Plants and animals and creation, oh my!

[chaoschristian]

I'm reading through Genesis and I noticed something about the language in some verses that I will highlight here:

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

These verses account for the creation of plants, sea animals and land animals, respectively.

The interesting thing, which I never really noticed before, is that the language indicates that plants, sea animals and land animals were not created directly by God, but indirectly out of the medium of their habitation.

Let the land produce . . .

Let the water teem . . .

Let the land produce (again) . . .

The notes in my NRSV Bible read:

"vegetation was created only indirectly by God, whose creative command empowered mother earth to become fertile."

" . . . suggests that the animals are immediately bound to the ground and only indirectly related to God, in contrast to human beings."

​

Now, I've been imprinted with the meme that God created the plants and the animals, always assuming that it was a direct act of creation.

Yet the language of Genesis suggests otherwise, and God did not directly create life, other than man, but empowered the elements to create life from themselves.

So I ask, is this significant to your particular point of view, whereever its ranges on the spectrum of origins philosophy? Or am I the slow one in the family for just now noticing this?

 

[Mandrake]

Interesting. As a TE, I guess that the thought that God created the world with the potential for life and then coaxed it into being jibes better with my thoughts that the *POP* and it's there often cited otherwise, but that doesn't affect my belief that it's still a metaphor, and not a literal account, as it still says that it happened in a single day (in the Genesis 1 account that is.)

 

[Numenor]

I know OECs who would say that only mankind was created by an act of 'Special Creation'. So this would fit with what you are saying here.

PS - and you are the slow one

 

[Calminian]

The fact that God commanded the ground to produce plants and the sea to produce sea life does not prove He used evolution. Just the opposite. It simply means God can command anything to do anything and it will obey. Jesus said the rocks would cry out and worship Him if He so desired. If God commanded a chair to produce a child sitting in it would that be evolution? No that would be a miracle.

Also, the detailed account of Adam corresponds to this. God said He formed him out of the ground. He then clarifies He formed the beasts out of the ground. He did it by a simple command and the ground obeyed.

Also, and this is very important, notice it says he formed all plant and animal kinds from the ground. This is not common descent. Evolution says kinds came from other kinds. God says kinds came from the ground and sea. All kinds. God does not say He created a single organism that was to gradually change into other kinds. And the context is clear this happened over a couple of days. This passage screams special creation.

 

[chaoschristian]

Also, and this is very important, notice it says he formed all plant and animal kinds from the ground.

Actually, the passages I cited do not say that. They say God commanded the earth and sea to give birth to plants and animals. It was the elements that created, not God directly.

Also note that I am not presenting these passages as proof for evolution.

I am presenting them in order to remark on the indirect creation of plant and animal life by God through the elements as noted in the creation story, and I am asking if this indirect creation has any impact on one's pov of origins.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Glen Morton has built a lot on this motif of the land bringing forth.

here is a link into the discussion at asa
http://www.asa3.org:16080/archive/evolution/199805/0164.html

here is a short essay building on it:
http://www.answersincreation.org/evolution_bible.htm

here is one of GMorton's essays on the topic:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/plainreading.htm
and yet another, probably older one:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm

 

[shernren]

Yay! Another one sees the light!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

My word study of 'brought forth' (KJV) indicates that the fish, animals, and plants were 'brought out of' the earth, not 'produced by' the earth, which is a different Hebrew word. This suggests a 'resurrection' of those various life forms from their 'death', caused by the pre-Genesis destruction.

 

[Willtor]

My word study of 'brought forth' (KJV) indicates that the fish, animals, and plants were 'brought out of' the earth, not 'produced by' the earth, which is a different Hebrew word. This suggests a 'resurrection' of those various life forms from their 'death', caused by the pre-Genesis destruction.

What is the Hebrew word it uses, and what is the Hebrew word it would use, if it meant what ChaosChristian thinks it means?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What is the Hebrew word it uses, and what is the Hebrew word it would use, if it meant what ChaosChristian thinks it means?

He's quoting the NIV, which I think interpreted those verses instead of translating them, which I believe is a problem with many versions.

The KJV can be confusing in its wording because it simply translates words as written in the Hebrew.

If indeed I am correct about God 'resurrecting' some previous life forms then the KJV is using the appropriate word.

This is the word used in Genesis 1, and, wherever something that exists is brought into view, or into someone's presence.

yatsa' {yaw-tsaw'}

1) to go out, come out, exit, go forth
a) (Qal)
1) to go or come out or forth, depart
2) to go forth (to a place)
3) to go forward, proceed to (to or toward something)
4) to come or go forth (with purpose or for result)
5) to come out of
b) (Hiphil)
1) to cause to go or come out, bring out, lead out
2) to bring out of
3) to lead out 4) to deliver c) (Hophal) to be brought out or forth

This word is used regarding the earth producing plants.
asah {aw-saw'}

1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make
a) (Qal)
1) to do, work, make, produce
a) to do
b) to work
c) to deal (with)
d) to act, act with effect, effect
2) to make
a) to make
b) to produce
c) to prepare
d) to make (an offering)
e) to attend to, put in order
f) to observe, celebrate
g) to acquire (property)
h) to appoint, ordain, institute
i) to bring about
j) to use
k) to spend, pass
b) (Niphal)
1) to be done
2) to be made
3) to be produced
4) to be offered
5) to be observed
6) to be used c) (Pual) to be made 2) (Piel) to press, squeeze

Of course life forms will thereafter reproduce themselves after their kind, from the nutrients in the earth, as must all life forms. That wording indicates special 'start up' creation. After that the whole thing runs on autopilot.

 

[Pats]

Actually, the passages I cited do not say that. They say God commanded the earth and sea to give birth to plants and animals. It was the elements that created, not God directly.

Also note that I am not presenting these passages as proof for evolution.

I am presenting them in order to remark on the indirect creation of plant and animal life by God through the elements as noted in the creation story, and I am asking if this indirect creation has any impact on one's pov of origins.

This is a very interesting study idea, indeed, Chaos. Thanks.

One thing, though, I'm not sure that if God did use the ground and sea to create life that it was really indirect creating on God's part. If a surgeon operates on me with a scalpel, is he indirectly preforming surgery through the scalpel, or is he using the scalpel as his tool?

If God chose to use His own very creation as tools to create more, I would find that fitting.

With regards to oldwiseguy, in my understanding the KJV is no more or less an interpretation than the NIV. If it were a straight translation, there would be much confustion in sentance structure, and there are no english words for some Hebrew and Greek words, so there would be blank spots as well with missing words and sentances. Woa... that wouldn't help us out at all.

Here's a look at Young's Literal:

11And God saith, `Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed [is] in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:' and it is so.
12And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed [is] in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that [it is] good;

In this, I can see where it is saying God told the earth to yeild life. But, as far as verse 20, both in NIV and YLT, it simply says to let the waters teem with living creatures and birds to fly above.

Most Biblical passages flow together with one theme in meaning. If verse 11 is saying God told the earth to create life, verse 20 is not saying the same thing. In verse 20, the waters are teeming with life. The origins of sea life and birds is not described.

That's why Scriputre is best interprated with scripture. Other passages can cast light on previous ones. Scripture does not contradict itself unless its taken out of context. So, if you compare this writing with the book of Job, chapter 38 is one that I think puts origins theologies in its place. (Read the whole chapter, it's enlightening.)

This passage is one that makes me wonder if I should consider a less strict POV than YEC.

18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.

This tells me we can all try to reason how God did it, but we cannot hope to actually figure it out. The fact that He created me and my world is enough for me for now.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's why Scriputre is best interprated with scripture. Other passages can cast light on previous ones. Scripture does not contradict itself unless its taken out of context. So, if you compare this writing with the book of Job, chapter 38 is one that I think puts origins theologies in its place. (Read the whole chapter, it's enlightening.)

I think ChaosChristian, and myself, are trying to understand the 'bridge' between the ancient world and the newly created one of GenOne. I think many of the plant and animal species were carried over. That may be the reason for the two different Hebrew words for 'bring forth'.

I think that God would also have to resurrect plant species after Noah's flood. That would complete the obvious baptism/resurrection pattern implicit in the flood story.

 

[Dannager]

This tells me we can all try to reason how God did it, but we cannot hope to actually figure it out. The fact that He created me and my world is enough for me for now.

This is much the same conclusion I have come to. Attempting to interpret an ultimately moral message's stance on an ultimately scientific topic like the age of the earth will only get you so far. I've always found it best to stick to science for what science can deal with and stick to moral messages for what moral messages can deal with.

 

[shernren]

On a whim: I wonder if this was a tacit acknowledgement of the "interaction problem" between a holy God fundamentally separate from His creation? God chooses not to directly fashion the creatures, but instead tells the earth to fashion them, because they belong along with nature as something purely physical. On the other hand God demonstrates direct intervention creating man to show that man is "amphibious", belonging both to nature and with God's presence, whereas nothing else belongs with God's presence or is able to respond sentiently to Him (as far as I know).

 

[Pats]

I'm reading through Genesis and I noticed something about the language in some verses that I will highlight here:





These verses account for the creation of plants, sea animals and land animals, respectively.

The interesting thing, which I never really noticed before, is that the language indicates that plants, sea animals and land animals were not created directly by God, but indirectly out of the medium of their habitation.

Let the land produce . . .

Let the water teem . . .

Let the land produce (again) . . .

The notes in my NRSV Bible read:

"vegetation was created only indirectly by God, whose creative command empowered mother earth to become fertile."

" . . . suggests that the animals are immediately bound to the ground and only indirectly related to God, in contrast to human beings."




​

Now, I've been imprinted with the meme that God created the plants and the animals, always assuming that it was a direct act of creation.

Yet the language of Genesis suggests otherwise, and God did not directly create life, other than man, but empowered the elements to create life from themselves.

So I ask, is this significant to your particular point of view, whereever its ranges on the spectrum of origins philosophy? Or am I the slow one in the family for just now noticing this?

Now that I am re-reading this, I looked at Gen. 1 again in YLT, and I am wondering if there is a signifigance to the indirect language used in the creation of say aquatic life as in Gen. 1:20 and animals as in vs. 24, then does this give signifigance to the fact that versus 26 and 27 use language that would indicate God creating man much more directly than the creatures of the previous versus?