened up and it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. How is this any different (other than the number of rainy days) than any summer rainstorm? True, in Noah's flood, the deep was broken up as well (probably underwater volcanos-just my opinion), but as far as the heavenly element, how does it differ than that of today?

Thank you brother for your posts. It really makes me search the Scriptures a little deeper on the matter.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Folks, sorry about my last post. I haven't figured out how to properly use the quotations in my posts, so much of my response was put in the quote font. Sorry for my ignorance and I hope all celebrate a wonderful Resurrection Day!

SC

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Smellin Coffee:

Why should we believe it to mean that God watered the earth by a canopy for over 1600 years between the time of Adam and the time of Noah when there is no biblical evidence? Clouds have existed since creation to give rain on the earth. There was no rain in the six days before Adam was created and before vegetation was in the ground. If clouds existed with no ability to rain, the very purpose of clouds would be nullified.

Gen.2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to RAIN upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
---There was no rain because God's word says there was no rain, and that is good enough for me.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Smellin Coffee:

Why should we believe it to mean that God watered the earth by a canopy for over 1600 years between the time of Adam and the time of Noah when there is no biblical evidence? Clouds have existed since creation to give rain on the earth. There was no rain in the six days before Adam was created and before vegetation was in the ground. If clouds existed with no ability to rain, the very purpose of clouds would be nullified.

Gen.2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to RAIN upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
---There was no rain because God's word says there was no rain, and that is good enough for me.</font>

Using that logic, would that same verse also indicate that man had not been created until Noah? The fact is that verse 5 states the idea of "no rain" happened BEFORE man was created. There is no mention of it anywhere in Scripture that I am aware of that this continued until the time of Noah. Why should we assume that there was no rain until Noah's day when the reason for God's holding back the rain was because there was no man created as of yet to till the ground?

 

[DHK]

Gen.2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

God had finished his work of creation, and rested on the seventh day. Genesis 2 gives a small summary of that creation before going into more detail of the garden of Eden and the creation of Eve. Up to the end of the first five, everything had been created and prepared for man. The only thing left was for God to create Adam and Eve and place them in the Garden of Eden. There is no reason to believe that any great climactic change took place between the sixth day of creation and the Flood. What the Lord is telling us in verses 5 and 6 is exactly how the world was watered before the Flood. We have no reason not to believe it. After the Flood there were tremendous climactic changes that took place, but not before. What evidence can you give that it would be otherwise?
DHK

 

[Smellin Coffee]

DHK---God had finished his work of creation, and rested on the seventh day. Genesis 2 gives a small summary of that creation before going into more detail of the garden of Eden and the creation of Eve. Up to the end of the first five, everything had been created and prepared for man. The only thing left was for God to create Adam and Eve and place them in the Garden of Eden. There is no reason to believe that any great climactic change took place between the sixth day of creation and the Flood. What the Lord is telling us in verses 5 and 6 is exactly how the world was watered before the Flood. We have no reason not to believe it. After the Flood there were tremendous climactic changes that took place, but not before. What evidence can you give that it would be otherwise? Nowhere does Genesis say that the earth was watered this way (canopy, vapors and mists)years before the flood. The entire reason for these is that man was not created as of yet to till the ground, so God used a mist to rise from the earth to grow His vegetation. These mists and vapors are mentioned BEFORE the creation of Adam and Gen. 2:5 specifically tells us that the earth was watered this way because "there was no man to till the ground." When God made (asah) the firmament, He specifically appointed tasks to the firmament (which includes clouds). That is what "asah" means. The purpose of the clouds is to carry water for the purpose of rain. So either God was NOT finished with His creation after day 6, or His created clouds were NOT doing their appointed tasks that God set for them to do in Gen. 1. I agree with you that there is NO evidence of any great climatic change between the Genesis re-creation and Noah's flood. Apparently, God DID finish His creative work (which is the position I believe). Therefore, He would not have had to create clouds and/or give them purpose AT THE TIME of Noah's flood. The Bible itself and the character of God is sufficient evidence that there was rain on the earth before Noah's flood. If there had been no rain, either God failed to add clouds to His creation or the clouds failed God's command to carry water. I choose to believe in the character of our Creator!

