The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum First Rain

Once again, this view is totally new to me and I found it fascinating that it was held. The individual who wrote the short article that Tom referenced used almost the same arguments that I have used which got a chuckle from me. I had NEVER read that article until a few minutes ago.

Methinks one of the more salient passages that one needs to consider is here:

It would me extremely difficult grammatically to not see that no plant existed/was created nor any herb of the field sprung up BECAUSE God had not caused it to rain... even though there was a mist that watered the whole face of the ground. The strong implication is that vegetation needs rain to live. I cannot escape what appears to me to be obvious, that the mist was insufficient to sustain vegetation. And the fact that without man being created, the inevitable necessity of food being grown and harvested could not happen. It wasn't until after the the creation of the clouds (water in the firmament) and the division of the waters on the earth into seas, oceans, etc., Gen 1:7-10 that plants were created. Why? Because the 'natural' order of things, e.g., the water cycle was established in order to sustain all plant life and even humans who did not live near a body of water. The 'mist' we read about in Gen. 2 is immovably wedged between the creation of the land and the division of water, which I suggest replaced the mist for the next phase of the creation; plant life, vegetation and man.

Thanks for the irenic exchange. I do not think the subject is one of the "essentials" and thus not something anyone should part over nor judge the spirituality of one who holds an opposing view.