We only question the assumption of uniformity of rates of geological and other processes, and even here essentially only as required by Biblical revelation. It is well known that the second law of thermodynamics implies decay but does not say anything about the rate of decay. There is nothing fundamentally inviolable about even rates of radioactive decay. Geologists, therefore, must leave the strict domain of science when they become historical geologists. We repeat that we have no quarrel whatever with geological science , which in its many disciplines is contributing most significantly to our understanding and utilization of our terrestrial environment and resources.
The so-called historical geology, on the other hand, has not changed or developed in any essential particular for over a hundred years, since the days when its basic philosophical structure was first worked out by such non-geologists as Charles Lyell a lawyer , William Smith a surveyor , James Hutton an agriculturalist , John Playfair a mathematician , George Cuvier a comparative anatomist , Charles Darwin an apostate divinity student turned naturalist , and various theologians Buckland, Fleming, Pye Smith, and Sedgwick. Might we respectfully suggest that, if non-geologists were allowed to develop the standard historical geology, non-geologists might also be permitted to evaluate and criticize it?
Historical geology, with its evolutionary implications, has had profound influence on nearly every aspect of modern life, especially in its fostering of an almost universal rejection of the historicity of Genesis and of Biblical Christianity generally. It is at this point that the authors feel that these critical reviewers have been most unfair. As we have stressed repeatedly in our book, the real issue is not the correctness of the interpretation of various details of the geological data, but simply what God has revealed in His Word concerning these matters.
This is why the first four chapters and the two appendixes are devoted to a detailed exposition and analysis of the Biblical teachings on creation, the Flood, and related topics. The last three chapters attempt then, in an admittedly preliminary and incomplete manner, to explain the pertinent geological and other scientific data in the light of these teachings.
The criticisms, however, have almost always centered upon various details of the latter, and have ignored the former and more important matters.
The very strong and detailed Biblical evidences for a recent Creation, the universal effects of the Curse, and the worldwide destructive effects of the Deluge, have evidently been neglected as peripheral and inconsequential as far as these reviewers are concerned.
Of course, they cite opinions to the effect that various interpretations are possible, etc. The only conclusion that one can draw from this is that the authors and their critics seem to be operating on two entirely different sets of presuppositions. On the one hand, scientific data are interpreted in the light of Biblical revelation; on the other hand, both revelation and the scientific data are interpreted in the light of the philosophic assumption of uniformity. The second basic criticism of these reviewers is the charge that we have supported our position by quotations taken out of context, and that these quotations are consequently misleading.
To this we would only suggest that skeptical readers look up the references for themselves. We have been careful to give full documentation for every reference, for just this reason. We flatly reject the innuendo that we have tried to give the impression that the authorities cited agree with our basic position or even with the particular argument we are attempting to illustrate by each quotation.
We are, of course, trying to show in each case that the actual scientific data can be interpreted just as well or better in terms of the creation-catastrophe framework. Since it would be unrealistic to expect most readers to accept our description of the particular phenomenon under discussion simply on our own authority, we use instead the works of recognized geologists of the orthodox school.
No implication is intended, unless explicitly so stated, concerning the beliefs of the particular writer quoted. We believe the quotation in each case speaks for itself concerning the issue at hand. This, of course, is standard procedure in scientific dialogue and argumentation. The latter would be quite impossible were writers expected to limit their citations to recognized authorities who already agreed with their position.
Space does not permit a detailed discussion of the specific examples which the reviewers give in support of their charge of misleading quotations. However, we deny not only the general charge but also the validity of the individual examples. We believe a careful reading of both the original articles and our use of portions of them in our discussions will verify their pertinence and contextual soundness as they stand. We, of course, readily acknowledge our fallibility. When and if legitimate weaknesses or mistakes are pointed out, we hope that we shall be willing to acknowledge and revise them.
As we have tried repeatedly to stress in the book, our specific discussions of individual geologic problems are tentative and subject to continuing re-evaluation with further study, but these problems do not, and cannot be allowed to, raise questions concerning the basic framework of Biblical revelation within which they must be understood. The manuscript for this volume has been reviewed, in full or in part, by a large number of men who are specialists in different branches of science or theology.
The writers wish to acknowledge with genuine gratitude the suggestions and assistance of these men and to thank them for their interest and encouragement. We have endeavored to follow their suggestions insofar as it was feasible, either in correcting our own presentation or in attempting to answer more effectively the questions raised. Of course, the fact must be emphasized that we assume full responsibility for the volume; probably no single reviewer would concur with everything in it. Nevertheless, we desire to mention the names and connections of these friends and colleagues in appreciation of their generous help and encouragement.
The subject treated involves vital contact with many different disciplines, so that the criticisms and suggestions of those who are active in these fields have been invaluable to us. The following men read the entire manuscript and should be recognized in a special way: Lowell Hoyt , B. We especially thank John C. This was in spite of his many duties as head of a large and active geology department and in spite of his natural reservations concerning many of the implications of geological catastrophism advocated herein.
The following have read the first draft of our Chapters 1 through 7 not including the Appendixes , and their suggestions contributed substantially to our final revisions of the manuscript: Laird Harris , Ph. In addition, a number of men have reviewed either Chapters 1 — 4 the geographical extent of the Flood or Chapters 5 — 7 the geologic implications of the Flood. Those who reviewed only the first four chapters are as follows: Chapters 5 through 7 were reviewed in their original form by the following: Southern Illinois University; H.
Clay Hudson , B. Miss Elener Norris , M. Miss Ava Schnittjer , M. It has been a pleasure to work with Mr. His encouragement and helpful counsel in the preparation of this volume for publication have been deeply appreciated by the authors. Finally, special thanks are due to Mrs. In harmony with our conviction that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, verbally inspired in the original autographs, we begin our investigation of the geographical extent of the Flood with seven Biblical arguments in favor of its universality.
The first six of these arguments are briefly stated, but the seventh is more complex and requires a number of supporting arguments. The major objections to these seven arguments will be considered in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3. One of the most important Biblical arguments for a universal Flood is the statement of Gen 7: And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. One need not be a professional scientist to realize the tremendous implications of these Biblical statements.
Leupold makes the following statement concerning the exegesis and interpretation of this crucial text of Scripture:. A measure of the waters is now made by comparison with the only available standard for such waters — the mountains. It almost constitutes a Hebrew superlative. So we believe that the text disposes of the question of the universality of the Flood. The true meaning of the phrase is to be found in comparing it with Gen 6: In other words, the Ark sank into the water to a depth of fifteen cubits just one-half of its total height when fully laden.
Surviving The Floods:
A careful study of the Biblical data reveals the fact that the Flood lasted for days, or a little over a year see the accompanying chronology chart, Figure 1. That the Flood continued for more than a year is entirely in keeping with the doctrine of its universality but cannot properly be reconciled with the local-Flood theory. While there may be a difference of opinion among Christian scholars as to the general depth of the Flood depending upon the altitude of antediluvian mountains , there can be no question as to its duration. Our basis for assuming this is found in Gen 7: But if the Biblical concept of a deluge covering the tops of mountains for sixteen consecutive weeks is hard to reconcile with the local-Flood theory, what are we to say of the fact that an additional thirty-one weeks were required for the waters to subside sufficiently for Noah to disembark safely in the mountains of Ararat?
Custance has recently published a booklet in defense of the local-Flood theory, in which he attempts to deal with this problem:. There are certain figures indicated in the text which, if we are rightly interpreting them, provide some rather surprising information about the rate at which the waters receded. Before this, the raven released from the Ark had not found any resting place within easy flying distance so that we must assume that the peak on which the Ark was actually grounded had not appeared above the water up to this time. Obviously, if land could be seen , the raven would have found a place to alight instead of wandering to and fro as depicted in Gen 8: In this interval, therefore, from the 17th day of the 7th month to the 1st day of the 10th month the water level had fallen perhaps 25 or 30 feet.
It is clear that as soon as the level had fallen by the amount equal to the draught of the vessel dry land would appear … and 25 feet in 74 days is the equivalent of a drop in level of about 4 inches per day. Custance then proceeds to demonstrate that a drop in water level of only a few inches a day would be more appropriate for a limited flood than a universal one. When we turn to the text of Genesis, however, we discover that this could not have been the case. Custance assumes that the raven was released forty days after the Ark was grounded and that the day period described in Gen 8: But if this were true, the entire bird episode, including the plucking of the fresh olive leaf, would have been completed two weeks before the tops of the mountains were seen!
Forty days after the tops of the other mountains had become visible, Noah opened the window of the ark and sent forth a raven Gen 8: The wild, omnivorous bird went flying back and forth, sometimes away from the ark and sometimes back to it again, until the waters had dried off the earth, but he did not again go into the ark.
He presumably found some carrion meat floating in the water or deposited on the mountaintops, or some aquatic creatures trapped on the mountain peaks as the water receded, and this provided sufficient sustenance for the unclean raven with his carrion-eating propensities. To the contrary, it was a good sign; for it proved that the waters had declined considerably and that even though the outside world was still very unfriendly or inhospitable, it was no longer too inhospitable for so sturdy and unfastidious a bird as the raven.
Furthermore, it can hardly be emphasized too strongly that it was not merely the top of the high mountain on which the Ark rested that was seen on the first day of the tenth month. Nor does the Bible teach that the tops of the mountains were still submerged on the last day of the ninth month and then suddenly emerged on the first day of the tenth month.
- Love Across the Miles How to Stay Close to Long Distance Grandchildren.
- Select a book of the Bible?
- The Genesis Flood: An Interpretive Key to the Past!
- White Bengali Tiger.
With equal justification, one might argue that the ground was still soaked on the twenty- sixth day of the second month because we are told that the ground was dry on the twenty- seventh day of the second month. It is obvious that the Scriptures speak of definite stages of drying in Gen 8: In like manner, from the day that the Ark grounded on the highest peak in the mountains of Ararat, more and more of the lower peaks emerged from the waters as they gradually subsided. Doubtless during much of the ninth month the tops of various mountains were seen.
The order of events as set forth in the first part of the Gen 8: This would suggest a drop of perhaps fifteen or twenty feet a day, at least during the initial phase of this assuaging period. These events are sketched in Figure 2. Instead of constituting an objection to the universal Flood concept, the rate of decline of the water level thus becomes a strong argument in its favor. For if nothing could be seen but the tops of mountains after the waters had subsided for 74 days, we are left with no other alternative than to conclude that the Flood covered the whole earth.
The duration of the Flood in its assuaging, as well as in its prevailing, compels us to think of it as a global, not merely a local, catastrophe. Since so many arguments against the universality of the Flood have been based upon supposed geological objections, it is very important to realize that the Scriptures have something to say about the geological factor too. The close connection that exists between Gen 7: But the most significant fact to be observed is that these geological phenomena were not confined to a single day. Such vast and prolonged geologic upheavals in the oceanic depths cannot be reconciled with the theory that the Flood was merely a local inundation in some part of the Near East.
Instead, this Biblical information gives substantial support to the concept of a geographically universal Deluge. According to Gen 6: While it is certainly possible that the cubit referred to in Genesis 6 was longer than According to this standard, the Ark was Since it had three decks Gen 6: Arthur Custance questions whether the Ark could really have been this huge and suggests, without evidence, that the cubit of those days may have been much shorter than eighteen inches. Then he goes on to say:. With all the means later at their disposal, subsequent builders for years constructed seaworthy vessels that seldom seem to have exceeded to feet at the most.
The Queen Mary has a total length of feet which is not very much more than twice the length of the Ark. It was not until apparently that a vessel, the Eturia, a Cunard liner, was built with a length exceeding that of the Ark. The Scriptures, however, do not suggest that Noah and his three sons had to construct the Ark without the help of hired men. Nevertheless, we agree that the sheer massiveness of the Ark staggers the imagination. In fact, this is the very point of our argument: The very size of the Ark should effectively eliminate the local-Flood view from serious consideration among those who take the Book of Genesis at face value.
Not only would an ark of such gigantic proportions have been unnecessary for a local flood, but there would have been no need for an ark at all! The whole procedure of constructing such a vessel, involving over a century of planning and toiling, simply to escape a local flood, can hardly be described as anything but utterly foolish and unnecessary.
How much more sensible it would have been for God merely to have warned Noah of the coming destruction, so that he could move to an area that would not have been affected by the Flood, even as Lot was taken out of Sodom before the fire fell from heaven. Not only so, but also the great numbers of animals of all kinds, and certainly the birds, could easily have moved out also, without having to be stored and tended for a year in the Ark! The entire story borders on the ridiculous if the Flood was confined to some section of the Near East.
The writers have had a difficult time finding local-Flood advocates that are willing to face the implications of this particular argument. Arthur Custance, however, has recently suggested that the Ark was simply an object-lesson to the antediluvians:. There is nothing that Noah could have done to stop them except by disappearing very secretly.
Such a departure could hardly act as the kind of warning that the deliberate construction of the Ark could have done. And the inspiration for this undertaking was given to Noah by leaving him in ignorance of the exact limits of the Flood. He was assured that all mankind would be destroyed, and probably supposed that the Flood would therefore be universal. This supposition may have been quite essential for him. But how can one read the Flood account of Genesis 6 — 9 with close attention and then arrive at the conclusion that the Ark was built merely to warn the ungodly, and not mainly to save the occupants of the Ark from death by drowning?
And how can we exonerate God Himself from the charge of deception, if we say that He led Noah to believe that the Flood would be universal, in order to encourage him to work on the Ark, when He knew all the time that it would not be universal? With respect to the animals in the Ark, Custance takes the view that they were only domesticated varieties that would prove to be useful to man:.
To begin with, there is plenty of evidence to show that the domestication of animals was first undertaken somewhere in this general area. Assuming that such species as had been domesticated in the centuries between Adam and Noah were confined to the areas settled by man and had not spread beyond this, any Flood which destroyed man would also wipe out these animals. The process of domestication would then have to be begun all over again, and probably under far less ideal conditions … It is almost certain that domesticated animals could not have migrated alone … For this reason, if for no other, some animals at least would have to be taken on board … but these were probably of the domesticated varieties.
But where does the Book of Genesis suggest that Noah was to take only domesticated animals into the Ark? These are exactly the same terms used in the Gen 1: If only domesticated animals were to be taken into the Ark, are we to assume that only domesticated animals were created by God in the Gen 1: The fact of the matter is that no clearer terms could have been employed by the author than those which he did employ to express the idea of the totality of air-breathing animals in the world.
Once this point is conceded, all controversy as to the geographical extent of the Deluge must end; for no one would care to maintain that all land animals were confined to the Mesopotamian Valley in the days of Noah! Free, Professor of Archaeology at Wheaton College, concludes:.
The fact that every living creature was to be destroyed would indicate that the whole earth was subject to the flood Gen 7: Probably the animals had scattered over much of the earth; a universal flood would have been needed to destroy them … Certainly all the main groups of animals were represented on the ark. The variations which we observe today within the main groups of animals could have developed in the few thousand years more or less since the flood.
One of the most important Biblical passages relating to the magnitude of the Deluge is to be found in 2Pe 3: For this they willingly forget, that there were heavens from of old, and an earth compacted out of the water and amidst water, by the word of God; by which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished; but the heavens that now are, and the earth, by the same word have been stored up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
And the reason for this skeptical attitude would be none other than a blind adherence to the doctrine of uniformitarianism — a doctrine which maintains that natural laws and processes have never yet been interrupted or newer and higher laws introduced so as to bring about a total destruction of human civilization through the direct intervention of God.
And since this has never been the case in past history, there should be no cause to fear that it will ever occur in the future! In answering these skeptics of the end-time, the Apostle Peter points to two events in the past which cannot be explained on the basis of uniformitarianism.
The first of these events is the creation of the world: Let us now consider the implications of this passage with respect to the geographical extent of the Flood. Otherwise, Peter would be speaking of the creation and final destruction of only a part of the earth! Now the one event which Peter sets forth as having brought about a transformation, not of the earth only but also of the very heavens , is the Flood! Nor is it easy to excuse Peter of gross inaccuracy when he depicts the Flood in such cosmic terms and in such an absolutely universal context, if the Flood was only a local inundation after all.
Against the false naturalistic theory of uniformity, the Apostle urges the truth of supernatural catastrophism as evidenced by the Noahic Flood. Thus, the 2Pe 3: Our seventh and final basic argument for a universal Flood is founded upon the Biblical testimony of a total destruction of the human race outside of the Ark. Such an argument, to be conclusive in demonstrating a geographically universal Flood, must include two sub-arguments: In the development of this argument, we shall set forth four major reasons for believing that the Bible teaches a total destruction of the race and two major reasons for believing that the antediluvians had become widely distributed by the time of the Flood.
From the very beginning of the Flood controversy, there has been little question among conservative Christian scholars as to the total destruction of the human race by the Flood. In the year , Charles Burton could say, without fear of contradiction:. Among the Christian philosophers who dispute on this arena, there is a perfect agreement on the most important point, viz. With the Mosaic narrative before them, no other opinion could be entertained. The same situation prevails today, more than a century later, with only very rare exceptions.
The moral purpose of the Flood. The Flood must have destroyed the entire human race outside of the Ark, because the Scriptures clearly state that the purpose of the Flood was to Wipe out a sinful and degenerate humanity; and this purpose could not have been accomplished by destroying only a portion of the race. Turning our attention now to the most important passages of Scripture that shed light on this question, we read in the Gen 6: And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the ground; both man, and beast, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; for it repenteth me that I have made them Gen 6: And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth Gen 6: The constant, almost monotonous repetition of phrases depicting the utter depravity of antediluvian humanity has filled the minds of believers with a sense of awe and astonishment.
Every statement seems calculated to impress upon its readers the idea of universal sin ; not just the exceptional sins of this group or of that region, nor even of specific times or occasions, but rather the sin of an entire age and an entire race that had utterly corrupted its way upon the earth and was now ripe for the judgment of a holy God.
Graham Scroggie has skillfully and graphically sketched the Biblical picture of antediluvian humanity:. The appalling condition of things is summed up in a few terrible words, words which bellow and burn: This is an astounding event! After over 1, years of human history the race was so utterly corrupt morally that it was not fit to live; and of all mankind only four men and four women were spared, because they did not go with the great sin drift.
The exceptional case of Noah. The fact that all mankind, rather than just a part of the race, was destroyed in the Flood is emphasized in the Scriptures by repeated statements to the effect that Noah and his family were the only ones who escaped the judgment waters. The pertinent passages in Genesis read as follows:. But Noah found favor in the eyes of Jehovah … Noah was a righteous man and perfect in his generations: Noah walked with God Gen 6: And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days.
And God remembered Noah … Gen 7: God spared not the ancient world [ kosmos ], but preserved Noah with seven others , a preacher of righteousness, when he brought a flood upon the world [ kosmos ] of the ungodly 2Pe 2: Now it would seem to be perfectly evident from studying these passages that Noah was spared because of his righteous character. By the same token, the Flood came to destroy others because they were unrighteous.
Now if it should actually turn out to have been the case that only a portion of the human race outside of the Ark was destroyed by the Flood, then we must conclude one of two things: As we consider these two alternatives, we must admit that the first one is quite inconceivable, for the exceptional and unique righteousness of Noah is emphasized over and over again throughout the entire Bible Gen 5: Also, the abysmal and universal wickedness of the antediluvians has been affirmed by an astonishing array of Scriptural testimony Gen 6: To deny this is simply to deny the Word of God.
But the second alternative is equally untenable, for the Scriptures give no hint anywhere that men were destroyed for any other reason than for their ungodliness. But if this had been the case, then those who died in the waters did so only because they were unfortunate enough to be living in the wrong place or because they were not sufficiently strong or clever, and not simply because they were ungodly! We pause at this point to ask the question: We may disagree on various methods of interpretation or even on whether the Biblical record is to be accepted as authentic and trustworthy and credible.
But when mature and trained scholars can examine the Scriptural account of the Flood, in both Old and New Testaments, and conclude that the Bible does not really intend to teach that the Flood was sent to destroy all ungodly men , then Biblical hermeneutics, in our opinion, ceases to be a scientific and scholarly discipline. Consequently, both of the above-mentioned alternatives must be rejected without hesitation. The Scriptures do teach that the Flood destroyed all mankind outside of the Ark, because none outside of the Ark were godly and the Flood was sent by God to destroy the ungodly.
The testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ. It almost seems that our Lord made a special point of choosing His illustrations and warnings from those portions of the Old Testament that would become objects of unbelieving scorn and ridicule throughout the coming centuries. For example, in Mat And in addition to all of these, our Lord made special reference to Noah and the Flood in the Luk For the sake of our subsequent discussion, we must include part of the context in our quotation of this passage:.
And as it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise even as it came to pass in the days of Lot; they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but in the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all: Now it is very important that we observe the context into which our Lord places the Flood-destruction.
Our argument proceeds in the following manner: This would allow hope for the ungodly that some of them might escape the wrath of God in that coming day of judgment. But we have, indeed, no reason for thinking that any Sodomite did escape destruction when the fire fell from heaven. In fact, the only characterization which our Lord made of those who perished in the Flood was that they ate and drank and married and were given in marriage. A heavy burden of proof rests upon those who would maintain that only a part of the human race was destroyed in the Flood, in view of the clear statements of the Lord Jesus Christ.
One of the most difficult problems to be faced by those who deny that the Flood was anthropologically universal is the covenant which God made with Noah after the Flood had ended. For if the Flood destroyed only a part of the human race, then those who escaped the Flood waters were not included in the Covenant of the Rainbow. But the Scriptures repeatedly state that God made this covenant with Noah and his sons Gen 9: Schultz of Wheaton College has reached a similar conclusion on this crucial question:.
Had any part of the human race survived the flood outside of Noah and his family they would not have been included in the covenant God made here. The implication seems to be that all mankind descended from Noah so that the covenant with its bow in the cloud as a reminder would be for all mankind. Those who acknowledge the tremendous weight of Biblical testimony concerning the total destruction of the human race outside of the Ark, and yet who are still unwilling to admit that the Flood was geographically universal, usually maintain that the race had not spread beyond the region of Mesopotamia during the period from Adam to Noah.
In the first place, the vast possibilities for population growth due to longevity among the antediluvians must be recognized. Even a rather cursory examination of Gen 5: The average of these ages, omitting Enoch, is Vis has prepared a graph to indicate the contrast between the ages of patriarchs before and after the Flood see Figure 3.
A study of this chart shows in a striking way that something extremely significant happened to the earth and to man at the time of the flood. It would seem that whatever this was, it probably removed the dominant factor for the long life of the patriarchs. The spiritual message of the Bible is clear: However, the scientific explanation is not evident. Could some antediluvian climatic or other condition have been extremely favorable for long life in man? Perhaps future scientific research will cast some light on this.
That there is nothing inherently impossible about such long ages is believed by many modern students of the phenomenon of biologic aging and maturity. One of the researchers on these problems is Dr. Selye has recently said:. Medicine has assembled a fund of knowledge that will now serve, I believe, as a point of departure for studying the causes of old age.
If the causes of aging can be found, there is no good medical reason to believe that it will not be possible for science to find some practical way of slowing the process down or even bringing it to a standstill. Possible physical explanations of antediluvian longevity, and its decline after the Flood, will be discussed later.
The record in Genesis 5 clearly implies that men had large families in those days. Consequently the Bible implies that: All things considered, it is certainly very conservative to estimate that each family had, say, six children, and that each new generation required ninety years on the average. That is, assume the first family Adam and Eve had six children; the three families that could he established from these had six children each; and the nine families resulting from these each had six children, and so on.
Actually, each probably had far more than six children, but this figure will allow for those who did not marry, who died prematurely, etc. At an average figure of ninety years per generation, which seems far higher than was probably actually the case, one can calculate that there were some eighteen generations in the 1, years from Adam to the Flood.
The total number of people in the n th generation can be calculated on this basis as equal to 2 3 n, Thus, at the end of the first generation n equals one , the number in the family was 2 3 , or 6. At the end of two generations, it was 2 3 2, or Finally, at the end of 17 generations, the number was million and, at the end of 18 generations, it was million! If, at this time, only one previous generation was still living, the total population of the earth would have been over 1, million!
And we believe that anyone would agree that these calculations are extremely conservative, assuming only that the Biblical statements are true. Lest anyone regard such rates of population increase as unreasonable, listen to the following:. During the first half of the nineteenth century, world population reached 1 billion; in the figure was about 2 billion. The acceleration of population growth in underdeveloped countries is especially spectacular. The present rate of world population increase is thus approximately 2 per cent per year.
But the rate of population growth we have supposed for the antediluvian period is less than 1. Theorists usually say that earlier population increases were lower due to the effects of war, disease and starvation. But as Fairfield Osborn points out:. It must be remembered that the numerical loss of human life in the last two great wars was relatively inconsequential when measured against the total populations of the countries at war. In fact, the wars of the last century have had virtually no influence in restraining population increase in the countries engaged.
Similarly, there is little real evidence to support the opinion that either disease or starvation, although they have occasionally taken great toll of human life, have had any very significant influence in restraining population increase, on a percentage basis. And especially is this true with respect to the antediluvian period, when the very fact that men lived to such great ages would indicate that famine and disease were not serious problems. We are confident, therefore, that our estimate of a population of one billion people on the earth at the time of the Deluge is very conservative; it could well have been far more than this.
Furthermore, if analogies with postdiluvian history are at all valid in such a study, they certainly prove beyond any question that extreme sinfulness and a tendency to strife and violence in human society are factors that have favored the scattering, rather than the centralizing, of populations. The history of Indian tribes in the Americas and of the Gothic and Germanic tribes in Europe illustrates this fact clearly. And finally, the nations which boast the highest birth rates in the world today India, China, and Russia are not necessarily the most righteous!
The second objection commonly urged against a large antediluvian population was that children were not born until the patriarchs were well advanced in years and that even then few children are named in the genealogies of Genesis. For example, it was observed that Noah lived years before he begat any sons, and then only three are named.
But such an argument is refuted by the following considerations: A well-known German writer of the present day has expressed the matter as follows:.
Surviving The Floods: by Irene Calvin, published by Outskirts Press
Already in the time of Cain, apparently in his advanced age, a city could be built probably at first simply an established colony , Gen 4: This is the less astonishing, since the life-energy of the youthful race must at the beginning have been very powerful. Also, with the long lives of the parents, the number of children must have been much greater than later on; and, for the same reason, many generations must have lived alongside of each other at the same time.
With an average of only six children per family, by the time Cain was only years old he would have had far more than , descendants. In fact, his only remark on the subject was this: But this is not equivalent to saying that Noah preached directly to all the people of his generation! To him only God could say: The kind of faith that produced obedience Gen 6: No one else had the kind of faith that produced obedience; therefore the world was condemned.
The sinfulness of the antediluvians and the characteristics of patriarchal family life are objections that can easily be turned into supporting arguments, and the fact that Noah was a preacher who condemned the world can be made to harmonize perfectly with the concept of a widely scattered antediluvian race. Our second reason for believing that man had travelled far beyond the confines of the Near East by the time of the Flood is based upon evidence from paleontology. Our purpose in appealing to such evidence in this chapter is simply to show how devastating to the limited-distribution theory would be the discovery that even one human fossil from Africa, Europe, Asia, or America antedated the Flood.
Now the important fact to be observed with regard to these ancient fossils is that practically all of them have been found hundreds, and even thousands, of miles from the Mesopotamian Valley! In view of this fact, the advocates of the limited-distribution theory are forced to maintain one of two possible positions: George Frederick Wright, a geologist of two generations ago, seeing the futility of defending the first of these two alternatives, wrote as follows:. An insuperable objection to this theory is that the later discoveries have brought to light remains of prehistoric man from all over the northern hemisphere, showing that long before the time of the flood, he had been widely scattered.
But this second alternative is also faced with insuperable objections: In conclusion, it must be admitted that evidence from paleontology presents some very embarrassing problems for those who believe that the entire human race was confined to the region of Mesopotamia at the time of the Flood.
If it should ever be proved that any of the ancient human fossils discovered in Java, China, South Africa, or Western Europe were antediluvian, then the universality of the Flood could be proven by paleontology alone. In this chapter we have attempted to establish the geographical universality of the Flood on the basis of seven major Biblical arguments: In support of our seventh argument, we presented four Biblical reasons for the necessity of a total destruction of humanity in the days of Noah: The writers are firmly convinced that these basic arguments, if carefully weighed by Christian thinkers, would prove to be sufficiently powerful and compelling to settle once and for all the long-debated question of the geographical extent of the Flood.
This is not to say, of course, that a universal Flood presents no serious scientific problems; for the remaining chapters of this volume are devoted largely to an examination of such problems. But we do believe that no problem, be it scientific or philosophical, can be of sufficient magnitude to offset the combined force of these seven Biblical arguments for a geographically universal Flood in the days of Noah.
As part of the seventh major argument for a universal flood, in the preceding chapter, four reasons were presented for believing that the entire human race outside of the Ark perished in the Flood. It was observed that conservative Christians have been practically unanimous in their adherence to this view. Ramm is one of the most prominent and outspoken representatives of this school of thought at the present time.
It is necessary that we devote one chapter to a consideration of Dr. The first argument against the doctrine that all men outside of the Ark were destroyed has been expressed as follows:. If the evidence is certain that the American Indian was in America around 8, b.
It will be observed that this argument rests upon a question of relative chronology. In order for it to have validity, both of its premises must be proven true: First of all, we must turn our attention to the second of Dr. There seems to be general agreement among Semitic scholars that the date of the composition of the Gilgamesh Epic, at least in its twelve-tablet Akkadian poetic form, was approximately b. The Semitic Babylonians, who produced this amazing epic, may have borrowed many elements of their Flood narrative from the Sumerians whose culture they adopted.
It is indeed astonishing to see how large are the areas of general agreement between the Biblical and Babylonian Flood accounts. As Unger points out, both accounts 1 state that the Deluge was divinely planned, 2 agree that the impending catastrophe was divinely revealed to the hero of the Deluge, 3 connect the Deluge with defection in the human race, 4 tell of the deliverance of the hero and his family, 5 assert that the hero of the Deluge was divinely instructed to build a huge boat to preserve life, 6 indicate the physical causes of the Flood, 7 specify the duration of the Flood, 8 name the landing place of the boat, 9 tell of the sending forth of birds at certain intervals to ascertain the decrease of the waters, 10 describe acts of worship by the hero after his deliverance, and 11 allude to the bestowment of special blessings upon the hero after the disaster.
On the other hand, it must be recognized that there are so many important differences in detail between the two accounts the Biblical being far more rational and consistent than the Babylonian , that it is quite impossible to assume that Genesis in any way depends upon the Gilgamesh Epic as a source. Alexander Heidel has carefully analyzed a number of these differences, among which are the following:. In Genesis it is the one and only true God who brings the Flood because of the moral depravity of mankind; in the Babylonian account the Flood is sent because of the rashness of Enlil and in opposition to the will of other gods.
In Genesis God Himself warns Noah to build an ark and gives mankind years to repent; in the Babylonian account the Flood is kept a secret by the gods, but Utnapishtim the Babylonian Noah is given a hint of the coming disaster by Ea without the knowledge of Enlil. In Genesis the Flood is caused by the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep and the opening of the windows of heaven, and these conditions continue for days followed by an additional days during which the waters abate; in the Babylonian account rain is the only cause mentioned and it ceases after only six days.
After an unspecified number of days, Utnapishtim and the others leave the Ark. In Genesis a raven is sent out first and then a dove three times at intervals of seven days; in the Babylonian account a dove is sent out first, then a swallow, and finally a raven, at unspecified intervals. The Babylonian account does not mention the olive leaf. A quarrel ensues between the gods Enlil and Ea, and Enlil finally blesses Utnapishtim and his wife after being rebuked by Ea for his rashness in bringing the Flood.
Utnapishtim and his wife are rewarded by being made gods and are taken to the realm of the gods. The gross polytheism and confusion of details in the Babylonian account seem to indicate a long period of oral transmission. But this is exactly what we would have to assume if Indians have been inhabiting North America continually since around 10, b. It must be realized that the insertion of 7, years between Babel and Abraham creates more problems than it solves. Since these problems are discussed in Appendix II pp. Furthermore, it is difficult to harmonize the early chapters of Genesis with the concept of a seven-thousand-year period of universal illiteracy between the judgment of Babel and the rise of Near Eastern civilizations in the fourth millennium b.
As a matter of fact, the Scriptures seem to imply that written records were made and kept by at least a portion of the human race during the entire period from Adam to Abraham. With respect to the antediluvian period, Ramm admits:. In the Gen 4: This implies the ability to write, to count, to build, to farm, to smelt, and to compose. Further, this is done by the immediate descendants of Adam.
Now if it be granted that the Scriptures imply that men could read and write before the Flood, is it not reasonable to assume that Noah and his sons could have provided an accurate written account of the Flood for postdiluvian humanity? And may we not also assume that a large number of people possessed the ability to read and write down to the judgment of Babel, perhaps as much as 1, years after the Flood? That literacy and written records did not vanish from the earth even after the judgment of Babel is suggested by the fact that the Bible provides us with a list of patriarchs and their ages, not only for the pre-Flood and the pre-Babel periods, but also for the post-Babel period down to Abraham.
Thus, the early chapters of Genesis imply that there was at least a small pocket of civilization in the Near East linking the civilization of Babel with that of the Sumerians and Babylonians cf. Under these circumstances, it is very difficult to conceive of more than four or five thousand years intervening between the judgment of Babel and the time of Abraham; for if writing were known in any part of the Near East during those thousands of years, it is strange that the earliest form of writing known consists of pictographs dating no earlier than the middle of the fourth millennium b. It would be more in line with the Biblical evidence to suppose that the Amorites and possibly the Sumerians received their superior account of the Flood from the direct ancestors of Abraham who had kept written records since the time of Babel.
Thus, even though the Sumerians independently invented their own form of script, the Flood tradition and doubtless traditions of the Creation and the Fall would have been kept pure for many generations after Babel in written records that have long since disappeared. In bringing this part of our discussion to a conclusion, we find ourselves in agreement with Dr. We found this premise to be true, not only because of the problem of accounting for the remarkable Babylonian Flood tradition as the end product of millenniums of purely oral transmission but, even more important, because of the impossibility of fitting the Biblical picture of postdiluvian civilization and the line of post-Babel patriarchs into such a chronological framework.
Genesis 11 can hardly be stretched to cover a period of eight to ten thousand years. If the Flood did not occur earlier than 10, b. Yet creation is not identical with God. God creates everything, but he also literally sows the seed for the perpetuation of creation through the ages. This gives our work a beauty and value above the value of a ticking clock or a prancing puppet. Our work has its source in God, yet it also has its own weight and dignity. For our purposes it seems best to follow the traditional Christian interpretation that it refers to the Trinity.
In any case, we know from the New Testament that God is indeed in relationship with himself—and with his creation—in a Trinity of love. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. Nor does it mean that the creation is complete, for, as we will see, God leaves plenty of work for people to do to bring the creation further along.
But chaos had been turned into an inhabitable environment, now supporting plants, fish, birds, animals, and human beings. God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their multitude.
And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done. God crowns his six days of work with a day of rest. While creating humanity was the climax of God's creative work, resting on the seventh day was the climax of God's creative week. Why does God rest? But he chooses to limit his creation in time as well as in space. The universe is not infinite. It has a beginning, attested by Genesis, which science has learned how to observe in light of the big bang theory.
Whether it has an end in time is not unambiguously clear, in either the Bible or science, but God gives time a limit within the world as we know it. As long as time is running, God blesses six days for work and one for rest. This is a limit that God himself observes, and it later becomes his command to people, as well Exod.
So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. A full theology of the image of God is beyond our scope here, so let us simply note that something about us is uniquely like him. It would be ridiculous to believe that we are exactly like God. But the chief thing we know about God, so far in the narrative, is that God is a creator who works in the material world, who works in relationship, and whose work observes limits. We have the ability to do the same. The rest of Genesis 1 and 2 develops human work in five specific categories: The development occurs in two cycles, one in Genesis 1: The order of the categories is not exactly in the same order both times, but all the categories are present in both cycles.
The second cycle describes how God equips Adam and Eve for their work as they begin life in the Garden of Eden. The language in the first cycle is more abstract and therefore well-suited for developing principles of human labor. The language in the second cycle is earthier, speaking of God forming things out of dirt and other elements, and is well suited for practical instruction for Adam and Eve in their particular work in the garden. This shift of language—with similar shifts throughout the first four books of the Bible—has attracted uncounted volumes of research, hypothesis, debate, and even division among scholars.
Any general purpose commentary will provide a wealth of details. Most of these debates, however, have little impact on what the book of Genesis contributes to understanding work, workers, and workplaces, and we will not attempt to take a position on them here. In order to make it easier to follow these themes, we will explore Genesis 1: The following table gives a convenient index with links for those interested in exploring a particular verse immediately. As Ian Hart puts it, "Exercising royal dominion over the earth as God's representative is the basic purpose for which God created man Man is appointed king over creation, responsible to God the ultimate king, and as such expected to manage and develop and care for creation, this task to include actual physical work.
As we exercise dominion over the created world, we do it knowing that we mirror God. Think about the implications of this in our workplaces. How would God go about doing our job? What values would God bring to it? What products would God make? Which people would God serve? What organizations would God build? What standards would God use?
In what ways, as image-bearers of God, should our work display the God we represent? The cycle begins again with dominion, although it may not be immediately recognizable as such. Meredith Kline puts it this way, "God's making the world was like a king's planting a farm or park or orchard, into which God put humanity to 'serve' the ground and to 'serve' and 'look after' the estate.
We are to act as if we ourselves had the same relationship of love with his creatures that God does. Subduing the earth includes harnessing its various resources as well as protecting them. Dominion over all living creatures is not a license to abuse them, but a contract from God to care for them. That does not mean that we will allow people to run over us, but it does mean that we will not allow our self-interest, our self-esteem, or our self-aggrandizement to give us a license to run over others. The later unfolding story in Genesis focuses attention on precisely that temptation and its consequences.
Today we have become especially aware of how the pursuit of human self-interest threatens the natural environment. We were meant to tend and care for the garden Gen. Creation is meant for our use, but not only for our use. Remembering that the air, water, land, plants, and animals are good Gen. Our work can either preserve or destroy the clean air, water, and land, the biodiversity, the ecosystems, and biomes, and even the climate with which God has blessed his creation.
Ian Hart, "Genesis 1: Baker, , We have already seen that God is inherently relational Gen. These relationships are not left as philosophical abstractions in Genesis. We see God talking and working with Adam in naming the animals Gen. How does this reality impact us in our places of work? Above all, we are called to love the people we work with, among, and for. The God of relationship is the God of love 1 John 4: Francis Schaeffer explores further the idea that because we are made in God's image and because God is personal, we can have a personal relationship with God.
He notes that this makes genuine love possible, stating that machines can't love. As a result, we have a responsibility to care consciously for all that God has put in our care. Being a relational creature carries moral responsibility. When Eve arrives, Adam is filled with joy.
Although this may sound like a purely erotic or family matter, it is also a working relationship. To be a helper means to work. Someone who is not working is not helping. To be a partner means to work with someone, in relationship. Clearly, an ezer is not a subordinate. It is a tragic consequence of the Fall Gen. A yoke is what makes it possible for two oxen to work together. In Christ, people may truly work together as God intended when he made Eve and Adam as co-workers. For more on yoking, see the section on 2 Corinthians 6: A crucial aspect of relationship modeled by God himself is delegation of authority.
God delegated the naming of the animals to Adam, and the transfer of authority was genuine. The foundation of this kind of development has been in Genesis all along, though Christians have not always noticed it. Samantha thought the advice of her grad school professor was a little unusual—words given her as she was about to launch her career: To continue reading, click here. You can return to this page afterwards.
In turn, working relationships make it possible to create the vast, complex array of goods and services beyond the capacity of any individual to produce. And without the intimate relationship between a man and a woman, there are no future people to do the work God gives. Our work and our community are thoroughly intertwined gifts from God.
Together they provide the means for us to be fruitful and multiply in every sense of the words. God could have created everything imaginable and filled the earth himself. It is remarkable that God trusts us to carry out this amazing task of building on the good earth he has given us.
Through our work God brings forth food and drink, products and services, knowledge and beauty, organizations and communities, growth and health, and praise and glory to himself. A word about beauty is in order. This is not surprising, since people, being in the image of God, are inherently beautiful. Christian communities do well at appreciating the beauty of music with words about Jesus.
Perhaps we could do better at valuing all kinds of true beauty. A good question to ask ourselves is whether we are working more productively and beautifully. History is full of examples of people whose Christian faith resulted in amazing accomplishments. If our work feels fruitless next to theirs, the answer lies not in self-judgment, but in hope, prayer, and growth in the company of the people of God.
No matter what barriers we face—from within or without—by the power of God we can do more good than we could ever imagine. Adam and Eve are given two specific kinds of work in Genesis 2: Both are creative enterprises that give specific activities to people created in the image of the Creator. By growing things and developing culture, we are indeed fruitful. We bring forth the resources needed to support a growing population and to increase the productivity of creation.
We develop the means to fill, yet not overfill, the earth. We need not imagine that gardening and naming animals are the only tasks suitable for human beings. Work is forever rooted in God's design for human life. It is an avenue to contribute to the common good and as a means of providing for ourselves, our families, and those we can bless with our generosity.
An important though sometimes overlooked aspect of God at work in creation is the vast imagination that could create everything from exotic sea life to elephants and rhinoceroses. While theologians have created varying lists of those characteristics of God that have been given to us that bear the divine image, imagination is surely a gift from God we see at work all around us in our workspaces as well as in our homes.
Much of the work we do uses our imagination in some way. We tighten bolts on an assembly line truck and we imagine that truck out on the open road. We open a document on our laptop and imagine the story we're about to write. Mozart imagined a sonata and Beethoven imagined a symphony. Picasso imagined Guernica before picking up his brushes to work on that painting.
Tesla and Edison imagined harnessing electricity, and today we have light in the darkness and myriad appliances, electronics, and equipment. Most of the jobs people hold exist because someone could imagine a job-creating product or process in the workplace. Yet imagination takes work to realize, and after imagination comes the work of bringing the product into being. Actually, in practice the imagination and the realization often occur in intertwined processes. While it is being done, it changes as one's thoughts change. And when it's finished, it goes on changing, according to the state of mind of whoever is looking at it.
Laird Harris, Gleason L. Moody Press, , , While this quote is widely repeated, its source is elusive. Whether or not it is genuine, it expresses a reality well known to artists of all kinds. God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.
Without him, our work is nothing. We cannot bring ourselves to life. We cannot even provide for our own maintenance. We do not have to depend on our own ability or on the vagaries of circumstance to meet our need.
The second cycle of the creation account shows us something of how God provides for our needs. He prepares the earth to be productive when we apply our work to it. Though we till, God is the original planter. In addition to food, God has created the earth with resources to support everything we need to be fruitful and multiply. He gives us a multitude of rivers providing water, ores yielding stone and metal materials, and precursors to the means of economic exchange Gen.
Even when we synthesize new elements and molecules or when we reshuffle DNA among organisms or create artificial cells, we are working with the matter and energy that God brought into being for us. Did God rest because he was exhausted, or did he rest to offer us image-bearers a model cycle of work and rest? Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work.
Noah's Ark: the facts behind the Flood
But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. While religious people over the centuries tended to pile up regulations defining what constituted keeping the Sabbath, Jesus said clearly that God made the Sabbath for us—for our benefit Mark 2: What are we to learn from this? When, like God, we stop our work on whatever is our seventh day, we acknowledge that our life is not defined only by work or productivity.
Walter Brueggemann put it this way, "Sabbath provides a visible testimony that God is at the center of life—that human production and consumption take place in a world ordered, blessed, and restrained by the God of all creation. Otherwise, we live with the illusion that life is completely under human control. Part of making Sabbath a regular part of our work life acknowledges that God is ultimately at the center of life.
Having blessed human beings by his own example of observing workdays and Sabbaths, God equips Adam and Eve with specific instructions about the limits of their work. In the midst of the Garden of Eden, God plants two trees, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil Gen.
The latter tree is off limits. Various hypotheses are found in the general commentaries, and we need not settle on an answer here. For our purposes, it is enough to observe that not everything that can be done should be done. If we want to work with God, rather than against him, we must choose to observe the limits God sets, rather than realizing everything possible in creation. Francis Schaeffer has pointed out that God didn't give Adam and Eve a choice between a good tree and an evil tree, but a choice whether or not to acquire the knowledge of evil.
They already knew good, of course. In making that tree, God opened up the possibility of evil, but in doing so God validated choice. All love is bound up in choice; without choice the word love is meaningless. God expects that those in relationship with him will be capable of respecting the limits that bring about good in creation.
Human creativity, for example, arises as much from limits as from opportunities. Architects find inspiration from the limits of time, money, space, materials, and purpose imposed by the client. Painters find creative expression by accepting the limits of the media with which they choose to work, beginning with the limitations of representing three-dimensional space on a two-dimensional canvas.
Writers find brilliance when they face page and word limits. How do you avoid failure? Jim Moats claims, "I believe that failure is the least efficient method for discovering limitations. There are limits to healthy eating and exercise. There are limits by which we distinguish beauty from vulgarity, criticism from abuse, profit from greed, friendship from exploitation, service from slavery, liberty from irresponsibility, and authority from dictatorship.
In practice it may be hard to know exactly where the line is, and it must be admitted that Christians have often erred on the side of conformity, legalism, prejudice, and a stifling dreariness, especially when proclaiming what other people should or should not do. Walter Brueggemann, "Sabbath," in Reverberations of Faith: Westminster John Knox Press, , The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.
- Transformative Quality: The Emerging Revolution in Health Care Performance!
- ;
- Genesis and Work | Bible Commentary | Theology of Work.
The use of this terminology is not essential, but the idea it stands for seems clear in Genesis 1 and 2. It is not in our nature to be satisfied with things as they are, to receive provision for our needs without working, to endure idleness for long, to toil in a system of uncreative regimentation, or to work in social isolation. Until this point, we have been discussing work in its ideal form, under the perfect conditions of the Garden of Eden. But then we come to Genesis 3: Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made.
He said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat from any tree in the garden'? The serpent represents anti-god, the adversary of God. Bruce Waltke notes that God's adversary is malevolent and wiser than human beings. He's shrewd as he draws attention to Adam and Eve's vulnerability even as he distorts God's command. He maneuvers Eve into what looks like a sincere theological discussion, but distorts it by emphasizing God's prohibition instead of his provision of the rest of the fruit trees in the garden.
In essence, he wants God's word to sound harsh and restrictive. In short, they turn what is good into evil. By choosing to disobey God, they break the relationships inherent in their own being. First, their relationship together—"bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh," as it had previously been Gen.
- WHO SAID THAT? - TENNIS (Quaere Sports Book 4)!
- Times 9 - School (Educational Nursery Rhymes).
- Un mapa en la cabeza: Anécdotas, historias y curiosidades de la geografía (Spanish Edition).
- The Genesis Flood: An Interpretive Key to the Past.
- Bible Search?
- The Football Factory;
- The Genesis Flood.
Eve likewise breaks humanity's relationship with the creatures of the earth by blaming the serpent for her own decision Gen. God speaks judgment against their sin and declares consequences that result in difficult toil. The serpent will have to crawl on its belly all its days Gen. The woman will face hard labor in delivering children, and also feel conflict over her desire for the man Gen.
All in all, human beings will still do the work they were created to do, and God will still provide for their needs Gen. But work will become more difficult, unpleasant, and liable to failure and unintended consequences. It is important to note that when work became toil, it was not the beginning of work. Some people see the curse as the origin of work, but Adam and Eve had already worked the garden. Work is not inherently a curse, but the curse affects the work. In fact, work becomes more important as a result of the Fall, not less, because more work is required now to yield the necessary results.
Adam, made from dirt, will now struggle to till the soil until his body returns to dirt at his death Gen. Domination of one person over another in marriage and work was not part of God's original plan, but sinful people made it a new way of relating when they broke the relationships that God had given them Gen.
Two forms of evil confront us daily. The first is natural evil, the physical conditions on earth that are hostile to the life God intends for us.
Scripture :: The Canon of Scripture
The second is moral evil, when people act with wills that are hostile to God's intentions. By acting in evil ways, we mar the creation and distance ourselves from God, and we mar the relationships we have with other people. We live in a fallen, broken world and we cannot expect life without toil.
The Fall created alienation between people and God, among people, and between people and the earth that was to support them. Suspicion of one another replaced trust and love. In the generations that followed, alienation nourished jealousy, rage, even murder. All workplaces today reflect that alienation between workers—to greater or lesser extent—making our work even more toilsome and less productive.
Nonetheless, God continues to provide for them, even to the point of sewing clothes for them when they lack the skill themselves Gen. The curse has not destroyed their ability to multiply Gen. The work of Genesis 1 and 2 continues. There is still ground to be tilled and phenomena of nature to be studied, described, and named.