Evidence for God from Science

4, This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

5, Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

This is writen directly after the account of the Earth being created in seven days.

What then does 'This' refer to in verse 4. I can only assume it is referring to the seven days of creation.

If this is referring to the seven days of creation then how does verse 5 effect the exact meaning of the seven days of creation?

Genesis 1 through to Genesis 2:1-2 refer to creation.
Genesis 2:3-25 refer to Adam and eve as part of creation.
the universe was created in 7 days but untill day four there was not even a thought of our sort of time. creation clearly occured in gods time not ours.
Check out what Psalms 90:1-17 says.

First, to the idea that God used His version of time in the creation story and not ours-why would God talk about creation in terms we couldn't understand? God would have to be a complete idiot-something He is not. You do not tell a story using terms that only you know.

Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted

The fact that God isn't talking about shrubs and plants, but shrubs and plants of the field is interesting. It might be referring to crops, which would not contradict Genesis 1-after the Fall, then man had to cultivate crops, but before, the Garden was all they needed. Then, you have a much more learned guy's comments:

Matthew Henry Commentary Genesis Chapter 2

Further notice taken of the production of plants and herbs, because they were made and appointed to be food for man, v. 5, 6. Here observe, 1. The earth did not bring forth its fruits of itself, by any innate virtue of its own but purely by the almighty power of God, which formed every plant and every herb before it grew in the earth. Thus grace in the soul, that plant of renown, grows not of itself in nature's soil, but is the work of God's own hands. 2. Rain also is the gift of God; it came not till the Lord God caused it to rain. If rain be wanted, it is God that withholds it; if rain come plentifully in its season, it is God that sends it; if it come in a distinguishing way, it is God that causeth it to rain upon one city and not upon another, Amos 4:7. 3. Though God, ordinarily, works by means, yet he is not tied to them, but when he pleases he can do his own work without them. As the plants were produced before the sun was made, so they were before there was either rain to water the earth or man to till it. Therefore though we must not tempt God in the neglect of means, yet we must trust God in the want of means. 4. Some way or other God will take care to water the plants that are of his own planting. Though as yet there was no rain, God made a mist equivalent to a shower, and with it watered the whole face of the ground. Thus he chose to fulfil his purpose by the weakest means, that the excellency of the power might be of God. Divine grace descends like a mist, or silent dew, and waters the church without

Notice it is "no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field." This are vegetation consists of things we might eat through cultivation. And the context of the "earth" or "land" is within the Garden of Eden.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote:Notice it is "no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field." This are vegetation consists of things we might eat through cultivation. And the context of the "earth" or "land" is within the Garden of Eden.

Kurieuo.

I got it right! And under my own steam as well...

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Notice it is "no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field." This are vegetation consists of things we might eat through cultivation. And the context of the "earth" or "land" is within the Garden of Eden.

Kurieuo.

I got it right! And under my own steam as well...

I never thought I'd see a miracle unfold before my very eyes.

I have a theory I've recently developed that would allow God to use a different time schedule than Earth's rotation with regards to the sun, (day/night.) It makes much more sense in light of God declaring days before the sun or the earth existed. If I'm attaching the right name to the right description, General Theory of Relativity says that if you travel at near the speed of light you will experience less time gone by than if you weren't going that fast. For example, if you traveled into space near the speed of light away from the Earth for six months according to your wristwatch, traveled back for another six months, and your friends and family stayed on Earth, than you'd come back a year older, but the earth will have gone through years or decades or centuries instead of just one year. Take "Planet of the Apes" as a good example of that! If God did use the Big Bang in Creation, and in the Big Bang, as they say, space expanded very quickly, but the material in it didn't expand, or at least very much, then you could easily have two different time schedules to work with in defining the time Creation took. You could base time off of the quickly expanding space, or off of the nonexpanding Earth. The Earth may be fourteen billion years old according to Earth time, but seven thousand or so according to the expanding space around the Earth! God could therefore have a solid, pretty much set time schedule to judge the time of Creation with, without needing the earth to rotate! Checkmate! No, kidding. Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this; I'm pretty ignorant of it all.

Sorry AttentionKmartShoppers, the clearance on pantyhose is over! What is meant by, "Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted," (Gen. 2:5) was simply that Genesis 1:12 hadn't taken place yet before God sent rain, but was when, "a mist used to rise from the earth [to] water the whole surface of the ground," (Gen. 2:6.) It's simply putting what is about to be said in context of the time it already happened in. It's going back in time to when "no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted." And I don't believe that,

And the context of the "earth" or "land" is within the Garden of Eden.

God's talking about the entire earth and the creation of what He put in it. There's no distinction of farming here, just a reference to a time already described.

kateliz wrote:

K wrote:And the context of the "earth" or "land" is within the Garden of Eden.

God's talking about the entire earth and the creation of what He put in it. There's no distinction of farming here, just a reference to a time already described.

Sorry, I meant the context is within Eden, not specifically the garden. Yet, you would still obviously disagree with me.

<blockquote>Genesis 2:5-10 (NASB)—
5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.
7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
8The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.
9Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
10Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers.</blockquote>Firstly, the vegetation being spoken of here is "of the field." That is, vegetation humanity would look after and eat from as a food source. So Genesis is telling us there was none, as there is not yet a need for it until man was to come onto the stage.

Secondly, erets (translated "earth"), can also mean country, field, nations, or land... In english, earth can also mean land, but today many tend to associate "earth" with the planet Earth, which is in no way clear from the words used. Therefore I believe "land" is the best fit here for readers today.

Now reasons to believe this was the land within Eden becomes more obvious if we follow the verses rather than simply read one or two verses. There were no "plants of the field" for God had not sent rain (or watered) the "land." What land? The land ("ground") that becomes watered in verse 6, and from which God forms man. Then verse 8 clues us in for the first time the land being referred to is Eden, for it assumes the reader is already familiar Eden is being spoken of. From this I think I am on very safe exegetical grounds in concluding the land of Eden is being spoken of in Genesis 2:5-6 whenever "earth" is referred to.

Kurieuo.

I get you now. I've always read that verse as a time-reference, so it took untill I read it over again later with a fresh look to understand that you're right, and I was wrong. It's interesting to see it this way. It does say that there wasn't rain before the Fall! Huh. So there were plants and trees, but no shrubs or plants of the field. "Plant" defined by Strong's means, "shrubbery:- bush, plant, shrub." "Herb," which is KJV for "shrub," seems to mean more of grasses or herbs than the plants of "plant." Funny how that works, huh? "Field" means a flat stretch of land. I can't imagine God would make plants and grasses and herbs only on parts of the earth that aren't flat, so it definitely must mean vegetation to be farmed. God hadn't made yet the vegetation that was to be farmed, because apparently it wasn't needed untill man left the garden. Would only the farmed vegetation require rain? Or does rain go hand-in-hand with man tending the plants, and so rain was created for farming purposes? I still don't think that the mist was dew, though. It "used to rise from the earth," and dew doesn't adequately "water the whole surface of the ground." At least so much so that it can support plants and grasses without the help of rain. In fact, dew doesn't rise, does it? So yes, it's on farming, but no, it's still not dew. Right?

kateliz wrote:I still don't think that the mist was dew, though. It "used to rise from the earth," and dew doesn't adequately "water the whole surface of the ground." At least so much so that it can support plants and grasses without the help of rain. In fact, dew doesn't rise, does it? So yes, it's on farming, but no, it's still not dew. Right?

What is the water Cycle Kate?

kateliz wrote:
I still don't think that the mist was dew, though. It "used to rise from the earth," and dew doesn't adequately "water the whole surface of the ground." At least so much so that it can support plants and grasses without the help of rain. In fact, dew doesn't rise, does it? So yes, it's on farming, but no, it's still not dew. Right?

It's possible it's a form of water that we don't see, due to the changed environment after the flood. It couldn't have been rain, because God gave the rainbow as a sign of no more floods, and rainbows appear when it rains....or, who knows, God could have changed the physics so that water would not have split up light waves before the Flood...you can't take the physical rules behind the universe for granted-God made them all, they are the laws of nature, made by a supernatural God...

Mastermind wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Notice it is "no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field." This are vegetation consists of things we might eat through cultivation. And the context of the "earth" or "land" is within the Garden of Eden.

Kurieuo.

I got it right! And under my own steam as well...

I never thought I'd see a miracle unfold before my very eyes.

You, sir, are a twerp, making fun of me from the safety of your home-or, possibly, 6X8 cell...

[quote="AttentionKMartShoppers]

You, sir, are a twerp, making fun of me from the safety of your home-or, possibly, 6X8 cell...[/quote]

Yikes---Old School

My uncle left me a katana when he moved away, so I don't think the walls between us matter much to me.

ah you've got a samurai sword....I wonder how much people laugh at our petty fights....probably not as much as I do....