 

[DHK]

Gen.1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

There is no mention of clouds here. There are waters below the firmament (space or expanse), and waters above the firmament in God's original creation. Gen.1:1 is simply a summary statement of what is to follow. Here He describes the waters that are on the earth separated from the waters that are above the earth. You are presuming that they are simply clouds. If they are, why didn't He describe them as such? They were "waters," a type of canopy that filtered out harmful radiation, allowing man to live around 900 years of age, and giving the whole earth an entire greenhouse effect or tropical climate. And so the earth was watered by mists and not by rain. It all fits together. Nothing changed until the time of Noah.
One of the reasons that the people thought Noah was out of his mind in building an ark, is that they had never seen rain before, much less a flood. If there had been rain, no doubt there would have been floods, and his warning to them would not have been the sign of judgement that God had intended it to be. The severity of it would have been diminished in their eyes. Up to this point they didn't even know what rain was, much less a flood!
DHK

[ April 01, 2002, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[Smellin Coffee]

DHK-There is no mention of clouds here. There are waters below the firmament (space or expanse), and waters above the firmament in God's original creation. Gen.1:1 is simply a summary statement of what is to follow. Here He describes the waters that are on the earth separated from the waters that are above the earth. You are presuming that they are simply clouds. If they are, why didn't He describe them as such?

SC: You are correct. There is no mention of clouds in this passage. I never stated that when the firmament was divided, all the water became clouds. I believe that was partially true, however. The Bible is not clear on the issue so I won't argue that point.

DHK- They were "waters," a type of canopy that filtered out harmful radiation, allowing man to live around 900 years of age, and giving the whole earth an entire greenhouse effect or tropical climate.

SC: Is there any Biblical evidence of this?

DHK-And so the earth was watered by mists and not by rain. It all fits together. Nothing changed until the time of Noah.

SC: Like I stated, Genesis 2 tells us that the mists watered the earth DURING the time of creation BEFORE man was created. There is absolutely no Biblical evidence this continued through the days of Noah.

DHK-One of the reasons that the people thought Noah was out of his mind in building an ark, is that they had never seen rain before, much less a flood. If there had been rain, no doubt there would have been floods, and his warning to them would not have been the sign of judgement that God had intended it to be. The severity of it would have been diminished in their eyes. Up to this point they didn't even know what rain was, much less a flood!

SC: Again, there is, to my limited knowledge, absolutely NO Biblical proof that they were unaware of a flood or unaware of rain. If you can find me a passage or verse stating such, I will be glad to read it and analyze it.

Genesis 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created (bara) and made (asah).

For one to believe that rain and/or clouds were created at a later time as opposed to before the seventh day would to believe in opposition of the Scriptures. God did not create (bara) rain or clouds during Noah's day. God did not even begin to appoint (asah) these natural elements to the tasks for which they were created after the sixth day. All of God's creation was completed before the seventh day. Unless one can Biblically prove otherwise that God's creation extended beyond the sixth day, then I must close my point. It seems to me that God's Word is clear on this. But then again, I have been wrong about things before and I am sure I will be again!

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Smellin Coffee:

Like I stated, Genesis 2 tells us that the mists watered the earth DURING the time of creation BEFORE man was created. There is absolutely no Biblical evidence this continued through the days of Noah.

So the "mists" watered the earth for just a couple of days, or a few hours, or??

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Smellin Coffee:

Like I stated, Genesis 2 tells us that the mists watered the earth DURING the time of creation BEFORE man was created. There is absolutely no Biblical evidence this continued through the days of Noah.

So the "mists" watered the earth for just a couple of days, or a few hours, or??</font>

SC: As far as I can tell, just during the few days of re-creation. I can see no Biblical evidence of it being longer than that.

In Gen. 1:2 we see that the earth had become ("was"-hayah-became) an utter desolation-a wasteland (tohuw va bohuw). In Psalm 104:7, the psalmist tells us "At Thy (God's) rebuke, they (the waters) fled; at the voice of thunder they hasted away." In Noah's flood, the waters slowly abated from the earth, so this passage of Scripture must be referring to the pre-Adamic or Lucifer's flood. To explain this verse (Ps. 104:7), the waters that hadn't already evaporated and formed clouds on Day 2, were now commanded to return to the places God originally created for them-river beds, basins, etc.-where they had been before being commanded to help cause the flood found in Gen. 1:2. God then set boundaries around these waters to keep them from covering the earth (Ps. 104:5-9).

