1. At what point during the creation story was man created?

2. There are a number of places in the Bible in which we are told that God sends the rain. If one believes that God sends the rain, how does one reconcile that with what we know about the natural processes that produce rain?

3. Does evolution need to be supported from the Bible?

4. Would the author of Genesis have been able to use 21st-century language to describe the creation of this world?

1. Sixth day

2. Prior to the Flood there was no rain. God created the current water cycle at the time of the Flood. Biblical authors were not writing as scientists and when we try to read the Bible as if it were a science book we ask questions we really don't need to be asking. We will have a much greater understanding of Scripture if we read it as a history book rather than a science book.

3. No. Evolution does not need to be supported by the Bible. Nor do the New York Yankees or Wal-Mart. These things have nothing to do with the Bible.

4. He didn't. He used the language of his day.

1. See Genesis 2:4-7.

2. There are a few passages in the Bible after the time period of the flood in which it says that God sends the rain. If one reads in the Bible that God sends the rain, how does one reconcile that with what we know about the natural processes that produce rain?

3. Your idea that the Bible is a history book and not a science book has a couple of holes in it.

4. Yes, exactly. But what happens if we read early Genesis without a 21st-century mind? What happens if we look at the world through his eyes? What would we know about the land, and the sea, and the sky, and the rain? What would we know about bacteria, and viruses, and cellular organisms? What would we know about kangaroos, and kiwis, and duckbilled platypuses? What would we know about microscopes, and gas chromotography, and mass spectrometers? What would we know about the moon, and the sun, and the stars, and our galaxy?

1. The answer is in Genesis 1:27, 31 not Genesis 2:4-7.

2. God does send rain. He sent me my wife too. He can stop the rain too. Even the winds and the rain obey Him.

3. The Bible being a history book isn't my idea any more than the dollar being US currency is my idea. It is what it is and I have little to do with it being what it is.

4. Theologians trained in ancient Hebrew read Genesis as it was intended to be read. Bible commentaries are available for us that are not Hebrew scholars. The clear intent of Genesis is a literal six day creation week and a world-wide flood that covered the entire globe.

1. But what does Genesis 2:4-7 say as it relates to my original question?

2. Since God sends the rain, do we need to know how the hydrologic cycle works?

3. Well, no. The Bible is not always a history book. However, I suppose that we can agree that the Bible is not a science book.

4. There's more to be learned than what the words say. I'm serious about looking at the world through the eyes of the authors of the Bible. What they saw and what we see are essentially the same, but through vastly different worldviews. Imagine.

1. Genesis 2:407 does not deal with a time so it has nothing to do with the original question.

2. Since the General Motors Company made my trucks engine, do I need to know how it works?

3. The Bible is a history book. Even the books that are prophetic are history because they provide us the details of a vision or dream given to a prophet at sometime in the past. That doesn't mean it is not relevant to us today.

4. Yes there is more to be learned. That is the study of Hebrew scholars and is available in Bible commentaries.

1. Genesis 2:4-7 seems pretty clear that man was created before any vegetation. What do you think it says?

2. Maybe you don't, but somebody does. Should we all remain ignorant of the hydrologic cycle?

3. The Bible is not a history book. There are parts of it that are historical, but much of it is not.

4. Are you opposed to imagining the world through the eyes of the authors of the Bible?

1. The Garden of Eden was planted by God after He created Adam. (verse 8) Plants were created completely mature prior to Adam being created (verse 5).

2. How about the primeval water cycle mentioned in verse 6? The pre-flood world was obviously much different than the one we live in today.

3. The Bible is the history of God's interaction with man. Some may argue that prophecy is not history. In a way, it is the opposite of history. However, as I already mentioned, the revelation of the prophecies themselves are an element of history.

4. That is the study of Hebrew scholars and is available in Bible commentaries.

1. Are we reading the same Bible? The one I'm looking at says this:


2. I'm not talking about any pre-flood water cycle. I'm talking about the world in which we have rain, and that's a lot like the one that existed in most of the Bible.

Let me be clear. While the Bible says in a number of places that God sends the rain, we don't have any problem subscribing to what the science of meteorology tells us about the formation of rain and how it ends up back on the ground. We don't see any conflict between what the Bible says about the source of rain and what we know about the natural processes of weather. We don't reject meteorology because God is absent from the science.

But when the Bible says that God created the earth and the life on it in certain ways and we count up Biblical genealogies in order to arrive at a certain time, we have an entirely different reaction. Humans have accumulated scientific knowledge over the centuries that have led us to the theory of evolution (and its refinements over the last 150 years) as the best explanation for the development and diversity of life on this planet. It didn't have to be Darwin; it was very nearly Wallace, and if it hadn't been either, it would have been someone else.

3. It seems like you're happy claiming that the entire Bible is history. I'll leave you alone in that contention.

4. For anyone else that's still reading, I invite you to take that journey that I previously mentioned:


I'd like someone—anyone—to take that journey. The author of Genesis wrote what he did because it was based on what he observed (as well as what he thought about God). What he wrote about the land, and the sea, and the sky, and the rain, and the moon, and the sun, and the stars was based on not only what he could see, but on his idea that God was the creator of all things. Bacteria, viruses, cellular organisms, kangaroos, kiwis, and duck-billed platypuses aren't mentioned in the Bible because no Bible writer ever saw one.

I was serious when I asked what happens if we read early Genesis without a 21st-century mind. Read it through the eyes of the author of Genesis. Imagine what he saw and what he knew. Forget everything you know about the world through science. Be Moses for a month. Then tell me what you see.

1. The King James reads thus:


Thus God created the plants and herbs before they grew. That means He created them mature. According to Strongs, the KJV does pretty well on this passage.




The Bible is not a science book. We error when we try to read it as such. When the authors read that God sent rain it is no different than the farmers today (who fully understand meteorology) praying for God to send rain. When we look at the Bible as a history book, it reads very nicely. If we try to read it as a science book, we are going to have problems. The solution is to stop trying to read the Bible as a science book. It isn't one.

4. Moses was inspired by God. That doesn't mean that God choose his words for him but rather that God inspired the message.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16)

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." ( 2 Peter 1:20,21)