And
God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto
one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called
the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called
he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 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. 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. And the
evening and the morning were the third day.
(Gen
1:9-13)
The
creative acts of this day can be divided into two major categories:
the creation of the dry land and the creation of vegetation. A lot
could be said about each category, though, so we'll break it down
verse by verse.
v.
9a, And God said, Let the waters under the
heaven be gathered together unto one place,
One
stunning detail mentioned in this verse is that all the waters were
“gathered unto one place.”
Such wording strongly suggests there was initially only one ocean
and, therefore, could only be one continent. Modern scientists, of
course, have recently come to this same conclusion via scientific
inquiry. In the 1920's, scientists began to suggest all the modern
continents were once joined in a single super-continent dubbed,
Pangea. More recent theories speculate there may have also been
other super-continents.
Of
course, the Bible does not need to be affirmed by science. Indeed, I
feel the opposite is true – the clear wording of the Bible seems to
affirm that the scientific theory of Pangea is correct. At the
initial creation, there was a single continent.
What
is not clear from the text is the initial ratio of land to sea. If I
consider only the text and nothing else, I would probably guess that
it was about 50/50. When I further consider that God intended the
land to be man's domain and the He wanted the earth filled with
people, I might then suggest there was probably more land than sea.
After the Flood, when subterranean waters had been released, we are
left with the present ratio of mostly water. The oft repeated
criticism of “where did the flood water go” is a canard; it's
still here.
v.
9b, and let the dry land appear
We're
not sure exactly how the land “appeared.” There seems to be a
sense of the land rising and the water running off it into the one
place. Alternatively, God could have miraculously parted the water
and created the dry land in the gap. If the land has risen out of
the sea, we might even see signs of erosion as the waters rolled off
and were gathered together.
This
would have been the primordial earth. Since there has not been any
living thing before this point, there cannot be any fossils found in
the rocks. Later though, it may have happened that burrowing insects
and other creatures were trapped in this rock and became fossilized.
v.
10, And God called the dry land Earth; and
the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that
it was good.
This
is certainly mere speculation by me but I noticed that God did not
pronounce the division of the waters to be “good” at the end of
Day two. However, He said that the creation was good twice on Day 3.
Perhaps that could mean that the division of the waters and creation
of the air (Day 2) and the creation of the land (Day 3) were sort of
a single continuous act that lasted all of Day 2 and just now ended
on Day 3. It's just a thought.
Old
earth creationists should take note that the Bible clearly states the
sea existed first and land was created afterward. This is directly
the opposite of secular theories on the creation of the earth which
says the earth was initially hot rock and oceans came later.
v.
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.
Here
God creates the plant life. There seems to be three classifications
of plants which are distinguished by the seed:
- Grass. The seed is not mentioned here because the seed is not obvious. This group probably includes flowers as well.
- Herbs, where the seed is obvious as in wheat or corn.
- Trees, which yield fruit which carries the seed in itself.
Certainly
this single sentence is not intended to be a scientific treaty on the
classification of every type of plant. Something like grapes, for
example, aren't trees but do yield fruit whose seed is in itself.
Instead, it's likely intended to be a broad generalization that says
God created all kinds plants.
One
thing not mentioned here is marine plants. Did God create those here
or on Day 5 with the other marine life? Also, what about things like
mushrooms? I believe the wording of the text is such that it could
include all non-animal, terrestrial creatures. Personally, I would
include marine plants as being created on Day 5.
v.
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.
The
plants seem to appear out of the ground at God's command – not as
sprouts but as fully mature plants already yielding seed and ready to
be eaten. We will see later that God intends all His living
creatures to eat only plants.
We
also see in this passage the introduction of the term “kind.”
The herb and tree, for example, yield seeds “after their kind.”
This is an important concept in creationism. Creatures are grouped
not according to their “species” (a man made classification) but
belong to created kinds. They also reproduce according to their
kind. There may be many kinds of apple trees (red delicious, golden
delicious, gala, granny smith, etc) but an apple tree will never
produce bananas. There are variations within the kind (we call these
“species”) but creatures only reproduce their own kind.
v.
13, And the evening and the morning were the
third day.
Old
earth creationists should again take note. Plants can survive
overnight in the dark (it happens every day). It's difficult to
believe, though, that vegetation can prosper millions of years
without bright sunlight if the days represent long ages (the sun
isn't created till Day 4). Also, evolution theorizes that life began
in the sea and plants came much later. The Bible is clear that plant
life came before marine life – exactly the opposite of evolutionary
theory. Finally, how could the plants have survived millions of
years waiting for bees and birds to come along and aid in
pollination?
The
events described here occurred in a single evening and morning. An
ordinary day.
7 comments:
One stunning detail mentioned in this verse is that all the waters were “gathered unto one place.” Such wording strongly suggests there was initially only one ocean and, therefore, could only be one continent.
In a sense, we have only one ocean now, since the Pacific and Atlantic can communicate with one another through the Arctic and Southern Oceans. And virtually all ancient world maps, from ancient Babylonian to first-century Roman, showed (highly distorted or stylized versions of) Asia, Europe, and Africa surrounded by a world-girdling ocean that connected to the Mediterranean. The text does not require or imply that the authors knew of a time when the Americas were joined to Eurasia-Africa, or that they knew of the Americas at all.
There seems to be a sense of the land rising and the water running off it into the one place.
Psalm 104:7-8 reads "But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them." This sounds as though the ocean covered the Earth, including already-existing mountains, like a thick coat of paint and only at verse 9 of Genesis 1 did they retreat to their present basins -- that rather than water "seeking its own level" naturally in response to gravity, it does so only by divine command, and contrary commands could flood the Earth and cover even the highest mountains without needing more water or lower mountains.
Old earth creationists should take note that the Bible clearly states the sea existed first and land was created afterward. This is directly the opposite of secular theories on the creation of the earth which says the earth was initially hot rock and oceans came later.
I agree. But I also insist that everyone who insists on an inerrant text will insist that some portions that can reasonably be read literally (albeit with that reading they reflect a primitive flat-earth cosmology) are properly read as figurative (e.g. references in the flood account to "the windows of the sky"). An OEC who holds that the early "deeps" were molten rock rather than liquid water, or that the "days" were geological periods or eras, carry this figurative reading further but are not unique in invoking it.
Regarding the creation of plants, I am no expert in Hebrew, but looking at a concordance and lexicon, there doesn't appear to be much difference in meaning between deshe(rendered "grass") and eseb (rendered "herb"); both can mean "grass" or "greenery" or "plant." Parallelism was a common Hebrew poetic technique and probably used even in passages that are not consistently poetic. Note that cereal grains are classed by modern botanists as "grasses" and that grasses are a type of flowering plant.
I agree with you, for what it may be worth, that probably all land plants are contemplated in the term eseb. Probably so are the larger fungi. The exclusion of sea plants and kelp (which is not regarded as a plant in modern taxonomy) strikes me as arbitrary, since nothing likely to be them is mentioned among the things created on day five.
Probably a majority of the Earth's biomass is made up of single-celled prokaryotes (bacteria and archae). They are vital to the functioning of many organisms, from nitrogen-fixing bacteria that some plants depend on to bacteria in termite guts that break down cellulose and bacteria in the human gut that aid in digestion. Would you put the creation of prokaryotes on the third day, or on some other?
The Bible doesn't define "kinds" (min), but assumes a standard definition known to speakers of ancient Hebrew. Anthropologists have noted that most tribal and hunter-gatherer societies have names for animals that distinguish them at roughly the genus level, though (since most genera have only one species in a given area) this is pretty much the same thing as distinguishing them at the species level. Note that all apple varieties in stores come from varieties of the single species Malus domestica. Presumably the apple "kind" includes various crab apple species, but does it include pears (genus Pyrus, but put in the same subtribe as apples -- and in the same family as roses!)?
Steven J,
You said, “In a sense, we have only one ocean now.”
I don't believe anyone objectively looking at a globe would describe modern oceans as being in one place. But I concede that the text does not clearly say there was a single continent. It may be a reasonable impression given the wording but it's not Scripture.
You said, “Psalm 104:7-8 reads "But at your rebuke the waters fled,...”
Psalm 104 is more likely describing the waters at the end of the Flood. I believe the antediluvian mountains were much smaller. At the end of the Flood, mountains were pushed up as continents shifted and the waters rolled off to where they are now. What was left above the water is the land which we now occupy.
You said, “I agree. But I also insist that everyone who insists on an inerrant text will insist that some portions that can reasonably be read literally (albeit with that reading they reflect a primitive flat-earth cosmology) are properly read as figurative (e.g. references in the flood account to "the windows of the sky"). An OEC who holds that the early "deeps" were molten rock rather than liquid water, or that the "days" were geological periods or eras, carry this figurative reading further but are not unique in invoking it.”
There is a lot of special pleading among old earth creationists. The meaning of “sea” is very clear in the rest of Scripture – but not here. The meaning of “day” is very clear in the rest of the Scripture – but not here.
There's nothing in the text that suggests the original earth was molten rock rather than ordinary water; instead, some people invoke unusual meanings to otherwise clear passages in order to make them seem to conform to secular theories proffered by men who proudly say nothing supernatural ever happens.
You said, “Regarding the creation of plants, I am no expert in Hebrew, but looking at a concordance and lexicon, there doesn't appear to be much difference in meaning between deshe(rendered "grass") and eseb (rendered "herb"); both can mean "grass" or "greenery" or "plant."”
Whether the words are close in meaning isn't necessarily significant. They are, after all distinctly different words and the text further distinguishes them from each other according to their seed: 1) grass and 2) grass yielding seed.
You said, “Parallelism was a common Hebrew poetic technique and probably used even in passages that are not consistently poetic.”
Are you suggesting that Genesis 1-2 could be poems? A figurative expression in the middle of a literal statement of fact doesn't mean the fact isn't intended to be true. A meteorologist will still use the terms “sunrise” or “sunset” in his weather report even though we know the sun doesn't literally rise or set.
continued
You said, “Note that cereal grains are classed by modern botanists as "grasses" and that grasses are a type of flowering plant.”
Noted.
You said, “I agree with you, for what it may be worth, that probably all land plants are contemplated in the term eseb. Probably so are the larger fungi. The exclusion of sea plants and kelp (which is not regarded as a plant in modern taxonomy) strikes me as arbitrary, since nothing likely to be them is mentioned among the things created on day five.”
The details of the marine life given on Day 5 are scarce. They are only described as great whales and every living creature that moves – neither of which seems to include marine plants (or things like sponges). Yet where would I put the creation of these marine species on Day 3? The text seems to limit the creation of plants on Day 3 to the dry ground.
I'm open to either day. I was just stating my opinion which could be wrong.
You said, “Probably a majority of the Earth's biomass is made up of single-celled prokaryotes (bacteria and archae). They are vital to the functioning of many organisms, from nitrogen-fixing bacteria that some plants depend on to bacteria in termite guts that break down cellulose and bacteria in the human gut that aid in digestion. Would you put the creation of prokaryotes on the third day, or on some other?”
Maybe more than one day. Since single-celled creatures are likely “non-living” in the Biblical sense (that is, not being “nephesh” life), they could have been created on Day 3. However, as the nephesh creatures are being created, additional non-nephesh creatures may have been created along side them.
You said, “The Bible doesn't define "kinds" (min), but assumes a standard definition known to speakers of ancient Hebrew.”
The word “seed” necessarily implies reproduction. Plants yielding seeds “according to their kind” strongly implies that plants only reproduce according to their created kind. Also, by Noah taking animals onto the Ark according to their kind, male and female, in order to keep them alive further suggests that animals reproduce according to their kind.
You said, “Anthropologists have noted that most tribal and hunter-gatherer societies have names for animals that distinguish them at roughly the genus level, though (since most genera have only one species in a given area) this is pretty much the same thing as distinguishing them at the species level. Note that all apple varieties in stores come from varieties of the single species Malus domestica. Presumably the apple "kind" includes various crab apple species, but does it include pears (genus Pyrus, but put in the same subtribe as apples -- and in the same family as roses!)?”
There is a branch of creation science that studies created kinds. I would say “kind” is more similar to the taxonomical classification of a family. Reproductive tests are the surest way to identify kinds but it's simply not practical to attempt to hybridize every known species. In the case of extinct species, it is impossible. We can make educated guesses based on things like morphology but that has its limitations. If a future generation found several different breeds of dog fossils, they might identify them as different species but we know better because we can observe them reproducing.
Hybridization among plants is absurdly common. I'm certainly not a baraminologist but I suspect the pear is a member of the “apple-kind.” I would also guess that oranges, grapefruits, lemons, and limes belong to a single kind. Neither would I be surprised if turnips, beets, and even carrots belonged to the same kind.
God bless!!
RKBentley
When I brought up poetry, I was not even suggesting that the passage in question was figurative. Poetry is, at root, a set of mnemonic techniques (rhyme, alliteration, rhythm, striking figures), and has historically been used many times to produce texts meant to be taken literally (an extremely non-biblical example being Lucretius' De rerum natura). My point did not go beyond suggesting that parallelism might be used to make a point memorable.
Typically, species produce offspring of the same species. For that matter, if you mate dogs of the same breed, you'll get puppies of the same breed as their parents. "Reproducing after their kind" does not distinguish between evolution and special creation, since either predicts that offspring will closely resemble their parents, and observing that immediate offspring closely resemble their parents does not settle the question of how much great-to-the-millionth grand-offspring can differ from their distant ancestors.
For the same reason, it isn't of much use in delineating "kinds" or baramins. One of the earliest observed instances of speciation involved a species of evening primrose with extra-large flowers (Oenothera gigas) arising, by polyploidy (duplication of the entire genome) from the ordinary evening primrose (O. lamarckiana). The gigas species and the lamarckiana species cannot interbreed, yet they are clearly the same "kind." So there are at least some cases where species in the same "kind" can be intersterile yet share common ancestry.
Also, this last Friday, Google couldn't find your blog, and claimed it did not exist. Do you have any idea what happened?
Steven J,
The ability to reproduce is not a rigorous test when defining a species. I've written many times about examples of animals breeding across species lines. In application, I've found that a population of animals that share enough traits to be identified as belonging to the same group is called a species. These animals tend to only reproduce among themselves but reproduction is not a firm boundary.
Animals that originally could reproduce necessarily belong to the same kind. However, it's not unusual for animals of the same kind to lose the ability to reproduce. Among dogs, for example, it would be difficult for a very small dog (like a chihuahua) to mate with a very large dog (like a mastiff) simply due to their anatomical differences. Other times, some groups of animals become so different that other animals of the same kind no longer recognize them. Also, mutation might cause some groups to have a different number of chromosomes than others of the same kind.
And yes. There were some technical difficulties on my blog. It seems someone attempted to hack my blog and Blogger removed it due to “suspicious activity.” Probably the work of some militant evolutionist who didn't like the content. ;) I freaked out a little when I saw the message myself. As you can see, I was able to recover it. I guess I should have a plan in place if something similar happens and I can't recover it.
God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment