Did God Curse the Ground?

HeKkLeR · Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2003 2:54 am Post subject:

"Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food..." Gen 3:17-19

I take this to mean that a drastic change was to be made. First, that God had not only cursed man himself, but also the ground. The ground was changed to do something other than it was created for. It too was cursed because of Adam to go against Adam in his pursuit to survive.

A change was made.

Van · Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2003 5:13 am Post subject:

Thanks for sharing your views concerning the curse of the ground.

First, I think a curse of God is just telling mankind the consequence of going against God. For example, the fig tree with no fruit, was cursed and withered and died. This illustration has absolutely nothing to do with an evil fig tree! The idea is that faith without works is dead. Barking will not turn you into a dog, but a dog barks. No spiritual fruit in your life? You are cursed by the condemnation of all men, for you have not been saved because if you had been saved, you would bear fruit.

The curse of the ground is telling mankind that going against God, and walking away from the provisions of God, results in difficulty and frustration and hardship for you and your family.

joman · Tiger Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 823

Van,

Do you know what a curse is? You seem uncertain. Do you know when and how a curse becomes effective and when it doesn't? The reason I ask is because I don’t see anyway for someone to reason about the subject of a curse until they can determine what a curse is.

Proverbs 26:2 "As the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come."

But, the curse with cause shall come unless dealt with. The fig tree gave Jesus cause to curse it. The curse pronounced upon the fig tree had real effect against it as noted by the Apostles that witnessed the curse and it's result. Jesus became a curse on our behalf so that the curses that can come against us haven't any cause and are thus repudiated. That is, the cause of curses has been removed. Romans 8:1-2.
Misunderstanding the power of the curse opens people up to suffering that can be avoided (the Jewish nation). Anyway, I want to be sure of what you understand about the power to curse before discussing it's ramifications and it's applicability to life, past, present and future.
A curse has power due to God given authority and law. Any other so called curse is void of power. So, for example; Noah, having authority over his sons according to the law of God, had power to curse Ham and his decendents. That curse is real and effective until voided by Jesus.
A curse is as real as any blessing. It's result has the power of law behind it. Gravity, for example is a law that could be simply due to God saying, "Let all that is substance be drawn together." The universe is preserved by the word of God, indeed th Word of God. Jesus said, "Peace be still." The obedience displayed is according to the law of the one in authority. If you possess authority you can curse if you have authority as given by God. That is why rebellion is as witchcraft, because it is application of power without due authority. Ther are many examples to choose from. But, simply consider that Jesus gave us power over devils. This authority to curse them when they come against us is real. I myself have used it.
If the problem your having is about whether or not science can “prove” whether or not there was a distant time when a “curse” as described in Genesis, was not extant, then you must rely on science to satisfy you. But, science can not show anything but, submission to the dictates of the curse in today's world. Look at entropy, hysterisis, rust, decay, sweat, labor, and death. None of these escape the law imposed upon them. Thou shalt surely die!..... is the curse of the law upon the soul that sinneth.
In somewhat more direct reference to your discussion early on, let me ask you, When God declared all as good in the early chapters of Genesis; was he declaring sin, evil, death, thorns, weeds, bloodletting and desert wastelands as good? If these things existed before sin entered by the one (Adam) who was lord of the earth, what then is a curse?

Joman. ps. I must go right now.

Van · Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:44 pm Post subject:

Joman, I certainly agree we cannot discuss God's curse of the ground if we do not share a common understanding of what the term "curse" means.

You said I seemed uncertain as to the meaning. But I did post a definition of the term. Here is how I put it:

joman · Tiger Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 823

Van,

You said, “I did post a definition of the term.” (curse)

And your definition was…“I think a curse of God is just telling mankind the consequence of going against God.”

What you “think” Van, can only define your private opinion. Isn’t it important rather, for you to understand what the Bible defines as a curse instead of your ideas on it? You don’t rely on the Bible at all with resect to your definition of a “curse”. Instead, the support you give for your definition is what; quote… “A dictionary definition might say something like: Rendering someone or something unfortunate by imprecation.” Concerning which, you then conclude, that this definition of yours, which “might” exist in a dictionary (if you had the time to write one?), quote... “meshes well with what I said.”

