Genesis 2:6

Status
Not open for further replies.

cih1355

Puritan Board Junior
Genesis 2:6 says that there was a mist that would come up from the earth to water the whole face of the ground. What was this mist? Would it be underground water that makes its way to the surface of the earth?
 
There are some good theories around this. Gen 2:6 is pre-flood, and in the creation account it talks about waters uunder the earth. It was possibly these waters that came up from the ground splitting the continents. But for your question, it may relate to the waters under the earth coming up and watering the plants, or it could have been natural condensation (ie. dew) as a result of the natural water cycle. For more info try http://www.answersingenesis.org/

[Edited on 6-30-2004 by dkicklig]
 
I've heard in places like the tropics or like in the Louisiana Bayou mists come up in the mornings and actually water the plants. Kinda like super-dew. So maybe it was something like that.
 
A Different Take

Mist/dew might be the right translation. It's not the only option. I am in closer agreement with more recent cognate-language scholarship that would translate (v. 6) [u:1dd80b6cb3]'eed[/u:1dd80b6cb3] (Heb.) as something more substantial like "stream." See for example Harris, Archer, and Waltke, [i:1dd80b6cb3]Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament,[/i:1dd80b6cb3] p. 17.

I believe the point to be made in the text (to include the previous 2 verses) is that this is prelude to the creation of man. From the macro-creation view of Chapter 1-2:3, we zoom in on day 6, Man and the Garden. The plants mentioned in verse 5 most likely refer to [i:1dd80b6cb3]cultivated[/i:1dd80b6cb3] plants (see [i:1dd80b6cb3]Did God Create in Six Days?[/i:1dd80b6cb3] p. 209), not to plants in general (created on day 3). Point being is that this is still the beginning of creation. You wouldn't expect to find fields with crops planted because two things are missing--the cycle of growth marked by annual rain (according to which expectation crops are planted) has not yet begun, AND there is no MAN to till the ground.

BUT, though there has been no rain to wet and prepare the ground in this place (our focal point) where God is ready to plant his Garden, it is [b:1dd80b6cb3][i:1dd80b6cb3]well-watered[/i:1dd80b6cb3][/b:1dd80b6cb3] in any case because either the land is flooded to prepare for it, or copious springs or streams water it. We are told later (v. 10) that so much water is present in the Garden that four mighty rivers have their head in it.

Building on chapter 1's statements, Man's creation is now recapitulated (v. 7), followed immediately by the miraculous [i:1dd80b6cb3]planting[/i:1dd80b6cb3] and [i:1dd80b6cb3]growing[/i:1dd80b6cb3] of the Garden (vv. 8-9), a pre-cultivated, pre-groomed place where Man will be tutored and prepared for his dominion mandate of the untamed wilderness beyond. Man was not involved in the Garden's origin. It did not grow up in "ordinary" length of days/years. It grew up in orderly fashion in a fraction of the time it would have taken ordinarily, even within a day.

I do not think that verse 6 teaches that there was never rain prior to the flood. The statement is contextual and meant to be interpreted in relation to Man and the Garden.
 
[quote:ee0c73d09a][i:ee0c73d09a]Originally posted by Contra_Mundum[/i:ee0c73d09a]

I do not think that verse 6 teaches that there was never rain prior to the flood. [/quote:ee0c73d09a]

According to Genesis 2, the whole face of the earth was watered with the mist. Then after God created Adam He went on to create the Garden of Eden which was specifically watered by a river.

Notice the order of events here:

[b:ee0c73d09a]Genesis 2[/b:ee0c73d09a]
1 Thus the heavens and the [b:ee0c73d09a]earth[/b:ee0c73d09a], and all the host of them, were finished. 2And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. 4This is the history of the heavens and the [b:ee0c73d09a]earth[/b:ee0c73d09a] when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the [b:ee0c73d09a]earth[/b:ee0c73d09a] and the heavens, 5before any plant of the field was in the [b:ee0c73d09a]earth[/b:ee0c73d09a] and before any herb of the field had grown.[b:ee0c73d09a] For the LORD God had not caused it to rain [i:ee0c73d09a]on the earth[/i:ee0c73d09a][/b:ee0c73d09a], and there was no man to till the ground; 6but a mist went up from the [b:ee0c73d09a]earth[/b:ee0c73d09a] and [b:ee0c73d09a]watered the [i:ee0c73d09a]whole face of the ground[/i:ee0c73d09a][/b:ee0c73d09a]. 7And 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 being.

8 The LORD God [b:ee0c73d09a]planted a garden[/b:ee0c73d09a] eastward in Eden, and [b:ee0c73d09a]there He put the man whom He [i:ee0c73d09a]had[/i:ee0c73d09a] formed[/b:ee0c73d09a]. 9And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 10Now [b:ee0c73d09a]a river[/b:ee0c73d09a] went out of Eden to [b:ee0c73d09a]water the garden[/b:ee0c73d09a], and from there it parted and became four riverheads.

So the earth was created
and there was no rain on the whole face of the ground
then God made Adam
then God planted a garden in Eden which was watered by a river
then God put Adam in the garden to tend and keep it

Phillip
 
On these points and order (however abbreviated), you and I a

[quote:f72eecbd98][i:f72eecbd98]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:f72eecbd98]
So the earth was created
and there was no rain on the whole face of the ground
then God made Adam
then God planted a garden in Eden which was watered by a river
then God put Adam in the garden to tend and keep it

Phillip [/quote:f72eecbd98] We may not agree at all points translationally, but I don't observe that we disagree substantivally. My comment about rain and the Flood is dissent from a deduction some make that verse 6 exists in part to teach that the planet experienced a radically different hydro-cycle during the entire ante-deluvian age (Gen. chs. 1-6). It would be quite wrong for someone to be insistently dogmatic in favor of it teaching such a point (raising a subsidiary issue to primary), given the slim exegetical support.
Respectfully,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top