Thorns and Thistles

This seems to be kind of like asking, "Will there be dust in heaven?"

 

I agree it is a valid question, but not one of much importance to me. But it is academically interesting to some I am sure.

 

I do know that certain weed seed CAN remain dormaint in the ground----and then a farmer comes along and runs a plow in the ground---exposing the weed seed to sunlite and air-----and then "BINGO!!!" he has a field full of Cockleburr

The answer I see is this---perhaps two possibilities

1. The weed seed could have been part of creation-----remaining dormaint until after the fall----and obeying the word of God to "spring forth" upon Adam's plowing of the cursed ground

2. God could have merely spoken the word AFTER the fall-----"Weeds--thorns---thistles----GROW!!!"----and the weeds merely obeyed the spoken word

SFIC---Dude!!! You live over there in the Mississippi Delta----the heartland of American farming-----ask one of those farmers what would happen if he didn't apply a "Pre-merge" chemical before he plants his Cotton----then ask the same farmer what would happen if he didn't run his cultavator through that same field of Cotton when its about Knee high!!!!

 

I guess what you’re asking is; was there a second period of creation where God created thorns and thistles, flesh-eating dinosaurs and saber-toothed tigers?

I don't think sooooooo.

One of the problems with Morris’ mutation theory is that it presumes evolutionary (mutational) change at a rate not even an evolutionist could imagine.

Rob

 

who cares? I certainly don't. Maybe the lost people you have contact with or the people you pastor spend alot of time thinking about this, but the ones I speak with, don't.

It's one of those issues that we used to argue about at 4 AM in seminary when we should have been sleeping.

 

I see the text as saying simply Adam and Eve would have to leave the perfect environment they were in and go into the rest of the world where thorns and bristles would be the norm. Any and all planting and cultivating would take hard work, unlike in the garden.

The theory of Morris has God deeming His creation neither good nor finished. That is heresy. God rested on the seventh day, and not so He could begin creating more later. His work was perfectly finished.

 

Hello SFIC,

I’ve not had the chance to speak to any of the Hebrew Professors here at SEBTS today, but I did go to the library and do a bit of research. Here’s what I found.

According to H.C. Leupold in his Exposition of Genesis: Volume I Chapters 1-19, when speaking of God’s creation of the plant life on earth,

He goes on to explain the difference in the three basic categories of plants listed in Genesis 1:11 (grasses, herbs, and trees). With respect to “herbs” he states,

Likewise, John D. Currid, in his commentary entitled Genesis: Volume 1, Genesis 1:1-25:18, when speaking of the third day of creation states:

Finally, according to Henry M. Morris in his work entitled, The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings,

Based a literal reading and understanding of the Gen. 1:11-12 text and the witness of these published sources I think it is safe to say that God created all plant life that exists on the earth during the third day of creation.

 

Moving on to the curse of Genesis 3 and the thorns and thistles mentioned there we find Leupold maintaining,

Like Leupold above, Currid does not specifically address the issue of how or when thorns and thistles, as they relate to the curse, came into existence. He mainly focuses on the mechanics of the how the Fall occurred as the result of Adam and Eve’s eating the forbidden fruit and the poetic justice of the curse’s effect on their ability to obtain food to eat thereafter (Currid, 136).

However, Morris goes into great detail explaining his understanding of Gen. 3:17-19. According to Morris:

Clearly all three commentators maintain that all plant life on earth was created during the third day of creation. Likewise, Morris clearly states here that it is unlikely that God performed some sort of secondary act of creation based on the text of Genesis 3. Why does he say it is unlikely? Because the text of Genesis 1 makes it clear that all plant life that exists was created on the third day of creation and the text of Genesis 3 does not specifically say or even imply a secondary order of creation took place. Therefore, going back to the original discussion that sparked this thread I’d say it is best to abide by a literal reading and understanding of the Genesis text, without reading into it based upon a presupposition against alcohol, that yeast did not exist before the Fall and came about only as a direct result of the curse in Genesis 3. It is not a principle of sound hermeneutics to read into the text that which is not there and to do so leads to error.

 

Hey Web,

I too have some problems with Morris' theory here. However, in all fairness he does say that there is a great deal of uncertainty and he admits that he is making assumptions based, not on the text under consideration, but rather on his understanding of the nature and character of God. It is a poor hermeneutical position to go outside of the text and develop a theory. As such it can (and will likely) lead to errors in interpretation. However, I would not be so quick as to label Morris a heretic.

 

Hey SFIC,

I can accept that explanation. However, I would have a real problem with stating that yeast (or the genus of plants that bear torns and thistles) did not exist before the Fall/curse of Gen. 3, because such would require some sort of secondary act of creation.

 

I also started to say that I liked Brother Blackbird's explanation about the seed being in the ground and Adam's cultivation causing it to grow. However, there is a problem with that now that I think about it. All of the commentators I referenced pointed out that during the third day of creation it was the plants that God commanded to grow and bear seed after their own kind. The text does not say that God commanded the seed to grow into a plant that would produce more seed. It speaks to the age old argument of what came first the plant or the seed? A literal reading and understanding of the text reveals that God commanded the plants to exist, grow, and bear seed in that order.

 

Oh, I wasn't labeling him a heretic, but the view that after God "rested" He continued on with creation. Nothing was created after God deemed His creation "good" (and I'm not talking about macro-evolution, either.)

 

I fully agree.:thumbs: I assume that Morris' theory could be classified as micro-evolution. However, as someone pointed out it would have had to occur on a scale and in such a short time period so as to cause Darwinian Evolutionists a heart attack.

If we are going to speculate about the specifics of what took place as a result of the Fall/curse in Gen. 3, then I would favor a more strict literal reading and understanding of the actual texts involved. Meaning God created everything that exists during the one-time six day creation event. Then the Fall occurred. Then God pronounced the curses in Gen. 3. Thus, (here comes the speculation part) God removed His restraining power, which had kept the thorns and thistles from being a problem in the Garden of Eden, and now Adam had to contend with them as he tried to grow and harvest food.

Likewise, I don't think the existence of yeast, just as we know it today, would be a problem under the above model/theory. Yeast is symbolic of sin and death in many places in the Bible. However, it is not always symbolic of such (and it certainly is not actually sin or death) as demonstrated in the other thread on yeast. Likewise, as Morris rightly pointed out God did not create death at some point following the Fall. He simply removed His great restraining power and death went to work.

 

You are asking the same basic questions as:
Why did the trichinosis worm become a parasite, when before the fall it wasn't?

Why did the mosquito attack man after the fall, when before the fall it didn't?

Why did the lion attack the lamb after the fall, when before the fall it didn't?

All of sudden all of nature went askew? It was a result of the fall--the curse of God was put on the world itself--the very earth that we live on. It seems quite evident that the Lord changed some of the genetic make up of some of the plants and animals to cause them to be parasites, carniverous, etc.

Genesis 3:17-19 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

 

Here again, we (Morris, you and me) are all speculating about the specifics of what took place during creation and what (and how) happened as a result of the Fall/curse in Gen 3. The text does inform us that God pronounced the curse and that as a result things dramatically changed on the earth. However, the text does not say that that change occurred because God caused a change in the genetic make-up of any plants or animals.

Like I said, if I am going to speculate about the specifics where the Bible is silent I'd rather go as far as the text will take me and then speculate. So I'd rather say that God created everything that exists during the one-time six-day creation event of Gen 1. Then the Fall occurred. Then God pronounced the curses of Gen. 3. Then, (this is the speculation part) as part of the curses God removed His great restraining power and death went to work, and the undesirable species (both animal and plant) were loosed to do their undesirable things as well. I think this model/theory is just as, if not more, faithful to what the text actually says. However, since it is speculation I'm open to suggestions for improvement.