Now, the purpose of vegetation is to sustain life. Apparently, all seeds died when the pre-Adamic flood occured and remained dead for an indefinite period of time. In Gen. 2:4-5, we see "that the Lord God MADE (asah-creation out of existing material and appointing it to task) the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it grew." More evidence that all vegetation was re-created on the third day. The mists were an apparent use by God to "haste away" the waters as found in Ps.104:7. I also believe that these mists helped speed up the growth process for the vegetation in preparation for man to inhabit the earth.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Smellin Coffee:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

So the "mists" watered the earth for just a couple of days, or a few hours, or??[/qb]</font>[/QUOTE]SC: As far as I can tell, just during the few days of re-creation. I can see no Biblical evidence of it being longer than that.
[/QB][/QUOTE]

It seems to me almost absurd that the Lord would devote two verses to explain how the earth was watered and maintained if it was only going to be that way for just a few hours. There must be a little common sense here. All of creation was complete. He tells us this is the way the earth is to be watered and maintained, and then puts Adam and Even in the garden the very same day, and suddenly that process of mists watering the earth stops. Why even mention it!!
DHK

 

[Smellin Coffee]

DHK - It seems to me almost absurd that the Lord would devote two verses to explain how the earth was watered and maintained if it was only going to be that way for just a few hours. There must be a little common sense here. All of creation was complete. He tells us this is the way the earth is to be watered and maintained, and then puts Adam and Even in the garden the very same day, and suddenly that process of mists watering the earth stops. Why even mention it!!

SC: I am not God so I cannot tell you why He put some things into the Bible and left many other things out that He could have told us. However, in order to maintain Biblical consistency, one has to admit that all of creation was done before the seventh day. Upon that premise, rain could not have been created AFTER the seventh day or the Bible is not true. The firmaments were divided (not created) on the second day. Man was created on the sixth. In my opinion (which is not based on Scripture), God made a fast-paced greenhouse effect to prepare the earth for man to occupy it and care for it. So in other words, instead of God creating a lawn, He created the seeding process and with the ecological system He set up, the grass was able to grow in full bloom in the five days in preparation of man's arrival. There is no Biblical basis for this opinion, just supposition on my part. However, I cannot find one place in Scripture that says that it never rained before Noah's flood. By this ommission coupled with the fact that God's creation was complete, and add to that Gen. 2:5 states that the purpose of the mists were because man was not around to till the ground, I can come to no other conclusion than after man was created, the geological cycle was intact and in operation, initially commenced on the second day.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Smellin Coffee:

Gen. 2:5 states that the purpose of the mists were because man was not around to till the ground,

Which Bible do you read?
Gen.2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
---"AND" there was not a man to till the ground. It is a statement of fact, not a conclusion resultion from a premise. There is no "because" in this verse. There is no cause and effect.
1. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth,
2. And ther was not a man to till the ground.
These are both factual statements; one does not arise from the other.

Mists are not even mentioned until verse six.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
---Again this has no relation to the man whatsoever. It is a statement of fact. You are stating your pre-conceived ideas without Biblical support, and reading into the Scripture that which is not there.
DHK

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Originally posted by Smellin Coffee:

Gen. 2:5 states that the purpose of the mists were because man was not around to till the ground,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHK-Which Bible do you read?
Gen.2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
---"AND" there was not a man to till the ground. It is a statement of fact, not a conclusion resultion from a premise. There is no "because" in this verse. There is no cause and effect.
1. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth,
2. And ther was not a man to till the ground.
These are both factual statements; one does not arise from the other.

Mists are not even mentioned until verse six.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
---Again this has no relation to the man whatsoever. It is a statement of fact. You are stating your pre-conceived ideas without Biblical support, and reading into the Scripture that which is not there.

SC: Thank you for your defense of your belief. However, I can make no other conclusion than that which I have already made. In actuality, my pre-conceived idea was the same view that you hold. Then I decided to look at the Scriptures for myself instead of relying on what I was being taught.

Look at Genesis 1:26. Man's job was to have dominion over the fish, fowl, land animals, the EARTH itself and insects. In verse 28, man was commanded to replenish the earth AND SUBDUE IT. Continuing God speaking to Adam, look at verse 28. We see that the vegetation was created for Adam's sake. Isaiah 45:18 tells us the earth was created to be inhabited. So we know that God had wanted to create man and gave him an earth in which to habitate. It was Adam's responsibility to care for the earth. When he wasn't there, God cared for the earth to prepare for man's habitation. Hence, the mists (which was probably nothing more than evaporation) irrigated the vegetation until Adam was created to care for the earth.

Now let us look at your position, my friend. You state that God's creation was finished after the sixth day EXCEPT for the formation of clouds, rain, the evaporation process caused by the sun. So the earth was fully created and fully functional except for those things. Do you have one verse of Scripture to back that up? Please, just show me one place in the Bible where it never rained until Noah's flood. My position is not soley based upon Gen. 2:5. It is also based upon verses 1-3. "Thus the HEAVENS and the earth WERE FINISHED , and all the hosts of them. And on the seventh day, GOD ENDED His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from ALL His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it: because that in it, He rested from ALL His work which God CREATED (Bara-complete creation out of nothing) and MADE (asah-appointment of existing materials to individual tasks)." By the seventh day, all the earth had been created and assigned to its specific task which God intended. To believe otherwise would be a contradiction of Scripture. So my friend, I believe what the Bible says, not what I have been told it says. I could only wish that you, my friend, could prove your case from a Scriptural viewpoint instead of trying to use human logic.

God bless you in your search!

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Smellin Coffee:

Now let us look at your position, my friend. You state that God's creation was finished after the sixth day EXCEPT for the formation of clouds, rain, the evaporation process caused by the sun. So the earth was fully created and fully functional except for those things. Do you have one verse of Scripture to back that up?

I asked my fourteen year old son, "Did God create rain?" His answer was, "No, God created the elements needed and the process that was needed to result in rain." Rain is the result of the natural processes God has set in motion. Children can figure that out. Rain is not something that God has "created." The evaporation process was a process that God set in motion when needed, as the climate changed. It is not something that he created; it something that he set in motion. The elements needed for that process were already created. As for the formation of the clouds, that also has nothing to do with creation, for God created the water that makes up clouds and mists during the six days of Creation. During the climactic changes of the Flood, when the waters from above opened up causing the Flood, afterward clouds were formed from natural processes.
If clouds and rain had been natural processes ever since the time of Adam then so would rainbows. Rainbows are a natural result of the sun shining through the rain. I have seen many of them in my life time. Adam lived 930 years and never saw one. Methuselah lived 969 years and never saw one. God set a bow, a rainbow in the sky as a sign, that he would never destroy the earth again. It would not be much of a sign if it was already a common occurrence. It was something that they had never seen before. It was unusual to them. It was unique and unusual to them because previous to that time the earth had been surrounded by a canopy of water. (The waters above and the waters beneath). And also because the earth was watered by mists since there was no rain.
DHK

 

[Smellin Coffee]

DHK-I asked my fourteen year old son, "Did God create rain?" His answer was, "No, God created the elements needed and the process that was needed to result in rain." Rain is the result of the natural processes God has set in motion. Children can figure that out. Rain is not something that God has "created." The evaporation process was a process that God set in motion when needed, as the climate changed. It is not something that he created; it something that he set in motion. The elements needed for that process were already created. As for the formation of the clouds, that also has nothing to do with creation, for God created the water that makes up clouds and mists during the six days of Creation. During the climactic changes of the Flood, when the waters from above opened up causing the Flood, afterward clouds were formed from natural processes.
If clouds and rain had been natural processes ever since the time of Adam then so would rainbows. Rainbows are a natural result of the sun shining through the rain. I have seen many of them in my life time. Adam lived 930 years and never saw one. Methuselah lived 969 years and never saw one. God set a bow, a rainbow in the sky as a sign, that he would never destroy the earth again. It would not be much of a sign if it was already a common occurrence. It was something that they had never seen before. It was unusual to them. It was unique and unusual to them because previous to that time the earth had been surrounded by a canopy of water. (The waters above and the waters beneath). And also because the earth was watered by mists since there was no rain.

SC: [sigh] I agree that rain is a part of the process that God set in motion. This is not debate. However, referring back to Genesis 2, God ended His work which He created (bara) AND made (asah). Asah is defined by taking something that already exists and appointing it to a particular task. God completed that by the end of the sixth day.

It is funny that I asked you to find for me a verse of scripture and you quote your 14 year old son. Did he give you a Biblical reference? The reason he stated the fact that rain had not been created is because he has been taught that there was no rain until Noah's flood. I do not blame him for this. He seems like a bright kid. However, he is parroting what he has been taught.

Now concerning the rainbow, again you are stating a "fact" that has no Biblical merit. The first recorded appearance of the rainbow is in Genesis 9. Yet, there is no place in the passage that states this was the first rainbow. Even in my Rice Reference Bible, JRR says, "This is the first reference to the rainbow. It may have been seen before, but it had not been given its symbolic meaning." I agree with that statement. The significance of the rainbow was not that it was the first one, because I'm sure that wasn't the case. The significance was that whenever Noah and those of us who follow him saw a rainbow, we would be reminded that God would never again destroy the earth by water.

Was the geological cycle set in motion at creation as stated in Genesis 2? If not, then why would God tell us He had completed the creation process which includes giving the elements their responsibilities? I would also like to add that the creation of water is not mentioned after Genesis 1:1. Beginning with Genesis 1:2, we see things that had already been created, water being one of them. Look at the Genesis account. Why was there water in Genesis 1:2? The waters were DIVIDED and not created in day 2. There is no mention of their creation (bara).