On these first days He creates light, the sea and skies, and then dry land and plants. On the second three days, He fills those environments with the sun and moon, air and sea life, and land animals. In the previous verse, God commanded the creation of all the different kinds of animals and creeping things that would fill the land of the earth. That makes it quite stunning to realize that there is no such statement in the hebrew.
Nothing at all is said about reproduction. The word for reproduction does not appear in the text. The article is a really good read, especially because its source should be impeccable to YECs, and the textual analysis clearly demonstrates an error in translation. What are your thoughts?
This is a different case than typical, where it seems a mistranslation has lead to a horribly mistaken plain reading of the passage. A better translation would have been…. Interesting background. As my thinking on this has evolved no pun intended , I think that if you look at it from the perspective of the intended audience, there should be no conflict, whether you agree with evolution or not. We do not see life functionally extending over thousands and millions of years, so to us as mortal humans, the evolution of species is more a conceptual idea rather than an observed reality over the span of our lives.
Through science, we can flesh out the idea and see it happening over the eons, but our cat is still always going to have kittens. To pre-scientific society, it was obvious, and just a statement of observed reality, not a scientific proclamation, which is where AIG goes very wrong.
This is entirely consistent with what we know about evolution, as well as consistent with a more literal biblical interpretation. Gen 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.
Therefore, the biblical word "kind" is not limited to our modern term "species. John Klotz comments further: We also need to recognize that the language of the Bible is the commonsense, everyday language of our newspapers. This language does not change; technical scientific language does change. We may have new 'species' of tomatoes, but they are still the same 'kind. There may also have been changes within the dog 'kind,' but these have not developed into lions or bears John Klotz, Studies in Creation, St.
Louis: Concordia Publishing House, , p. The Bible teaches "the fixity of the species" in that each biblical kind can only reproduce within certain fixed boundaries. Change within a kind, however, is consistent with the biblical teaching. Summary The Bible allows for change or variations within plants and animals. Scripture, however, limits the amount of change which can happen. Cats cannot mate with dogs, pigs with apes, etc. This limitation is exactly what we find in our world. Hence, the Bible is certainly not unscientific when its says that 'kinds' of plants and animals are limited in the degree in which they can change.
Donate Contact. Blue Letter Bible is a c 3 nonprofit organization. APA Format. Chicago Format. SBL Format. Share This Page. Follow Blue Letter Bible. Blue Letter Bible. Login To Your Account. Check your email for password retrieval Enter Your Email or Username.
Login [? Did you forget your password? Register a new BLB account. Podcast: Play in new window Download. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day. Why did he keep repeating himself. Not macroevolution anyway.
0コメント