Here's the likely explanation, between Genesis and Ancient Greek Philosophy, which explains why the author believes "herbs" came before sunlight. LIGHT A MATCH... OR FLICK A BIC LIGHTER and when you see the flame, you will know that the light exists independent from the sun.
"...However, in spite of their syncretism (the amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought/the merging of different inflectional varieties of a word during the development of a language) they were also often viewed as two distinct gods/titan (Helios was a Titan, whereas Apollo was an Olympian)."
1) APOLLO (the god of "Light")
Genesis 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
Genesis 1:4 "God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness."
Genesis 1:5 "God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day."
It remains impossible for me to believe or accept ancient agricultural societies in the near east, who worshiped agriculture would not know that "light" is a requirement for crops to grow. Unless... the purpose of the sun was believed to be something other than the "sole source" of light for photosynthesis. This light was the same "light" that would have had to had been believed to give life to fruit bearing trees, grass, and herbs). Therefore, the author may claim, "fruit trees" came before the sun.
* Apollo is the god of light, music, poetry, healing and divination (prophecy).
* Helios is the god who drives the "fiery chariot" across the sky.
2) HELIOS (the god who drove the 'Sun' chariot)
Genesis 1:14 "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Genesis 1:15 "And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so."
Genesis 1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."
Genesis 1:17 "And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,"
Genesis 1:18 "And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good."
TWO SOURCES OF LIGHT
"...Helios was described as a handsome titan crowned with the shining aureole of the Sun, who drove the chariot of the sun across the sky each day to earth-circling Oceanus and through the world-ocean returned to the East at night. In the Homeric hymn to Helios, Helios is said to drive a golden chariot drawn by steeds (HH 31.14–15); and Pindar speaks of Helios's "fire-darting steeds" (Olympian Ode 7.71). Still later, the horses were given fiery names: Pyrois, Aeos, Aethon, and Phlegon.
As time passed, Helios was increasingly identified with the god of light, Apollo. However, in spite of their syncretism, they were also often viewed as two distinct gods/titan (Helios was a Titan, whereas Apollo was an Olympian). The equivalent of Helios in Roman mythology was Sol, specifically Sol Invictus."
Helios, Wikipedia
To the ancient mind light was somehow independent of the sun.
TWO separate sources of Light.
"...Apollo was never actually described by the Greek poets driving the chariot of the sun, although it was common practice among Latin poets. Therefore, Helios is still known as the 'sun god' – the one who drives the sun chariot across the sky each day."
-Wikipedia
Apollo's light is separate from the Fiery "Chariot" which Helios drove across the sky.
Apollo gave the light when the "sun chariot" emerged on the horizon, just as Apollo was the god behind light of the candle in the dark of night.
The ancient Hellenistic Jews, therefore did not err in saying "Light" came before the herbs, fruit-bearing trees and grass.
Source: Ancient Greece and Rome: Myths and Beliefs
By Tony Allan, Sara Maitland
The Rosen Publishing Group, 2011 - Juvenile Nonfiction
"The synthesis of two myths lead to some confusion. [...] This stands as an example of how the Greeks, in particular, could happily accept contradictions within their mythology."
And that's precisely why "God creates Light" (Genesis 1:3-5), then God commands the earth to bring forth herbs, grasses and fruit bearing trees, (Genesis 1:11-13) THEN... creates the sun, Genesis 1:14-18.
I KNEW the Hellenistic Jewish author of Genesis wasn't so agriculturally illiterate, to not know crops can not grow without light!
It's all Greek to you,
"...Newton chose the number seven as this reflected the Ancient Greek belief that seven is a mystical number, due to the fact that there are seven 'wandering stars' and seven days in a week, a quarter of the time between two full Moons."
Newton's theory of Light
The False Doctrines of Inerrancy and Infallibility (Part One)
CRIME AND MOTIVE. Extensive evidence for unsound doctrine espoused among Church leaders, weighed against a strange and "mysterious verse" which scholars suspect to be forgery... but, attributed to Paul, who is innocent of the charge!
The False Doctrines of Inerrancy and Infallibility (Part Two)
The evidence continues. Moses did not write the opening of Genesis.
"Herbs" and *other vegetation before Sunlight
(* "Plants of the field" and "Plants of the field before it," are not described in Genesis 1:11-12)
"...Having seen the illustrious history of herbs, and knowing their potential for healing to humans and generally improving the quality of life, it is a wonder that they are not promoted more into modern life. This is of course, in part due to the rise of international pharmaceutical companies. The gradual proliferation of readily available medication over the counter has led to a decline in the knowledge of the plants that surround us."
Herb-Lore (Herbalism), ancient-wisdom.com
Consider the verses,
Genesis 1:11 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth”; and it was so.
Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Herbs... include mushrooms.. and other forms of fungi. The ancient Greeks observed these organisms, that seemingly appeared "overnight". Does it help account for the strange order given in Genesis, with "herbs" appearing before sunlight?
To understand the full meaning of the author of Genesis, one must travel back to the time of the Hellenistic Jews, who were part of an Agricultural Society and under the heavy influence of Ancient Greek philosophy.
 |
Before? |
 |
What were the Greeks thinking?
The Non-Photosynthetic Properties of Mushrooms
Agaricus in the world of mushrooms
"...Today, there are more than 100,000 types of mushrooms in the world. They differ in appearance, habitat and physiological functions.
To this most interesting group belong the little known microscopic mushrooms and the common forest mushrooms – which are the target of a «quiet hunt». They are all alike in their structural features, which are characteristic to almost all types. Mushrooms don’t contain chlorophyll, hence they are unable synthesize organic substances from the inorganic matter on their own; therefore they need a ready organic substance for their nutrition (it’s called heterotrophic). The basis of a mushroom’s vegetative body is mycelium or spawn which is composed of branching fibers – the hyphae. The mycelium is on the surface of the substrate, where the mushroom develops, or inside it. The mycelium absorbs nutrients from the substrate in an osmotic way. When the conditions are favorable, fruit bodies form on the mycelium, and the mushrooms propagate with spores.
People’s aspiration for learning about these wonderful organisms has led to the formation of a whole new science – mycology. --> Mycology is a science that studies mushrooms, it got its name from a Greek word «mycos» - that’s how ancient Greeks called agaricus. Agaricus and some other mushrooms were mentioned in the transactions of Theophrastus who lived in the 3rd century B.C. <--
According to the systematization of all known mushrooms – agaricus belongs to Basidiomycetes species, the higher fungi with multi-cellular mycelium. The spores of these mushrooms form on particular offshoots called basidium."
/EXCERPT
Fungal Biotechnology in Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Applications
edited by Dilip K. Arora
Vegetable Production
Ib Libner Nonnecke
Springer Science & Business Media, 1989
Some mushrooms (fungi) can have underground systems which span up to 2 miles. ("More precisely, a specific honey fungus measuring 2.4 miles (3.8 km) across in the Blue Mountains in Oregon is thought to be the largest living organism on Earth.")
Theophrastus (the father of botany) knew mushrooms, grew underground (in darkness), and the only reference he makes to the sun, is "...mushrooms grow by the sea which are turned into stone by the action of the sun."
"And Theophrastus, in the History of Plants, writes: "Such plants grow in some cases underground, in other cases on the ground; among the latter are what some call peziae ('puff-balls'), which occur among mushrooms. For they also, as it happens, have no roots; but the mushroom has a lengthy stalk like an adherescent growth, and roots extend from it." He also says that in the region of the sea round the Pillars of Heracles, whenever it rains copiously, mushrooms grow by the sea which are turned into stone by the action of the sun. And Phaenias, also, in Book I of his Plants, says: "Other plants, again, produce not even so much as a blossom, nor is there any trace of a club-like bud containing a seed, or any seed process whatever; such are the mushroom, truffle, fern and helix-ivy." The same author speaks of "the fern, which some call blachnum." Theophrastus in the Plants, again: "Smooth-skinned flora, like the truffle, mushroom, puff-ball, and crane-truffle."
Truffles. — These also grow spontaneously in the ground, chiefly in sandy places. And Theophrastus says of them: "The truffle (which some call crane-truffle) and any other underground plant." And again: "This is also the mode of growth and the physical habit of these underground plants, such as the truffle, and the fungus which grows in Cyrene and is called misy. This is regarded as very good, and it has the odour of meat, like the oiton which grows in Thrace.
