The Genesis Quiz!

[BarryDesborough]

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

According to Genesis,

1. What did the ‘bringing forth’? a) the earth and the waters, b) God, c) Marvo the magician.

2. When it says God made or God created living things did he do this a) directly or b) indirectly?

3. Which verse talks about ‘reproducing after their kind’? a) none, b) none or c) none.

4. French Bibles have «selon leur espèce» for ‘after their kind’. Does this mean a) ‘according to their species, sort or type’ or b) is it an express order to all living creatures never to be naughty and go off and evolve? (Selon=according to, in accordance with. Leur=their. Espèce=Species, sort, type, kind.)

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

1. a and b.
2. a and b.
3. is there an option d?
4. a.

 

[BarryDesborough]

1. a and b.
2. a and b.
3. is there an option d?
4. a.

Rep for responding.
You need to explain your answers to 1. and 2.
You also need to explain why another option d is needed for 3. What would that option be?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Which translation are we meant use as source. I like the technical slang version of genesis:

"At time t = 0, Elohiym implemented the heavens and Earth.

Now Earth had low information content, ...

And Elohiym said, "Let there be electromagnetic radiation", and there was electromagnetic radiation."

--Genesis 1:1 to 1:3, Technical Slang Version.

[4: Elohiym saw that the electromagnetic radiation was a Good Thing.]

4: Elohiym saw that the electromagnetic radiation passed QA [Quality Assurance].

 

[Wiccan_Child]

According to Genesis,

1. What did the ‘bringing forth’? a) the earth and the waters, b) God, c) Marvo the magician.

2. When it says God made or God created living things did he do this a) directly or b) indirectly?

3. Which verse talks about ‘reproducing after their kind’? a) none, b) none or c) none.

4. French Bibles have «selon leur espèce» for ‘after their kind’. Does this mean a) ‘according to their species, sort or type’ or b) is it an express order to all living creatures never to be naughty and go off and evolve? (Selon=according to, in accordance with. Leur=their. Espèce=Species, sort, type, kind.)

1 - (a) and (b) - the earth and the waters brought forth some things, God brought forth the others (and, indeed, the earth and waters in the first place).
2 - (a) and (b) - some things he created directly, some things he created indirectly.
3 - In the first chapter alone, 'after their kind' is mentioned in Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, and 25.
4 - (a). It is not an express order not to evolve, not least because things do evolve.

 

[Doveaman]

According to Genesis,

1. What did the ‘bringing forth’? a) the earth and the waters, b) God, c) Marvo the magician.

b) - God spoke them into being and they came forth.

Jesus did the opposite here - Matt 21:18-19:

Early in the morning, as He [Jesus] was on His way back to the city, He was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, He went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then He said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered away.

God speaks and things happen.

2. When it says God made or God created living things did he do this a) directly or b) indirectly?

a) - God spoke them into being directly.

3. Which verse talks about ‘reproducing after their kind’? a) none, b) none or c) none.

"None" is not a verse, nor is it in Genesis 1. You should do your homework before you start quizzing.

4. French Bibles have « selon leur espèce» for ‘after their kind’. Does this mean a) ‘according to their species, sort or type’ or b) is it an express order to all living creatures never to be naughty and go off and evolve? (Selon=according to, in accordance with. Leur=their. Espèce=Species, sort, type, kind.)

I don't read French.

 

[BarryDesborough]

According to Genesis,

1. What did the ‘bringing forth’? a) the earth and the waters, b) God, c) Marvo the magician.

2. When it says God made or God created living things did he do this a) directly or b) indirectly?

3. Which verse talks about ‘reproducing after their kind’? a) none, b) none or c) none.

4. French Bibles have «selon leur espèce» for ‘after their kind’. Does this mean a) ‘according to their species, sort or type’ or b) is it an express order to all living creatures never to be naughty and go off and evolve? (Selon=according to, in accordance with. Leur=their. Espèce=Species, sort, type, kind.)

Answers

1. a) God said, "Let the earth/waters".

2. b) See 1.

3. a), b) or c). No verses talk about 'reproducing after their kind'.

4. a)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Answers

1. a) God said, "Let the earth/waters".

2. b) See 1.

"God created the great whales", etc.

3. a), b) or c). No verses talk about 'reproducing after their kind'.

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."

 

[BarryDesborough]

"God created the great whales", etc.

Indirectly. See the preceeding verse, and indeed the rest of the verse you are quoting.

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."

So nothing about 'reproducing after their kind'. The earth brings forth all the different kinds of living creatures. How, Genesis does not say. Neither does Genesis say anything whatsoever about 'barriers between kinds' or any other similar garbage.

Evolution denialists deny abiogenesis and species transformation by appealing to Scripture. A plain reading of Scripture reveals their appeals to be false teaching.

 

[Doveaman]

Indirectly. See the preceeding verse, and indeed the rest of the verse you are quoting.
So nothing about 'reproducing after their kind'. The earth brings forth all the different kinds of living creatures. How, Genesis does not say. Neither does Genesis say anything whatsoever about 'barriers between kinds' or any other similar garbage.

Evolution denialists deny abiogenesis and species transformation by appealing to Scripture. A plain reading of Scripture reveals their appeals to be false teaching.

I forgot that Atheists understood what a plain reading of Scripture reveals. My bad.

 

[BarryDesborough]

I forgot that Atheists understood what a plain reading of Scripture reveals. My bad.

Plain reading 'reveals' nothing, other than the fact that misreadings are in error. It is plain text for all to be able to read and understand - if they remove their blinkers.

This reading, BTW, comes not from me, but from Glenn Morton, a Bible believing Christian - an ex-ICR member who was forced, when having to earn a living as an oil prospector in the real world, to re-examine Genesis.

http //home entouch net/dmd/plainreading htm
http //home entouch net/dmd/geo htm

 

[Doveaman]

This reading, BTW, comes not from me, but from Glenn Morton, a Bible believing Christian - an ex-ICR member who was forced, when having to earn a living as an oil prospector in the real world, to re-examine Genesis.

I think Glen Morton was re-examining his beliefs about Genesis. Not all creationists believe the same things about Genesis. The beliefs may change but the historicity of Genesis doesn't.

 

[Doveaman]

When it says God made or God created living things did he do this a) directly or b) indirectly?

What should we expect to see when an invisible Spirit does something directly?

What should we expect to see when an invisible Spirit does something indirectly?

 

[BarryDesborough]

I think Glen Morton was re-examining his beliefs about Genesis. Not all creationists believe the same things about Genesis. The beliefs may change but the historicity of Genesis doesn't.

Certainly, Genesis was written whenever it was written, but Glenn had found, having been brought up as a common-or-garden YEC, that what he was led to believe about Genesis could not be correct. That's the most anyone can say about beliefs - they are either unfalsifiable - or false.

 

[BarryDesborough]

What should we expect to see when an invisible Spirit does something directly?

Something happening without a detectable cause.

What should we expect to see when an invisible Spirit does something indirectly?

Something happening with a detectable cause.

But note that the OP is not about whether Genesis accords with what we would expect to see or not, merely about what it actually says.

 

[Gankutsuou]

I forgot that Atheists understood what a plain reading of Scripture reveals. My bad.

As a christian of 14 years this strikes me deeply... However, as being christlike does not require faith in Christ, I will forgive you for the transgression.

Back on track: I thoroughly read Genesis a few times, as I was an avid reader as a child. BarryDesborough pretty much answers these question correctly given the current state of the Bible in terms of the KJV.

New here, but I have read these forums for a while. Hi.

 

[lucaspa]

According to Genesis,

1. What did the ‘bringing forth’? a) the earth and the waters, b) God, c) Marvo the magician.

2. When it says God made or God created living things did he do this a) directly or b) indirectly?

3. Which verse talks about ‘reproducing after their kind’? a) none, b) none or c) none.

4. French Bibles have «selon leur espèce» for ‘after their kind’. Does this mean a) ‘according to their species, sort or type’ or b) is it an express order to all living creatures never to be naughty and go off and evolve? (Selon=according to, in accordance with. Leur=their. Espèce=Species, sort, type, kind.)

By the intent of the authors of Genesis 1:

1. b
2. a
3. Genesis 1:11 and 22
4. None of the above. "species" is Latin for "kind". If you take the verse you quoted in Latin, it says "
et fecit Deus bestias terrae iuxta species suas et iumenta et omne reptile terrae in genere suo et vidit Deus quod esset bonum"
When Linneaus made his classification system, he thought he was classifying Biblical "kinds".

As much as I like Glenn Morton, and as much as he and I agree that evolution happened, I have to say that here he is making the same mistake as creationists: using his views of how God created to drive the exegesis, instead of looking at what the authors intended.

 

[lucaspa]

I think Glen Morton was re-examining his beliefs about Genesis. Not all creationists believe the same things about Genesis. The beliefs may change but the historicity of Genesis doesn't.

There is no historicity to Genesis 1-8 at least. The Bible is a theological book. In particular, Genesis 1-3 are not history because the 2 creation stories contradict on too many major points to be history. They are theology.

 

[lucaspa]

The earth brings forth all the different kinds of living creatures. How, Genesis does not say.

Yes, Genesis 1 says "how". It says "God said". This is the same formula used for light, the sun, moon, etc, all of which the authors mean to have popped into existence in their present form when God spoke.

The authors had a very good reason for this "how", and that reason has nothing to do with history. The authors were out destroying the Babylonian gods by having the material thing associated with them be created by Yahweh. You can't be the sun goddess if the sun is created by another god -- Yahweh. Similarly, the chief god was Marduk, god of plants, particularly agricultural plants. So you have "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: " There goes Marduk.

Some of the minor Babylonian gods were associated with animals and the religion had animalistic overtones. Having all animals created by Yahweh destroys this.

Neither does Genesis say anything whatsoever about 'barriers between kinds' or any other similar garbage.

That is true.

Evolution denialists deny abiogenesis and species transformation by appealing to Scripture. A plain reading of Scripture reveals their appeals to be false teaching.

Not really. After all, the creation story in Genesis 2 very definitely has direct creation of animals "from the ground". Of course, a plain reading of Genesis 2 shows incompatible contradictions with Genesis 1, thus showing that evolution deniers are appealing to false teaching. That's not to even mention that a plain reading of God's Creation also reveals their appeals to be false teaching.

 

[Doveaman]

There is no historicity to Genesis 1-8 at least.

Yeah, right.

The Bible is a theological book.

I agree. It's a theological book containing history from which we can learn theological lessons.

In particular, Genesis 1-3 are not history because the 2 creation stories contradict on too many major points to be history.

I've heard this many times before, but no one has ever shown me those "major points".