Plants dont die?

[Ecowolf]

Reading through various Creation articles, I came across an interesting concept. The qualifications for life, in the bible and its implications on the plant kingdom.

The hebrew term nephesh chayyāh - the living soul,is used for man and animal kind. Plants are apparently excluded from this. The basis is that man and animals are alive through possessing a soul, and have blood. Nephesh chayyāh is not applied to plants as its states that plants do not have a soul and no blood. No life, therefore plants dont "die" but simply "wither".

I find this curious, because this description does not fit my knowledge of plants. As a forester and ecologist, I study plants in great detail.

My points
Plants fit the description of being alive by:
Respiration (through evaporation)
Being able to reproduce
Digestion ( roots exude acids to break down mineral nutrients, i.e. Hummic acid)
and.. importantly..
Response to environmental and internal stimulus

Withering is defined as loss of water. Without water all processes shutdown. If enough water loss occurs, the plant can not recover. Thus it dies. Plants do not have blood per say, but sap functions much the same way.

The bible address how plants can appear dead, but are still alive.

Job 14:7–9


7 “For there is hope for a tree, If it is cut down, that it will sprout again, And that its tender shoots will not cease.
8 Though its root may grow old in the earth, And its stump may die in the ground,
9 Yet at the scent of water it will bud, and bring forth branches like a plant.

Most trees can resprout from the stump. Hardwood trees do this. Most conifers, such as pine trees can not. Pines simply dont posses the ability to resprout from a stump. A pine stump will die, but it wont wither.

Can the concept of nephesh chayyāh truly be applied to plants? Is ancient knowledge of plants applicable in modern terms?

 

[USincognito]

Nephesh refers to breath and plants actually do breathe.
Hebrew Lexicon :: H5315 (KJV)

 

[juvenissun]

Reading through various Creation articles, I came across an interesting concept. The qualifications for life, in the bible and its implications on the plant kingdom.

The hebrew term nephesh chayyāh - the living soul,is used for man and animal kind. Plants are apparently excluded from this. The basis is that man and animals are alive through possessing a soul, and have blood. Nephesh chayyāh is not applied to plants as its states that plants do not have a soul and no blood. No life, therefore plants dont "die" but simply "wither".

I find this curious, because this description does not fit my knowledge of plants. As a forester and ecologist, I study plants in great detail.

My points
Plants fit the description of being alive by:
Respiration (through evaporation)
Being able to reproduce
Digestion ( roots exude acids to break down mineral nutrients, i.e. Hummic acid)
and.. importantly..
Response to environmental and internal stimulus

Withering is defined as loss of water. Without water all processes shutdown. If enough water loss occurs, the plant can not recover. Thus it dies. Plants do not have blood per say, but sap functions much the same way.

The bible address how plants can appear dead, but are still alive.

Job 14:7–9


7 “For there is hope for a tree, If it is cut down, that it will sprout again, And that its tender shoots will not cease.
8 Though its root may grow old in the earth, And its stump may die in the ground,
9 Yet at the scent of water it will bud, and bring forth branches like a plant.

Most trees can resprout from the stump. Hardwood trees do this. Most conifers, such as pine trees can not. Pines simply dont posses the ability to resprout from a stump. A pine stump will die, but it wont wither.

Can the concept of nephesh chayyāh truly be applied to plants? Is ancient knowledge of plants applicable in modern terms?

Life is defined by specific criteria. You certainly pointed out the definition of life according to the Bible.

According to the current scientific system, you also defined life in a different way. But this has nothing to do what's said in the Bible. If the definition is different, than all associated arguments are different. No surprise.

In the Genesis, plants are created separately from animals and it is clearly in a different category.

 

[Ecowolf]

Life is defined by specific criteria. You certainly pointed out the definition of life according to the Bible.

According to the current scientific system, you also defined life in a different way. But this has nothing to do what's said in the Bible. If the definition is different, than all associated arguments are different. No surprise.

In the Genesis, plants are created separately from animals and it is clearly in a different category.

Autotroph and Heterotroph? This would fit the category.

Just for fun, what about fungi? Neither plant not animal, but possessing quality's of both.

FYI, the term for shoots produced from cut stumps are called "watersprouts". Job14:9 is likely the origin of the term.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Autotroph and Heterotroph? This would fit the category.

Just for fun, what about fungi? Neither plant not animal, but possessing quality's of both.

FYI, the term for shoots produced from cut stumps are called "watersprouts". Job14:9 is likely the origin of the term.

Don't forget carnivorous plants, which are both autotrophs and predators.

 

[juvenissun]

Autotroph and Heterotroph? This would fit the category.

Just for fun, what about fungi? Neither plant not animal, but possessing quality's of both.

FYI, the term for shoots produced from cut stumps are called "watersprouts". Job14:9 is likely the origin of the term.

Again, your view of fungi is scientific. Fungi do not have "life" according to the Bible. Life has soul, according to the Bible.

Job 14 compares plant with human. Job does not have the idea of eternal life and thinks that plants are even "better" than human. Like fungi, plants are living, but has no life.

 

[Ecowolf]

Again, your view of fungi is scientific. Fungi do not have "life" according to the Bible. Life has soul, according to the Bible.

Job 14 compares plant with human. Job does not have the idea of eternal life and thinks that plants are even "better" than human. Like fungi, plants are living, but has no life.

I can agree with Job. I must admit that my bias tends towards plants. Plants dont start wars, nor act out against others in malice. I do give all things, living and nonliving, respect. All things created by God are worthy of respect in some form. My career and my way of life is based on plants. I cant help but have feelings of empathy and admiration towards the plant kingdom. I praise God everyday that I have been given the opportunity to have such a close relationship with plants and all of Creation.

 

[juvenissun]

I can agree with Job. I must admit that my bias tends towards plants. Plants dont start wars, nor act out against others in malice. I do give all things, living and nonliving, respect. All things created by God are worthy of respect in some form. My career and my way of life is based on plants. I cant help but have feelings of empathy and admiration towards the plant kingdom. I praise God everyday that I have been given the opportunity to have such a close relationship with plants and all of Creation.

Amen.

Compare to you, I study the earth, which is much less "alive" in feeling.
Yes, we can see the wonders created by God in everything, life or not-life.

 

[juvenissun]

I am glad to see a person who study plants. I have a question for you:

How do we tell if a seed is still "alive" without planting it?
Another way to see the same question is: if a seed died, how is it different from an "alived" seed (except it does not sprout)?

 

[SkyWriting]

Reading through various Creation articles, I came across an interesting concept. The qualifications for life, in the bible and its implications on the plant kingdom.The hebrew term nephesh chayyāh - the living soul,is used for man and animal kind. Plants are apparently excluded from this. The basis is that man and animals are alive through possessing a soul, and have blood. Nephesh chayyāh is not applied to plants as its states that plants do not have a soul and no blood. No life, therefore plants dont "die" but simply "wither".I find this curious, because this description does not fit my knowledge of plants. As a forester and ecologist, I study plants in great detail.
My points
Plants fit the description of being alive by:
Respiration (through evaporation)
Being able to reproduce
Digestion ( roots exude acids to break down mineral nutrients, i.e. Hummic acid)
and.. importantly..
Response to environmental and internal stimulus
Withering is defined as loss of water. Without water all processes shutdown. If enough water loss occurs, the plant can not recover. Thus it dies. Plants do not have blood per say, but sap functions much the same way.
The bible address how plants can appear dead, but are still alive.
Job 14:7–9


7 “For there is hope for a tree, If it is cut down, that it will sprout again, And that its tender shoots will not cease.
8 Though its root may grow old in the earth, And its stump may die in the ground,
9 Yet at the scent of water it will bud, and bring forth branches like a plant. Most trees can resprout from the stump. Hardwood trees do this. Most conifers, such as pine trees can not. Pines simply dont posses the ability to resprout from a stump. A pine stump will die, but it wont wither. Can the concept of nephesh chayyāh truly be applied to plants? Is ancient knowledge of plants applicable in modern terms?

Plants do not have soul or Spirit unique to humans. We can eat them and not have concern
about their parents getting upset or about the spirits of plants returning to haunt our dreams.

 

[Ecowolf]

I am glad to see a person who study plants. I have a question for you:

How do we tell if a seed is still "alive" without planting it?
Another way to see the same question is: if a seed died, how is it different from an "alived" seed (except it does not sprout)?

That is a good question! The only test that is viable is germination rates, which is a probability. I know this doesn't answer the philosophical aspect.

I have to ask this question then!

A seed contains the plant embryo. A what point is the embryo considered alive? At conception, or germination?

 

[juvenissun]

That is a good question! The only test that is viable is germination rates, which is a probability. I know this doesn't answer the philosophical aspect.

I have to ask this question then!

A seed contains the plant embryo. A what point is the embryo considered alive? At conception, or germination?

The embryo of plant is different. The status could be maintained dormant for an extended period of time. Without planting, we do not know if a seed is alive or not.

But we do know an animal cell can only function for a short period of time and then decomposed. So, if a cell does not decompose but is transforming into a new life, then the cell is considered "alive".

 

[jayem]

The embryo of plant is different. The status could be maintained dormant for an extended period of time. Without planting, we do not know if a seed is alive or not.

But we do know an animal cell can only function for a short period of time and then decomposed. So, if a cell does not decompose but is transforming into a new life, then the cell is considered "alive".

Bacteria are alive, and morphologically like plant cells. Some even have chlorophyll. If you had meningococcal meningitis, or necrotizing fasciitis, you'd experience first hand what living, reproducing bacteria can do.

In fact, under ideal conditions, bacteria (or more properly, their colonies) never die.

 

[Ecowolf]

Bacteria are alive, and morphologically like plant cells. Some even have chlorophyll. If you had meningococcal meningitis, or necrotizing fasciitis, you'd experience first hand what living, reproducing bacteria can do.

In fact, under ideal conditions, bacteria (or more properly, their colonies) never die.

Thank the Lord I havent had those infections! I am no stranger to debilitating bacterial illness. I battled recurrent staph infections for three years that was aggravated by Psoriasis. It was a Penicillin resistant strain, PSRA. Both the illness and the antibiotics nearly killed be a few times.

I became very aware of the ecosystem of the human body. Bacteria are a vital part of our immune system, inside and out. But even a slight imbalance can cause a normally benign or helpful bacteria species too become pathogenic. Modern society's obsession with being super clean and over use of chemical cleaners and disinfectants can be detrimental in the long run. God made bacteria for a reason, life on earth cant function without them. Blessed are the wee buggers!

 

[PsychoSarah]

The embryo of plant is different. The status could be maintained dormant for an extended period of time. Without planting, we do not know if a seed is alive or not.

But we do know an animal cell can only function for a short period of time and then decomposed. So, if a cell does not decompose but is transforming into a new life, then the cell is considered "alive".

There are animal cells capable of dormancy.