Concerning these a singular fact is mentioned; it is said, namely, that they grow when the autumn rains come with severe thunderstorms; the more thundering there is, the more they grow, the presumption being that this is the more important cause. They are not perennial, but come up every year, and the proper time to use them is in the spring, when they are at their height. Nevertheless some suppose that they have a seed origin. For on the coast of Mitylene, they say, truffles do not grow until a heavy rain comes and the seed is washed down from Tiarae. Now this is a place in which they grow plentifully. And they are more apt to occur on the seashore and wherever the ground is sandy, as it is in Tiarae. They also grow in the Abarnis district near Lampsacus, in Alopeconnesus, and in Elis."
The Deipnosophistae of Athenaeus, published in Vol. I of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1927, uchicago.edu
Many years ago I prayed for God to reveal "the truth" (not the establishment's pseudo-version of truth) but God's truth about Genesis, how things came to be, --the truth of Truths. I really was still quite fresh out of fundamentalism, and through a series of coincidences and circumstances... I became acquainted with Agnostic Darwinists, avidly reading biology, geology, astronomy, theology and mythology, history-ology articles... and slowly... gaining knowledge...
During that time, I know I was getting close to Agnosticism, if not an Agnostic. However the good Lord pulled me back to faith.
So, today I spend my days wrestling with all the ideas/concepts I learned back then.
I could not ever bring myself to dismiss the book of Genesis as "mere mythology". There were some things in Genesis such as the sun not being described as a "god" ... but rather as a physical, material "source of light" (nothing divine about it). My reasoning facilities told me, "This is not Egyptian mythology," -- but if not Babylonian or Egyptian, then from where did "Moses" get his theory about the origins of the Cosmos and Earth?
The more I read to find that answer (for the good part of 16 years now) the more I began realizing, it aligns with Greece, in both philosophy and timeline.
I TRULY believe that if you want God to reveal any_thing to you, it is as easy as Jesus taught, "Ask and ye shall receive, Knock and the door will be opened to you." Jesus did not teach to trust or have faith in establishment religion to teach, the same evil clowns who murdered Jesus because he was speaking truth, and opposed their false teachings. Jesus was preaching about going through him, (his teachings of faith and reconciliation), to acquire audience with GOD, as personal teacher.
Many many times, I have read scriptures, and prayed to God for answers, to explain verses in scripture. I do not trust establishment theologians (unless their generalized teachings correlate with numerous other sources PLUS the written scripture). Truth becomes self-evident and speaks for itself... you know in your own good brain, whether its the truth or not when you see it. It is "you and God," just as its "me and God"... and I can't depend on "Tom, Sally and Sue" to guarantee my spiritual guidance (Salvation). There is only myself and God, and I am nothing without a little help from that supreme being who is the inspiration and source of the spirit of truth and guides the seeker of truth, in all truth.
So, I recall one instance, where I was trying to reconcile Science(Evolution) with Genesis... "trees before sunlight"... as the basis for the Church rejecting Evolution as legitimate, and saying that it contradicts scripture, specifically "fruit trees before sunlight" .
I prayed long and hard about that question, how could such a riddle be solved?! FRUIT TREES, before sunlight.
I BELIEVED in God (faith) that an answer could be provided to solve that puzzle, but by God, alone, because most certainly, "trees" in the modern sense depend on Photosynthesis.
Well, yes, -- it can be --technically and quite emphatically too.
I will attach the evidence.
Sure, God would have known about "fruit bearing" Prototaxites. God can likewise bring a person to such knowledge, for sake of (if nothing else) proving God has the power to do so. Further, every reason to demonstrate why theologians are not fit to speak on matters of Science, any more than they're fit to teach the scriptures. Only God has the power, the knowledge, the wisdom to teach every person the scripture, if they seek truth that is.
In the end, (long story that perhaps goes too in-depth for this post), I'm no longer so sure Genesis was ever meant for "literal interpretation," with all the false doctrine of "inerrancy" and "infallibility"?
God exists without doubt (if people have seen personal prayer answered and personal evidence, its about faith).
So we will find personal evidence for the Supreme Being, BEYOND that book, the Bible. Jesus taught it was about exercising faith, not evidence. God is "the Living God"... Bible or not, God exists and God existed long before man came into existence. God did not come into being with the advent of the Bible.
[The Bible is a collection of books, written by men, about God. That's a fact, not a detraction from God's inspiration in many of the scriptures which speak of God (I quote from two commentaries below about how Paul's words were mistranslated ... God is omnipotent, omniscient... and if we turn to him, God is there and present and personal to TEACH every person. It is promised, "They shall be taught of/by God". Well then? Yet, men wrote the Bible... and men are not wholly good nor are they perfect. Only God is good and perfect. God did not write the Bible.]
"Every Scripture, (inspired of God), is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction, which is in righteousness." Every writing, inspired of God, is profitable reading.
*But the book of Enoch proves not "all scripture" is inspired... and that includes those more than amply demonstrated verses which were subjected to inserted forgery/fraud and even confessed as such by the church*
PAUL WAS NOT DECEIVED.
"Therefore, just as πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα (Matthew 2:3) means "all Jerusalem," not "every Jerusalem," so here πᾶσα γραφή means "all Scripture." What follows of the various uses of Holy Scripture is not true of "every Scripture."
1) "What Did Moses Write?"
2) Commentary on II Timothy 3:16
And what do you know, I just realized, finally thought to ask, "Maybe the Greeks KNEW that Mushrooms were non-photosynthetic!" Hence the reference of such "herbs" before sunlight. Perhaps they knew, about some forms of non-photosynthetic plants.
Here's a reference to just that:
"...I realized that I had not really touched on the Greek perspective on mushrooms, even though their relationship with mushrooms was certainly an influence in Hellenic thinking and cultural expression. There are significant differences between the Hellenes (Greeks) and the Romans, but in many ways the Romans looked to the Greeks for ideas about science, philosophy, military strategy, and of course religion (most of the primary Roman gods are basically ripped-off versions of older Greek deities). The Romans even thought that their society was descended from Aeneas, a Trojan hero who fought in that war after which certain computer viruses are named."
...The curious and clever Greeks of the Classical Period were among the first westerners to write about mushrooms and explore their origins and potential. Given the lively cultural exchange between the Greeks and their eastern neighbors, it’s possible that mycophilia traveled across the Aegean from Asia Minor and Egypt, and the idea of mushroom spores traveling to earth on lightning bolts hurled by powerful gods was a common theme espoused by both Greeks and Egyptians.
Natural science was an area of inquiry that fascinated Greek philosopher-scholars, and mushrooms presented a baffling problem because they did not grow like other plants. Aristotle found mushrooms puzzling but he was determined to figure out what sort of creature they were because, in his words, “In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous.”
Mushrooms In History – the Greeks and Egyptians
The keyword here is "Agrocybe aegerita".
Mediterranean Vegetables: A Cook's ABC of Vegetables and Their Preparation in Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, the Middle East, and North Africa with More Than 200 Authentic Recipes for the Home Cook
Clifford A. Wright
Harvard Common Press, 2001 - Cooking - 388 pages
Growing Conditions for Mushrooms
"...Fungi grow very differently than plants. Plants have roots that grow in soil and require photosynthesis. Fungi have fungal mycelium (comparable to plant roots) that grow in substrate. Unlike plants, fungi do not need sunlight to grow and do not require photosynthesis because they get all the nutrients they need from decomposing organic material. For many culinary mushrooms, the substrate may be hardwood or softwood stumps, logs, wood chips, mulch, or straw. Many fungi are referred to as “wood-rotting” fungi, meaning the mycelium is responsible for the decomposition of organic materials like roots, stumps, and surface debris."
"Pioppino: Agrocybe aegerita
Pioppino mushrooms are popular with home gardeners because they are relatively easy to grow. In the wild, this table-top shaped mushroom is often found growing in clumps at the base of hardwood stumps such as cottonwood, willow, and poplar. Cultivation outdoors is most successful in inoculated stumps or woodchip mulch from one of these tree species. Ideal temperatures are between 50-70 degrees F. Yields can potentially reach 1 pound of mushrooms per 5 pounds of substrate. Pioppino mushrooms often produce two flushes of mushrooms with two weeks of dormancy between flushes. In the kitchen, pioppino mushrooms are appreciated for their pork-like flavor. Popular in Italian cooking, pioppinos complement sauces, soups, and stews."
Source: Unraveling the Mystery of Mushrooms
The Greeks "cultivated" this specific species of mushroom, it was non-photosynthetic as it is described as deriving nutrients from organic material, "...often found growing in clumps at the base of hardwood stumps such as cottonwood, willow, and poplar. Cultivation outdoors is most successful in inoculated stumps or woodchip mulch from one of these tree species."
Hence, the Greeks would have observed sunlight was not necessary for the mushroom to grow.
M.S. wrote: sorry a bit off the subject but your mushroom line suddenly made me think of Paul Stamets and his belief/research on mushrooms being the miracle cure all for health and the environment!
Thanks. I came across an article with that man.
How Mushrooms Can Save the World
"Crusading mycologist Paul Stamets says fungi can clean up everything from oil spills to nuclear meltdowns."
"...To ward off pathogens, fungi have developed an arsenal of antibacterial and antiviral compounds — a resource that traditional peoples harnessed in the form of mushroom teas and foodstuffs. Alexander Fleming exploited them in more modern fashion when he isolated penicillin from the Penicillium rubens mold in 1929. Fungi can also parasitize and kill insects, including those troublesome to us.
For millennia, humans have exploited microfungi (molds and yeasts) to create edibles such as cheese, bread, beer and wine. But in Western culture, Stamets observes, the powers of macrofungi have been largely ignored, an attitude he refers to as “mycophobia” or “biological racism.” Mushrooms were relegated to the Campbell’s can, or outlawed when they blew too many minds. They were discounted, devalued, shunted aside."
"...Pioppino mushrooms --> (Agrocybe aegerita) <-- induced tumor regression, reversing cancer in lab mice. The species also controlled blood sugar in diabetic mice."
They are referred to as "herbs" in Genesis, by the Greeks, and sent at the tip of Lightning bolts from the gods.
The Discover article touches on the "Ancient" history of Fungi, the KJV Genesis account does distinguish between "herbs" in Gen.1 from later Gen. 2:5 "plants of the field" or "plant of the field before it". The properties of "herbs" (fungi) were known at least as early as 450 B.C. as noted below,
"...Although he’s obsessed with finding new uses for mushrooms, Stamets is also a passionate scholar of ancient mycotechnology. He often wears one example: a traditional Transylvanian hat made of amadou, the spongy inner layer of horse’s hoof fungus (Fomes fomentarius), which can be processed into a warm, feltlike fabric. Highly flammable, amadou has also served as tinder for flintlock guns and prehistoric campfires. (Ötzi, the 5,000-year-old “ice man” found in an Alpine glacier, was carrying the stuff in his pouch.) Its absorbent and antimicrobial properties made it ideal for dressing wounds and preserving foods. And amadou was the first medicinal mushroom on record: “Hippocrates described it in 450 B.C. as an anti-inflammatory,” Stamets notes."
Discovery, Mushrooms can Save the Planet,
Hippocrates of Kos, also known as Hippocrates II, was a Greek physician of the Age of Pericles, and is considered one of the most outstanding figures in the history of medicine. (Wikipedia)
Born: 460 BC, Kos, Greece
Died: 370 BC, Larissa, Greece
And then, we have "Answers in Genesis" non-answers in the mythical 24-hour, 7 day "creation".
Planting Confusion
Were plants created on Day Three or Day Six?
Funny. Since the sun wasn't even around until Day Four, how did God measure 24 hour days for Day #1, #2, #3 ?
--> "...As a result of the Curse, Adam would no longer have it easy. Instead of eating the abundance of fruit from the trees in the garden, he would need to till the ground and grow crops for food.3 This would be hard work, because the ground was now going to produce thorns and thistles." <--
No, the correct answer is, according to the story, Adam was put into a very small, but nice, manageable hand-designed little "garden" in the midst of Mesopotamia and instructed to attend to the little garden. Confined to a tiny, space on the planet...
When God drove Adam/Eve out, beyond the boundaries of this little garden, Adam would find "wild plants with thorns" (in their natural state as they had been for millions of years prior to, during, and after this "fall.")... because those things were ALREADY there.
"...So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."
Why put cherubims in Eden if "the WHOLE PLANET" was a plush orchard and garden of paradise, suddenly turned to thistles and thorns, worldwide? Because it wasn't about protecting the "plush garden" nor access to food. It was about preventing Adam from returning to pluck the fruit off the "Tree of Life" lest he live forever. The author doesn't describe the "whole earth" as a paradise. The boundaries of paradise were found ONLY WITHIN the little "garden" described in Mesopotamia. Beyond Eden's boundaries; death, thorns and thistles had always been. If the author of Genesis truly believed there were no thorns, thistles or death on the entire planet, then why did they confine "Paradise" to a tiny spot in Mesopotamia?
Let me reiterate... if the plush "Garden of Eden" were representative of "the whole earth" -- then why have any boundaries on this location in Eden?
Genesis 2:8 "...The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed."
According to scripture there never was a "worldwide paradise."
Nor was Eden representative of the "whole earth".
Answers in Genesis has presented a YEC fairy tale about "death" and "thorns" and "thistles" never existing before Adam. They make this error, mainly because they are out of touch the author of Genesis who lived in an agricultural society. Agriculture was worshiped among ancient people. CULTIVATION was a form of science. Cultivation was not achieved "instantly," in a creation, rather, it was a long laborious process that occurred when Hunter-Gatherers began cultivating wild species enabling ancient people to establish agricultural settlements.
Adam is described as the first farmer, not the first human on Earth.
Answers in Genesis interpretation is misleading at best, because what they are inadvertently claiming is the same as saying, "Cultivated vegetables came before the man" in a "plush paradise garden"... and then came the thorns!!!
In reality, thorns came first.
"Every carrot plant of the field BEFORE IT was in the earth, but no cultivated carrot grew. There was no man to till (cultivate) the ground.
The author of Genesis no where claims God provided Adam with thorn-free, Grocery-store quality modern vegetables... "and then the thorns came.".
On the contrary, the scripture states emphatically,
"...no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted .... there was no man to cultivate the ground."
"...And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew ....there was not a man to till the ground."
The author of Genesis does not say, "...and God provided Adam with juicy, colorful, sweet fruits and vegetables..." they were absent. Man had to cultivate these foods. Man created them, from wild, and often thorny ancestors.
Wild Carrot & Butternut Squash Soup
Invasive Wild Carrots are delicious and are still waiting to be harvested. This wild plant (Daucus carota) is the ancestor of all our modern carrots. The root is light yellow, can be quite large, smells like carrot and is very nutritious. The leaves can be brewed into a nice-tasting relaxing tea and seeds have been used medicinally as a contraceptive for thousands of years.
Like all carrots, the plant is biannual; in the first year it produces harvestable roots, in the second year it goes into seed. Watch out for poisonous look-alikes as Hemlock.
Were toadstools and hemlock "created" after the fall, too?
Thorns, thistles and death, the wild ancestor of modern vegetables, the wild mustard plant and "every plant of the field before it". Thistles were around long before Adam, and were present right outside the boundaries of Eden. The author of Genesis could not be more emphatic: "The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden".
Answers in Genesis is denying... yes, DENYING what the author of Genesis is emphasizing, about "Every plant of the field before it," -- HAD THORNS.
HOW WE BUILT A BETTER TOMATO
"...Most wild tomato species bear little resemblance to the large, red fruits you’re used to seeing in the supermarket. This is because humans have been molding the tomato to their own taste for thousands of years, by selecting for larger, tastier and (of course) redder fruits.
As a consequence of this selective breeding, we have significantly altered the tomato genome. A new paper published online this week in Nature Genetics analyzed the genomes of 360 tomato accessions, including multiple wild species and cultivated varieties, to understand exactly how and where humans have left their mark on the tomato genome."
Answers in Genesis should try to explain exactly what those "plant of the field before it tomato style" looked like since the thistles, thorns and death weren't present... interesting claim indeed.
Since all the vegetables God planted in Eden were in a "perfect state" from the beginning 
then WHY "fix the wheel that's not broken"... and create a man who's purpose is to cultivate crops, and change the creation via a process called "Artificial Selection" and "Selective Breeding"?
Indeed, what were those "plants of the field before it," supposed to look like? Even Answers in Genesis mentions the significance of "Cultivation". Cultivation is "Evolution". Wild plant varieties are altered from their original wild forms to produce new, unique, edible, delectable varieties that have evolved through years, decades, centuries and millenia -- but this Young Earth Creationist organization conveniently omit the fact: the whole purpose for CULTIVATION is to root out "Thorns" and other "Undesirable traits", selectively bred, to produce juicier, less seedy varieties of sweeter and heartier fruits and vegetables.
So *why* create a farmer, since the "Garden Paradise" was perfect before Adam (a farmer).
Answer in Genesis denies thorns? They have denied Adam's "purpose".
Therefore, they deny the entire message the author of Genesis has given.
Some interpret and translate scriptures according to their own preferred "myth".
Beyond the garden
Genesis does not speak of the "whole of the earth" being the "Garden of Eden," nor a "worldwide Garden Paradise." Eden is described as an isolated 'garden' in Mesopotamia) -- and since Adam would be driven out of Eden, NATURALLY, he would come upon thorns and thistles that lay beyond the boundaries, and would toil in his effort to 'till the ground'.
Likewise, the serpent was "cursed above the cattle," and as one Atheist aptly asked, "But what sin did the cattle commit?"
Cursed. Within an agricultural setting, as in "Livestock Slaughter." That too, is yet another example of "death" existing in the world, before the "fall". The farmers will provide delicious hay and feeds for their cattle, clean water, and the best care to fatten livestock for slaughter, but often when farmers see snakes, the first reaction is to run for a hoe and aim for the head.
WAS THE ENTIRE EARTH, "THE GARDEN OF EDEN"?
... if the "whole earth" were plush, without thorns or death with wonderful ready-made fruits and vegetables and there was no death... then why, WHY did the author of Genesis bother designating "boundaries" for "the Garden of Eden" in that specific spot ... a tiny, isolated spot in the region of Mesopotamia?
Eden's plush comforts, were isolated. Not representative of the rest of the planet. If the whole, entire planet were free from death and thorns... then why, tell me why: WHY DID GOD BOTHER PLANTING A GARDEN, since the "whole earth" was already one big garden of Eden with no thorns and no death and no thistles?
Why bother planting a garden paradise, since there was no difference between Eden and the rest of the "(wild???)" planet... such as over in South America, or Australia, or North America or Asia?? It was "All Eden," says Answers in Genesis.
As I read this verse, it can be taken several ways,
King James Version
"...cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;"
In other words, "Because of your disobedience, --I will now drive you out of this garden. You will find the land beyond this garden paradise, a misery to till and cultivate. By the sweat of your brow you'll bring forth your harvest. No more comfortable garden paradise. You are consigned beyond the boundaries (which Adam had not yet laid eyes on)... thorns and thistles will be in your way, all the days of your life."
Thorns and thistles were waiting beyond the boundaries of the Garden of Eden.
"for thy sake"
"in thy work"
"because of you"
Because of your error, the ground before you, where so ever you go, will be "cursed".
If Adam had obeyed, he would have remained in this comfortable garden paradise.
Douay-Rheims Bible
"...cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life."
American Standard Version
"...cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Eden was "The Whole Earth"?
Matthew Henry's Commentary:
"...His habitation is cursed. God gave the earth to the children of men, to be a comfortable dwelling; but it is now cursed for man's sin."
-biblehub, Matthew Henry's Commentary
"The WHOLE of the EARTH... Planet Earth, Comfortable?!... then WHY plant a small garden in Eden?? perhaps within the boundaries of "Eden" it was described as a paradise, but the whole planet was never described as the "garden of eden".
Thorns and thistles, and poison little fangs, and carnivorous lions, tigers and bears roamed the planet in North America, Siberia and Africa. Preying on antelope and caribou and all the meaty yummies, as they have for millions of years.
Adam is described only occupying the space of a tiny "garden"... in Eden. This "garden" did not encompass the globe.
It is abundantly clear that Young Earth Creationists do not read the "creation story" with comprehension if they assumed the whole earth was Eden.
This tiny microcosm of a garden paradise did not represent what lay beyond the boundaries of Eden, which Adam was driven out to.
In other words, God, had to make no particular, or special effort to bring about this "curse".
Wild thorns and thistles were already there, waiting to be "subdued".
GLARING CONTRADICTION
Matthew Henry's Commentary: "...His habitation is cursed. God gave the EARTH TO THE CHILDREN OF MEN TO BE A COMFORTABLE DWELLING; but it is now cursed for man's sin."
The author of Genesis never states, "the Earth" was a "comfortable dwelling."
That "comfortable dwelling" is clearly confined to this specific spot on the Mesopotamian map:
Genesis 2:8 "...The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed."
The whole earth was not the "Garden of Eden."
Adam was driven out of that "garden paradise," into the realism of the rest of the planet... where awaited thorns, thistles, and bread by the sweat of the brow.
The preceding misinterpretations were also brought to us by the same men who interpreted the "CURSE on woman," to be both a "commandment" and a "blessing" that man would rule over her.
Last I checked, a "curse" is not a good or pleasant thing, and a "curse" does not qualify a "commandment" even if false teachers claimed it was.
To fulfill the curse on thorns and thistles, God didn't have to lift a finger. Just kick Adam out of Eden... into the wild world, where awaited the thorns and death, that was already there... waiting.
How should the woman derive her food, now cut off from Eden? By the tilling of the man, that's how. Dependent on the man for the fruits of the field. "And he will rule over you." A curse was not a "blessing" and certainly no commandment to submit. What choice would a starving woman have, to feed herself and her children?
The author of Genesis never says that death wasn't already present in the world until "the fall". On the contrary, DEATH ALREADY EXISTED, and Genesis confirms this:
Genesis 2:9 "Out 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.
Genesis 2: 16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;--
Genesis 2:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and --> take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever " <--
Genesis 2:23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
Why call it "The Tree of Life," if you were created with "eternal life" in your genes? Adam's immortality depended 100% on access to that tree.
To reiterate, the "Tree of Life" which Adam could freely eat of and, live forever... without access to that tree, Adam would "surely die."
For "Death to enter Adam's world" -- only required God forbidding access to that tree.
Therefore, "death" already existed.
"Every plant of the field before it, was in the earth."
But Answers in Genesis wishes to deny the thorns, the thistles... the death that was guaranteed inevitably to Adam if cut off from the "Tree of Life". When God formed Adam from the dust of the ground, he was fated to die. -- and that's why the story includes God creating the "The Tree of Life," in the first place, that Adam could eat freely, and live forever (Genesis 2:22).
Death was written in Adam's genes (like all other animals on the planet) without access to "The Tree of Life". Let's not forget the polar bears in the North Pole or penguins in the South Pole, the Kangaroos in Australia, who couldn't partake in the "Tree of Life" and were dying).
Anyway... if not thorns and thistles, then pray tell, what did those "plants of the field before it," look like exactly?
... according to Answers in Genesis, they had no thorns, no thistles, they were ready-made, grocery store variety... modern vegetables... NO CULTIVATION NECESSARY!
So Answers in Genesis is wholesale denying the very things, strongly emphasized by the author of Genesis.
And if that were so, -- NO THORNS -- then *why* would God need a man to "till the ground (cultivate crops from the wild "plants of the field before it")"? Everything came "ready made," after all, or so they say.
THORNS
On this note, Answers in Genesis is saying that God LIED to Adam, because instead of bringing forth thorns, man has nearly eradicated thorns on his vegetables and fruit. Since there were no "thorns" before Eden, and God promised Adam THORNS... then why do modern orchards contain trees mostly with thorn-less varieties?
Well Ooops, perhaps those thorns were there, millions of years ago just as the author of Genesis suggested they were prior to human agriculture, when they wrote,
"Every plant of the field before it, ... BEFORE IT... was in the earth."
If any of the flawed interpretations of Answers in Genesis' YEC fundamentalists interpretations of Genesis were true, then God's promise of thorns is a "a failed curse."
A befuddled orchard owner inquires :
Thorns On Citrus Trees: Why Does My Citrus Plant Have Thorns?
"...No, it’s not an anomaly; there are thorns on citrus trees. Although not well known, it is a fact that most, not all, citrus fruit trees have thorns. Let’s learn more about thorns on a citrus tree. Over time, the popularity and cultivation of many oranges has led to THORNLESS varieties or those with small, blunt thorns found only at the base of the leaves. However, there are still plenty of orange varieties that have large thorns, generally those that are bitter and less often consumed. Grapefruit trees have short, flexible thorns found only on the twigs with ‘Marsh’ the most sought after variety grown in the U.S. The little kumquat with its sweet, edible skin is primarily armed with thorns, like the ‘Hong Kong,” although others, such as ‘Meiwa,’ are THORN-LESS or have small minimally damaging spines."
A "curse" to man, is the plant's defense mechanism to shield itself from Predation.
According the fundamentalist Young Earth Creationists, "thorns" and "thistles" and "death" are missing for millions of years... and then a "curse" of "thorns" given upon man... only for man to turn right around, and zap the thorns through selective cultivation of their crops.
No comments:
Post a Comment