Isn’t this convenient 'meshing' simply the consequence of your, leaning on your own understanding? And, isn't that understanding of yours on behalf of a bias you have about a conclusion you are aiming at getting to? Your use of the word 'unfortunate' in your definition of 'curse' hints at the the lack of direct connection to the command of God. I note that God doesn't ever use words like "fortune" because they are words that stem from the occult.

You have proven here to be feigning objectivity about your search for “compelling evidence”. I notice that you state a private interpretation of scripture and then... ask others to prove your wrong. Aren’t you therby, avoiding the glaring fact that; you haven’t proven that, your own 'non-mainline' supposition has any merit warranting investigation? Your posts on this subject, with respect to scripture, is full of doubtful words like, “might”, “it seems”, and “could”. Such doubtfulness will never be rewarded with the scientific certainty that demands no faith. Your definition isn’t a Biblical definition of “curse” defined by any scripture concerning a curse I have ever read.

Concerning my post about the proper understanding of “curse” you said, “You seem to assert that a curse must be brought by supernatural means.”

But, I said, “A curse has power due to God given authority and law.”
I must admit; I doubt that God can help his being supernatural. But, you use “supernatural” as though natures compliance to God's verbal command is magical or unscientific. That is the scoffers view. They use it in the hope that they can keep God and his supernaturalness out of polite conversation. the truth is that there’s nothing more natural then natures obedience to God’s laws. Gravity is as supernatural as any law can be. This is proven by the inability of anything to resist it and yet there isn't a shred of it's physical existence only the measure of it's profound effect upon all matter. Gravity to date is only a mathematical description confined to lines on paper. And the man that defined it said of the solar system that, "the power that holds it together is not the power that put it there." So what is so difficult with believing God did as he plainly states in Genesis? And, why do you challenge the staight forward meaning of scripture?

Concerning the cursing of the fig tree by Jesus, you said that you would, “…. certainly agree that that (the cursing) was accomplished by a creative miracle.”

This reveals the problems your inventing with your ill-defined ideas about God’s inability to curse with scientific result. Notice how you equate a, curse of death upon a fruitless tree, to a creative act? There’s nothing creative about a judges pronouncement of death upon a lawless malefactor. The death of the tree was a natural death that occurred immediately upon the pronouncement of Jesus due to his authority as the "second Adam". The curse was justified in accordance with the fig tree's breaking of the commandment of God to be, “fruitful and multiply.” Science proclaims fruitfulness as a natural event. But, fruitfulness is the obedience of nature to the law imposed upon it by God. We consider it as 'natural' and not as 'supernatural' only because it is familiar and slow enough for our scientific investigation. But, in the case of Jesus’ curse of the tree, a common death becomes supernatural because we cannot explain the rapidity of the tree’s death nor the coincidence of it's death with Jesus’ verbal pronouncement.
Isn't the God you believe in allowed to command things to do as he pleases, whenever he pleases? If you can see how Jesus did this work with a verbal command, how is it you doubt the verbal command of God the Father in Genesis? Are you wanting to be accepted among the intelligensia that mock God?

You said that, “With regard to creation, before the curse, being very good, my answer is that very good could apply to the provision for sustained life and life cycle.”

It “could” Van, if that’s what the Bible said but, it doesn’t. Instead your seeking to limit God’s pronouncement that, "all he created was good", with the viability of your private 'possibilities' thinking. I say private because, not only are the things you’ve said already, merely, your daydreaming about could be’s, but you also must be withholding from us your true intent for wandering off into unwarranted supposition.

At the end of your post you say, “And so I return to the starter post of the thread, does anybody have any insight upon scripture that supports the mainstream view, the God caused a radical change in the environment by creative miracle??”

There is plenty of compelling evidence (scripture) of things not seen if you have the faith to believe God's record in Genesis abd elsewhere. But, as I said in an earlier post. If your wanting science to prove to you that the Genesis story happened as God said it did in the Bible, then you you’ll never be satisfied with scripture, because it demands your faith. Your faith is demanded even in the face of apparent scientific repudiation and God demands it without apology. But, since you seem determined to remain somewhat vague, it could be that your wanting “scriptures” (as opposed to science) that backs the so called “mainstream” view. Is your “mainstream view” (which you never define) the belief that the result of God’s curse of the ground was an immediate supernatural compliance of nature to a supernatural God’s; word (similar to Jesus’ curse of the tree)? If scripture is the evidence your looking for then, there is much. And, that’s why I wanted to discuss the authority, and thus, power of the “curse” as it pertains to real, scientific, verities of life and the nature of things around us.
By the way, lest you underestimate the importance of the, "authority and power of curses", please note that the old testament ends with the threat of a curse and the new testament also ends with a warning of curses upon anyone who tampers with God’s word. Talk about exclamation marks! and (parenthesis').

Joman.

Van · Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:28 am Post subject:

Joman, so in summary you do not think my view of the curse is correct, but you offer no alternative. BTW, the dictionary view I was alluding to is Thayers.

Nobby · Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:21 am Post subject: Note.

joman, I can't seem to get your attension! You have a Private Message at the top of the page. Please answer it. I've also tried to e-mail you.

At the top of the Noah's Lounge Forum I have step by step information on how to quote, would be good if you learn it. Smile

_________________
Much Love Nobby
CVP Smilies
dictionary Bible

joman · Tiger Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 823

Van,

Van · Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 2:25 pm Post subject:

The cause of the curse was the sin of Adam. He was kicked out of the garden where he did not have to toil, he could just pick the fruit off the trees. So the cause of the curse is clear, so we do not disagree on that.

Something could exist outside the garden, uncultivated ground with weeds, thistles and thorns, that became a curse because man had to grow his food in it.

Can stuff God created be good for God's purpose, yet be a hardship for mankind? Yes. He creates calamity for his purpose.

The ground not cursed was the cultivated garden where apparently weeds and thorns did not grow.

The fig tree was good in the sense that it provided an illustration of Jesus, so although it was fruitless but looked from afar like it might have fruit, it served as an example which is a cursed tree that is good.

Joman, my question at the start was for folks to support the mainstream view, which you now have done based on two lines of logic, why refer to ground as cursed when it is the same as it was before the curse, and why did God refer to all of creation as good if it was in the same condition it was in when it was cursed. I have rebutted these views, but that does not make my rebuttals valid, in light of the broad acceptance of your view.

P.S. The reason your [quoteVan] did not work is it needs to be [quote="Van"]

Nobby · Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:33 pm Post subject: Note.

joman, what Van about your quoting is correct.P.S. The reason your
[quote="Van"][quoteVan] did not work is it needs to be

gbunty · Alley Cat Joined: 28 Jun 2004 Posts: 182

joman · Tiger Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 823

Van,

These are my points.

(1) Because; means the curse came 'after' the sin of Adam.
(2) It is cursed "is" the ground not....cursed was the ground. And "shall" denotes future effect not past concerning "thorns and thistles".
(3) Your view is unbiblical: Not supported by any scriptural statement.
(4) Your view only relies on a "could be" reasoning: Contrary to the proverb, "Lean not on your own understanding, but in all your ways acknowledge him and he will direct your path."
(5) The effect of the curse cannot precede the curse.
(6) The ground was "cursed" not Adam, therefore the ground wasn't cursed till after Adam sinned.
(7) Cursed ground isn't good ground, or otherwise good ground becomes undefined.
(8) A good tree cannot be lawfully cursed, (Proverbs 26:2)
(9) God said good ground existed prior to the curse.
(10) The cursed tree is a dead tree. (not a good thing)
(11) Nothing has been created from the time God rested from all his labor until today except for the Christian who is in Christ: the firstborn of a new creation. There isn't any appearance of this fact in the physical realm, yet.
(13) Weeds, thistles, excetra... are mutations not creations. God does all things well.
(14) No mention of weeds and thistles prior to the curse.
(15) Weeds are unfruitful. Do men gather fruit of them? No.
(16) Thistles draw blood from man. (not good)
(17) You've offered no reason for speculation about the incorrectness of the so-called mainline view.
(18) After coming across a post of yours on a early site it turns out that your not following your own advice.
(19) Your definition of curse is not founded on scripture. No reference to lawfulness, and proper authority.
(20) Your use of the term unfortunate implies coincidence as opposed to cause and effect: Waters down the understanding of curse in the passage debated.
(21) Your use of the word 'supernatural' misinforms about the cause and effect of a curse: It implies a creative act which a curse is not.
(22) The law's of nature are supernatural and are imposed upon nature: Not explained by science only measured as to effect. (The law is the cause not the effect.)
(23) Your "could be": limits the understanding of "very good" by allowance of cursed things to be so described.
(24) All scriptural accounts of curses produce radical effects: Balaam>Israel, Jacob>Rachel, Jesus>fig tree, and thus God>ground. You have offered nothing concerning scripture.
(25) Proposing a theory and offering no basis incourages speculation by unbelievers. (Not a good idea.)

Joman.

Van · Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:11 pm Post subject:

Gbundy, I agree that Adam had work to do in garden. What I should have said is Adam's effort to produce food was made more difficult by being kicked out of the garden.

Van · Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject:

Joman, I tried to end this discussion but no.

By the numbers:

Point 1- agreed, the curse came after Adam's sin, the cause of the curse was Adam's sin.

Point 2 - disagree - the timing is the same when Adam is moved to uncultivated ground, or Adam is moved to ground that was cultivated but changed to uncultivated with the move.

Point 3 - disagree - my view is consistent with all scripture, just not with your interpretation of scripture.

Point 4 - disagree - discussing various views of scripture in order to arrive at the truth, as God gives us the light to know the truth, for we are to study to show ourselves approved - pretty difficult if we do not discuss our understanding of the text.

Point 5 - agreed - Adam was not affected by curse until he was kicked out of the garden.

Point 6 - agreed - the weeds and thistles did not affect Adam, and therefore were not a curse, before Adam was kicked out of the garden.

Point 7 - disagree - cursed ground can be bad for mankind yet good for God because it meets God's purpose. The meaning of the word Good is something that meets a need or is suitible for a purpose. A good cake to a little boy is chocolate and sugary, and it meets his sweet tooth's need, but the same cake is bad from the view of his dentist. To be good in the context of creation is to meet God's need even if it creates hardship for mankind.

Point 8 - disagree - a tree that is good for the person who picks its fruit in season can be cursed by Jesus if that is God's purpose. God is the cause and can curse for His purpose. The point of Proverbs 26:2 is that we need to consider God's curse from His perspective, not ours.

Point 9 - agreed

Point 10 - disagree - it depends upon the point of view, man or God. All things work together for good to those who love the Lord.

Point 11 - disagree - some of the miracles of Jesus created loaves and fishes, wine, ears that could hear, eyes that could see, limbs that could walk.

Point 13 - no opinion - I do not know how God created the plants in all their vareity. I do not see how this fits into our discussion?

Point 14 - disagree - no specific mention but Genesis 1:11 says God created vegetation such as plants with seeds (thistles) and trees with fruit (tangerines have thorns).

Point 15 - disagree, a weed is a plant where you do not want it. Some place else it might hold soil and prevent a mudslide.

Point 16 - disagree - whether or not a thorn is good depends on if you look at it from God's view - it is according to his purpose -or from the gardeners view - ouch.

Point 17 - disagree - I said I was searching for the truth, hoping to improve my understanding.

Point 18 - no opinion - I do not know which post you are referring to.

Point 19 - disagree - my understanding of curse is consistent with all scripture.

Point 20 - disagree - unfortunately I did not use the term unfortunate in my defination of curse, I said a dictionary might use that term. However, I completely agree that the outcome of God's curse is not the result of luck or coincidence.

Point 21 - disagree - God can use any mechanism that He chooses to impliment His curse.

Point 22 - agreed - but I do not see how this relates to our discussion.

Point 23 - disagree - as I have explained something can be good from God's perspective and uncomfortable from ours. For example discipline.

Point 24 - disagree - I have mentioned the curse of the Law.

Point 25 - agree but that is not what I have done. I asked for scriptural evidence against such a view or for the mainstream view. I included the results of my study.

joman · Tiger Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 823

Van,

Genesis 4:10-12
“And he said What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.
And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;
When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.”

Notice,
(1.)The curse comes after the murder of Abel.
(2.)The earth supernaturally responds to Cain as a tiller of the ground and no one else.
(3.)It doesn’t matter where he goes.
(4.)This wasn’t the previous condition of the ground with respect to Cain.
(Genesis 4:1-2)
(5.)Henceforth shows that the curse’s effect on the ground’s personal relationship with Cain began at the moment of the curse’s pronouncement.
And that's why Cain built cities. Also I noticed the phrase "in the earth" and realized that he was a caveman for some time.
As to your point by point responses: