>>Sorry, this is not what my Bible says. It says the minerals were there.
>>If I say there is Gold in the Arbuckle Mountains of southern Oklahoma, I
>>would be wrong. Yes I can raise cattle there and sell them and make gold
>>but that is not the same thing as saying that there is gold there.
>>
>>If the Scripture meant to say they traded for gold, why didn't it say
>>"They traded for gold"?
>
>Glenn, you're just asking too much of an ancient text recorded in a
>language other than we speak, and set down in consonants only without
>punctuation or vowels. We are extremely fortunate that any of it
>makes sense.
It seems to me there are two possible interpretations to the claim that
"the gold of that land is good" in Gen 2:11,12.
1. Gold is mined in the land of Havilah, and the quality of the gold ore is
very high. David Chilton in his commentary "The Days of Vengeance" on
Revelation indicates that he thinks it means the gold was pure, so it
didn't have to be smelted.
2. The goldsmiths of that land produce avery high quality work -- regardless
of where they get the gold. This would support Dick's view. Is this
sort of statement used anywhere else in the Bible in this way? If so
it might lend some support to Dick's view.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)