Did God Curse the Ground?

Van · Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 5:34 am Post subject: Did God Curse the Ground?

Did God curse the ground in Genesis 3:17? God said in effect cursed is the ground because of you, in toil you shall eat of it, both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you, and you will eat the food from it by the sweat of your brow.

So it appears the curse removes Adam from the land, the garden where God had planted trees good for food, such that Adam would have to work to create his own garden and would have to cultivate the ground to remove the weeds and keep after it by the sweat of his brow in order to eat bread from it. So this curse does not seem directed at the whole earth, a radical change in the nature of creation, but simply kicking Adam out of the garden.

Now in Genesis 8:21, Yahweh says in a passage after the flood of Noah, that He will never again curse the ground and destroy every living thing because of man. So God’s judgment against the sins of men resulted in their loss of the benefits of cultivated ground. In one case, the man was removed from the ground, and in another the ground was flooded catastrophically such that every living thing covered by the flood was destroyed including all mankind except for the eight in the Ark.

So, thus far, no compelling evidence has been found to support a radical change in the nature of creation.

In Romans 8:18-25, as translated in the NASB, Paul seems to be saying that creation was cursed, subjected to futility, by God in the hope that creation will be set free from its slavery to corruption. But does that make sense? What if creation was translated creatures, meaning mankind? We were kicked out of the garden, to face sin and corruption and death which sounds like futility. As each generation lives, suffers and dies, until that day when the number of the saved will be reached, our painful existence is like the pains of childbirth, necessary for the birth of all of us, past, present and future who are new creatures in Christ. We look forward to our bodily resurrection where we shed the corruption of our fleshly desires. So we persevere the futility of corrupt mankind as we expectantly look forward to that day. Creation will not be set free, it will be destroyed but a new heaven and a new earth await all those in Christ. Amen

In summary, I have found no compelling evidence that God radically altered creation, introducing pain, suffering and death, because of Adam’s sin and God’s judgment of Adams disobedience. But my search is far from exhaustive, are there other passages that bear on this issue?

SissiMay · Not So Newbie Joined: 20 May 2003 Posts: 8

I think you might need a better bible, if you plan on doing a study.

The New King James Bible leaves out no words.
The King James Bible leaves out no words.
The NIV Bible leaves out--1,500 words.
The NASB Bible leaves out-1,100 words.
The Living Bible leaves out-300 words.

I have the New King James Bible, and I like it a lot. I think that in Genises that he is cursing Adam to till and work to make his own garden, since he ate of the fruit.
I also think that God cursed Eve to give birth to children since it was her idea to eat of the forbidden fruit. Gen. 3:16

I am not sure what you point is here about creation?

Gen 3:23 God sends Adam out of the garden to till the ground from which he came from.

Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man: and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.
So, the tree of life is still there in the garden of Eden? If so, no man will ever find it. I seen a documentry on Discovery about the Garden of Eden and it was in, or near Baghdad today. That is scary isn't it. Well, I hope you find the answers that you are looking for. Good luck.
_________________
~Melinda~

Nobby · Posted: Tue May 20, 2003 2:01 pm Post subject: Welcome

Hi SissiMay,

I want to welcome you to our board! Glad to have you with us. I see you have already made yourself at home. Very Happy

The poster your answering is on a vacation right now. He will answer when he gets back.
Be looking for your posts. Smile

_________________
Much Love Nobby
CVP Smilies
dictionary Bible

SissiMay · Not So Newbie Joined: 20 May 2003 Posts: 8

Ooopsss!!

Sorry, I didn't know that he was gone. I look forward to hearing his answer.

Thanks for the welcome Nobby!
_________________
~Melinda~

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 7005 Location: USA

Sissmay, just for reference, the KJV and the New KJV are NOT the most accurate translations of the bible. It is a great bible to read, but for study there are a few others out there that are far more accurate (the Amplified Bible is one...) You may want to check them out before you make concrete decisions on what the bible says or doesn't say.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog

larryjf · Posted: Wed May 21, 2003 7:27 am Post subject:

Sissmay,

You might also consider the fact that some would say that the kjv/nkjv leave out entire books of the old testament - 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith.

What's really interesting is that all of these books were included in the original kjv of 1611. And, they are in the septuagint (which is our most ancient old testament source).

SissiMay · Not So Newbie Joined: 20 May 2003 Posts: 8

Ok Larry, let me see if I can get this right. King James didn't want any fables in the bible. Fables are stories and they are fiction. They are not true. That is why they are not in the Bible. You need eye witness accounts, someone who directly heard from God, and for it to be written by the Holy Spirit. I hope I can clear this up for you.

MacCabees 1 & 2---fables, war stories.
Sirach---A Prologue made by an unknown author. So, who wrote this, and why should it be in the Bible, since it is just a story.
I have never heard of Wisdom before. I have heard of Wisdom of Solomon---It doesn't say who wrote it? It sounds like a story to me.
Baruch---it is a fable. If they did not walk, or talk with Jesus, nor hear from the Holy Spirit, It is a fable.
Tobit---once again it is a fable. Just a story. It has nothing to do with the Bible.
Judith------Ok here we go again. FABLE...I see a pattern forming here, do you.

Where is your documentation where these books were first put in the KJV... I would like to see it!

I hope you like stories....That is all they are......

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 7005 Location: USA

Didn't Jesus speak in parables? That is fiction isn't it?

As for eyewitness accounts.... psalms are eyewitness accounts? Proverbs are eyewitness accounts? The story of creation is an eyewitness account? Who was there to witness it?
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog

larryjf · Posted: Wed May 21, 2003 1:18 pm Post subject:

SissiMay,

here is an amazon.com link that is selling a reprint of the original 1611 kjv - you can see from the comment section that it does contain the "extra" books.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0840700415/104-6628037-5722346?vi=glance

i'm not sure of what proof you are looking for as to what books were in the 1611 kjv - it is not really a matter of debate, it is historical fact that those "extra" books are in there. The kjv today is from the 1800's, not 1611.

And, i don't know what makes you an authority on what to keep in or take out of the bible. What makes you think that these are all fables? Why is Tobit a fable? And saying Tobit has nothing to do with the bible is a bit dramatic. In Tobit there are clear references to God and how He works in our lives among other things. However for instance, in the book of Esther God is never even mentioned - but i'm sure you agree that Esther should be in the bible.

Let's not forget that i never endorsed those "extra" books, i only said that "some might point that out to you" since you are very harsh in condeming very accurate bibles. You do realize that the kjv was translated from the received text put together by Erasmus, right?

- Erasmus was not able to find a single Greek manuscript that contained all of the New Testament
- His text was based mostly on 2 inferior 12th century greek manuscripts
- Erasmus had only one copy of the book of Revelation, from which the last page was missing
- Since Erasmus combined several manuscripts and translated some portions from the Latin, the resulting text was in many ways unique. An identical text had never existed before
- the Textus Receptus was originally derived from seven manuscripts, none of them dated before the 11th Century, and most of them dated much later than that
- There are a number of New Testament passages in the AV which do not appear in any of the more than 5000 Greek New Testament manuscripts available today

To wrap this up - i do like the kjv and nkjv, but i will not discredit other valid translations that have been made. Especially, since sitting on the judgement seat means that i have thrown Christ off of the judgement seat.

larryjf · Posted: Wed May 21, 2003 2:54 pm Post subject:

As Paul we should try to glorify in nothing but the cross of Christ.
Once we start glorifying in the bible translation we are reading it lends itself to pride in something other than God Himself.

Also, the bible is not perfect - nor does it claim to be. If you believe the bible should be the rule of faith, you should understand that it does not claim perfection for itself. It's job, like ours is to glorify God.

Dshadna · German Shepherd Joined: 21 Apr 2003 Posts: 344

Gotta say, I'm with Larry and Rev on this one. Yes, I've read the *extra books* before, and I'm not certian as to whether they should have been included in the Bible of today, but I've done a lot of research, and almost every Bible scholar will tell you that they were included in the *Original* Bible manuscripts. I don't know for certian why they've been left out.

As to being fables, well, as Rev pointed out, Jesus spoke in parables, and those are *fables*. Yes, I use the NKJV and the KJ, but I also use the NIV, the CEV, and the Living Bible on rare occasions. I've seen some of the others, but don't own them, only because I use the ones I'm more comfortable with. Doesn't mean they aren't just as good as the others. In fact, if I could find the Tyndale or Geneva Bible, I'd be more apt to use them, as they were written before the KJ Bible, and were influenced more by the original manuscripts than by someone else's personal opinion of what should have been included. However, I freely admit, I could be wrong on that point.

Psalms are poems written by David, Song of Solomn is a love story written by Solomon, Proverbs are nuggets of *truth and wisdom* written by Solomon. They are essentially, fables, if you are going to look at it that way.

Rev has it right on his answer about Creation....God told whomever wrote Genesis what to write there, but the writer was not an eyewitness.

Dshadna · German Shepherd Joined: 21 Apr 2003 Posts: 344

Van · Posted: Sun May 25, 2003 5:14 pm Post subject: Dust

I am not sure what the discussion concerning the books of the bible has to do with the topic of this thread. Sissimay said she was not sure what my point was about creation.

My point is that may people believe God cursed the ground and recreated the world in a way that altered mother nature. Before the curse, no predators, after the curse the cat eats the mouse. Before the curse no thorns, after the curse trimming the roses causes scratches.

My point was that I am not sure creation was altered at all by the curse, that predators existed from day one, that death existed from day one.
I asked for references to support for the mainstream view because I cannot find it.

Perhaps, Sissimay, if you reread my initial post, it will now make a little more sense?

Dshadna · German Shepherd Joined: 21 Apr 2003 Posts: 344

I believe the thread took a turn on it's own when Sissimae said you needed a new bible if you were going to do a bible study....it then kinda snowballed from there, into the discussion it became. I'm sorry. Embarassed

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 7005 Location: USA

I've never considered the curse as applying to the cycle of life, I've only accepted the idea that weeds, stony ground, difficulting in using the earth, etc. were applicable to the curse. I would think that beautiful roses would have initially had been completely beautiful, without thorns, and that weeds would not have destroyed crops etc....

Just my POV
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog