but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground Gen 2:6 NRSV
Historically this was understood to mean as indicated in the KJV that there some heavy humidity which provided the water, because it wasn’t raining. The only other occurrence of the word translated in the KJV as “mist” is in Job 36:27 – where mist is clearly the meaning. However cuneiform evidence (both Akkadian and Sumerian) now indicates the word could be understood to mean either the annual floodwaters or an underground spring. as also stated in Brown Driver Briggs Continue reading
In Genesis 1 humanity is created to image God. Gen 2-3 tells a different story, presenting God and Adam in partnership to cultivate the earth. God is the provider/planter while Adam is to till the ground and enhance the cultivated land. Genesis 2:5 is an odd verse, its connection (or rather contrast) with Genesis 1 is often noted. However it sets up a remarkable partnership.
“PURITY OF DOCTRINE – This has always been at the centre of inter-ecclesial controversy. The main issue on this point is just how far we go in certain matters, some will always wish to go further than others. It is therefore essential that all concerned should keep closely to the actual agreement reached and not try to go further.”
Dangerfield, AC (1973) “The Unity Book – Conclusion” The Australian Christadelphian Shield Magazine, page 110 Vol 76 # 5
“they are very good Bible students as well, and they have debated every issue you like under the sun, and they are very clever Bible students… you’re dealing with very very clever people, and don’t ever under-rate them, because they’re no fools” Ron Cowie 2015 – Study 11 [49:40] Continue reading
“I am committed to peace, but when I speak, they want to make war” Psalm 120:7 This blog (and related facebook page) started in response to ongoing misrepresentation and hostility towards evolutionary creation. We remain committed to accommodation. Have a literal reading of Genesis 1-3. Claim dinosaurs are a hoax. Whatever. But understand that magazines, interecclesial statements and high profile speakers making statements about evolutionary creationists are continuing the profile of the issue. Plus it provokes responses. It doesn’t have to be this way. Evolutionary creationists and accommodationists called for a truce in 2014 to enable calm private discussions. This was rejected by those who wish to make war.
While the names change, a regular creationist argument is ‘Here is a famous person. They don’t believe in evolution. Therefore my rejection of evolution is rational and my interpretation of the Bible is the only right one.’ Sometimes the famous person is a list of scientists who disagree with evolution (Behe, Sanford and the ‘over 1,000 dissenting scientist list’ are the most famous examples). Whatever. The argument is very flawed for a number of reasons. Ironically it is an appeal to authority. Literalists like painting evolutionary creationists as blinded by authority/science. Yet they roll out these appeals to authority when it suits. Yet it gets worse. Continue reading