Hebrew Scriptures as an aid to developing a creationist taxonomy
by Jean K. Lightner
Serious study of Scripture must always play an important role in guiding the development
of creationist models. Here, Hebrew terms used in the creation account of animal
life are examined to assess their potential as taxonomic terms. It does not appear
that God intended to give us a list of taxonomic terms. Instead, the accounts appear
to reflect the fact that God created all life in “every corner” of the
earth: sea, sky, and land. Life in all these regions is animate and active. God
put them under the dominion of people and provided for them. Of all the groups of
creatures listed, the birds (עוֹף, ‛ôp)
appear to be used most consistently. These winged flying creatures include more
than just birds, but also bats and flying insects. Since the creatures in the water
and sky were created on a separate day from terrestrial creatures, there may be
some discontinuity between these groups that could be useful in developing creationist
taxonomies. Further detailed study of Scripture and baramins is necessary before
reaching strong conclusions on this matter.
Rasto Belan, courtesy of www.sxc.hu
Dragonflies clearly have wings and fly, suggesting that they are from a baramin
within the ‛ôp (flyers) created on Day 5. The larval form (nymph) develops
in the water.
Many creationists recognize that serious scholarly study of Scripture is necessary
to develop a truly biblical view of biology. The Bible includes the only historical
account of origins from an eyewitness perspective. It also records the event of
the Flood which resulted in a severe genetic bottleneck affecting life on earth.
This information is necessary to build realistic models regarding the origin and
development of life on earth.1
The field of baraminology was based on the Genesis account which indicates that
God created (Hebrew: בָרָא, bārā’)
plants and animals according to their kinds (מִין,
mîn). Baraminologists attempt to identify extant creatures which
would have descended from a single created kind (baramin). Several baraminology
studies have examined Hebrew words relevant to the species studied.2 These have been important, although there is often
a limit to the strength of conclusions made from such word studies.
Several detailed studies have examined the biblical view of life.3 Additional papers have explored the meaning of the
Hebrew mîn and provide a basis for proper
understanding of this term.4
These studies have highlighted the fact that plants are not considered alive in
the biblical sense, even though they are described as being created according to
their kinds. The latter papers also cautioned against assuming that mîn is
a taxonomic term. These insights may prevent unwarranted presumptuous conclusions,
particularly when examining the unclean animals listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.
In search of a biblically based taxonomy
There have been several attempts to glean higher level taxonomic information from
the creation account.5 As
important as such studies are, it appears that several authors have approached the
text with the underlying assumption that the Hebrew terms they encounter are inherently
taxonomic terms. This introduces a modern bias to interpreting the text that could
lead to incorrect conclusions. Instead, we should remove this assumption and determine
if any terms appear to be used taxonomically. Even terms that are not strictly
taxonomic may still prove valuable in acquiring a more biblically based view of
biology.
The readily available Hebrew and Greek study tools are extremely valuable in allowing
for detailed study of the Bible in the original languages. However, to be used properly
they require some basic knowledge of how languages work.
Taxonomic terms have a single invariable meaning which applies to a specific object
or group. This is not typical of most words in a language. Instead, words tend to
have a variety of definitions and a range of meaning. This is why dictionaries typically
list several definitions for most common words. Also, different words can overlap
in meaning. The degree of overlap is quite variable and depends on the specific
word. This should be intuitively obvious to anyone who has used a thesaurus. In
determining the exact meaning of a word, the context is important. For example,
the word “running” has vastly different implications depending on whether
it refers to me or my refrigerator.
The readily available Hebrew and Greek study tools are extremely valuable in allowing
for detailed study of the Bible in the original languages.6 However, to be used properly they require some basic
knowledge of how languages work. A common error I have encountered in Christian
circles is for someone to identify what Hebrew or Greek word is used in a specific
passage. The person then consults the Strong’s Concordance and finds the definition
of that word that they like best. That definition is then placed back in the passage
and the person affirms that this is the “true” meaning of the text.
This presumptuous methodology can lead to egregious errors in interpretation when
it ignores a basic understanding of how languages work as discussed in the previous
paragraph.
In this paper the usage of Hebrew terms in the creation account and other relevant
passages will be briefly examined to see if they likely constitute taxonomic terms.
This paper is not intended to be the final word on the subject, but is meant to
further the discussion and perhaps give a more realistic view on what can be gleaned
from Scripture. It is hoped that future scholarly work will further delineate the
meaning of these terms in light of their implications for creationist research.
Creation of animals
Previous work has focused on the creation account as potentially holding value in
developing a more biblical creationist taxonomy. It is interesting to note that
this narrative typically describes what God commands or intends to do followed by
a restatement of what God did or what happened. This is illustrated in the account
of the 5th day of Creation:
“And God said, ‘Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures,
and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens’”
(Genesis 1: 20).7
“So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves,
with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according
to its kind. And God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:21).
It seems unlikely that God changed his mind and did something different (v.
21) than what he spoke (v.
20). So it seems safe to assume that the animals mentioned in
both verses are essentially equivalent. It appears that two types of creatures are
mentioned in verse 20: swarmers (שֶׁרֶץ,
šereṣ) and birds (עוֹף,
‛ôp), while a third is added in verse 21, the great sea
creatures (תַּנִּין, tannîn,
which appears in the plural form in this verse). It might seem reasonable that these
great sea creatures could be considered a subset of the swarmers (שֶׁרֶץ,
šereṣ) of the waters. However, tannîn is translated
elsewhere as serpent (Exodus 7:9, 10, 12; Deuteronomy 32:33) where it clearly refers to
a terrestrial creature. Previous word studies of tannîn suggest they were
often feared as threatening creatures.8
Perhaps the great sea dwelling tannîn are specified separately here to emphasize
that they were created by God and are subject to Him. This could account for the
variation in wording and the apparent emphasis that follows in the phrase: “and
every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm.” Further, the
qualifier “according to its kind” is applied twice, once after the creatures
in the water and a second time after the birds (עוֹף,
‛ôp).
The account of the creation of land creatures on Day 6 appears straightforward:
“And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures according
to their kinds–livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according
to their kinds.’ And it was so” (Genesis 1:24).
“And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock
according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to
its kind. And God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:25).
Both verses list three groupings of land creatures: livestock (בְהֵמָה,
behēmâ), creeping things (רֶמֶשׂ,
remeś), and the beasts of the earth (חַיַּת
הָאָרֶץ, ḥayyat hā’āreṣ).
The order and some other details vary between these two verses. For example, verse
25 uses the prefix every (כָל, kāl)
before remeś in the same way that it was used before both living creature and
winged bird of verse 21. Again this seems to emphasize that God created all life
in these realms.
Dominion of humans over the animals
Further discussion of the creatures created above continues in the account of the
creation of man.
“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens
and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that
creeps on the earth’ (Genesis 1:26).
“And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply
and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and
over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth’”
(Genesis 1:28).
Verse 26 lists four groups of creatures: the fish of the sea (דְגַת
הַיַּם, degat hayyām),
the birds of the heavens (עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם,
‛ôp haššamāyim), livestock (בְהֵמָה,
be hēmâ), and every creeping thing (רֶמֶשׂ,
remeś). It further has the phrase over all the earth, emphasizing
the fact that man is to rule over everything God created on earth. Yet there are
several ways in which this list differs from the previous description of creation.
Fish of the sea are mentioned instead of swarmers of the water. Are fish of the
sea to be understood as a subset of swarmers of the water? If so, it could imply
that man was not given dominion over all that God created on earth. Are they to
be understood as equivalent phrases? If so this could undermine the idea that fish
or swarmers are taxonomic terms.
A second difference is that only livestock and creepers are mentioned from the land
animals. What happened to the beasts of the earth (חַיַּת
הָאָרֶץ, ḥayyat hā’āreṣ)?
Is man not to rule over them? This seems highly unlikely given the extra phrase
“over all the earth”. Perhaps the three terms associated with land creatures
are not strict taxonomic terms.
Even more interesting, verse 28 only lists three groups of animals: the fish of
the sea, the birds of the heavens, and every living thing that moves on the earth.
The three terms previously used to describe land animals are not directly mentioned.
However, the word translated living thing (חַיַּה,
ḥayyâ) is identical to that translated beasts previously.
The minor spelling difference is due to the noun being in the absolute form rather
than the construct form, which gives the meaning beasts of. The verb for
move (רָמַשׂ, rāmaś)
is used. This is related to the noun for creeping thing (רֶמֶשׂ,
remeś). Livestock (בְהֵמָה,
be hēmâ) are not mentioned. This seems to further
undermine the assumption that the three terms describing land animals in their creation
are taxonomic terms.
God’s provision
©iStockphoto.com/Snowleopard1
While most amphibians lay eggs directly in the water, the nocturnal red-eyed tree
frog lays eggs on the underside of a leaf over a body of water. When the young develop
to tadpoles, they hatch and drop to the water below to continue development. Since
the adult phase lives primarily on land, it can be argued this frog is from a baramin
created on Day 6 as a land animal.
God provided food for the creatures he created. In verse 29 he tells people that
they may eat seed bearing plants and fruit from trees. In the following verse God
describes what he has given the animals to eat.
“‘And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and
to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life,
I have given every green plant for food.’ And it was so” (Genesis 1:30).
Aquatic life is not mentioned in this verse, although undoubtedly God provided for
them.9 Birds, beasts of
the earth, and creepers are mentioned. Either all the beasts of the earth (חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ,
ḥayyat hā’āreṣ) and all creepers (רֶמֶשׂ,
remeś) are equivalent to the animals created previously (vv. 24, 25) or the livestock may end up dying of
starvation. This seems to further undercut the idea that God is using taxonomic
terms. Instead, it is apparent that there are several different ways of referring
to life on earth. This is consistent with more commonly observed patterns in language
and undermines the idea that God intended these terms as taxonomic designations.
Further examples can be seen in the account where Adam names the animals (Genesis 2:19, 20) and the Flood account (Genesis 6:7, 17, 19, 20; 7:2, 3, 8, 9,20; 14–16, 21–23; 8:1, 17,19). For
the sake of brevity, these will not be examined in detail here.
One thing that is interesting is the frequency with which three groupings of animals
are mentioned in a verse. This appears in Genesis 1:21, 24, 25, 28, and 30. It could be that this has some significance.
For example, the phrase “from Dan to Beersheba” is commonly used to
refer to all of Israel (Judges 20:1, 1 Samuel 3:20, 2 Samuel 3:10; 17:11; 24:2, 15, 1 Kings 4:25, 1 Chronicles 21:2, 2 Chronicles 30:5).
Dan was a city far north in Israel and Beersheba was a city in the south. By mentioning
these cities at the extremes of Israel geographically, it was understood that all
of Israel was meant. This concept might apply in Genesis 1:28 where the fish of the sea, birds of
the heavens, and every living thing that moves on the earth are mentioned. This
certainly describes life “in every corner of creation”. Furthermore,
the use of three groupings of land animals in the account of their creation (vv. 24, 25) may be intended to emphasize that
God created all the different types of land animals.
Other considerations
The Hebrew word be hēmâ has a broad semantic range according
to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance.10
It can refer to domestic animals, as implied by the translation livestock in Genesis 1, or wild animals. In Genesis 7:2, God tells Noah to take with
him on the Ark seven of every clean animal and two each of the animals which are
not clean. In each case the word be hēmâ is used for animal,
indicating a much broader meaning in this context.
The word ḥayyâ, used in construct form
to designate beasts of the earth, is a general noun used for animals over 100 times
in the Hebrew Scriptures. The corresponding verb, ḥāyâ (חָיָה),
is used 180 times. As mentioned above, it appears unlikely that the designation
beasts of the earth (חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ,
ḥayyat hā’āreṣ) is a taxonomic grouping since
it is not consistently used across the creation narrative in Genesis.
The noun šereṣ appears 15 times, all in the Pentateuch. Twelve of these
are directly preceded by the Hebrew word meaning “all” or “every”,
suggesting that a broad group of creatures is being described. While it initially
is used to describe creatures in the water, it is used extensively in Leviticus
to describe unclean animals on earth. It is related to the verb
šāraṣ (שָׁרַץ) which
appears 14 times in the Hebrew Bible. Again, this verb is used for more than sea
creatures. In fact, it is used in reference to humans in Genesis 9:7.
“And you, be fruitful and multiply, teem on the earth and multiply
in it.”
The broad use of šereṣ and its related
verb suggests that it is not strictly a taxonomic term. Instead, it seems to imply
creatures that are active and moving, a characteristic of animate life.
The noun remeś and its verbal form
rāmaś each occur 17 times in the Hebrew. Again these words
imply movement and overlap the semantic range of šereṣ.
For example, while Genesis 1:20 and 21 use šereṣ
to describe aquatic creature, Psalm 104:25 uses remeś.
Further, the verb rāmaś is used to describe
movement in the šereṣ created on Day
5.
The word ‛ôp is used the most consistently
throughout the creation narrative. The ‛ôp fly
(עוּף, ‛ûp) and have wings (Genesis 1:20, 21). This brings out an important
pattern in the creation account. The swarmers (šereṣ)
swarm (šāraṣ) in the waters, the
birds, or flyers, (‛ôp) fly (‛ûp)
in the heavens, and the creepers (remeś) creep
(rāmaś) on the earth. Throughout all of
creation there is movement associated with life!
Taxonomy for the birds
Of all the Hebrew words we have examined, one still seems to hold potential as a
taxonomic term. The word ‛ôp is commonly
translated bird, although it is known to refer to more than just birds. For example,
bats are listed among the unclean ‛ôp in Leviticus 11:13–19. Two previous studies disagree
on what other animals might be included with ‛ôp.
Berndt argued that all flying insects would be included.11 The only qualifiers for ‛ôp
in Genesis are that they have wings and fly, which clearly allows for the inclusion
of animals besides birds. Further, Leviticus 11:20–23 discusses flying insects
(שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף,
šereṣ hā‛ôp), which could be more literally
translated “the swarmers of the flyers”.
From a limited examination of the Hebrew terms used in creation, it does not appear
that God intended to give us a list of taxonomic terms.
Klenck argues against inclusion of insects within the ‛ôp.12 He assumes that
šereṣ is a taxonomic term. Having noticed the overlap
in usage between šereṣ and remeś,
he concludes they are synonymous. He believes them to be a broad taxonomic category
that includes certain aquatic and terrestrial life, but not
‛ôp. He argues that the word ‛ôp
in the phrase šereṣ hā‛ôp
in Leviticus 11:20, 21, and 23 is merely pointing to
the idea that these šereṣ can fly.
The argument does not appear to be strong given that šereṣ
is used as a construct noun, giving it the meaning “the swarmer(s)
of”. The absolute noun is hā‛ôp, “the
flyer(s)”. Further, the TWOT (Theological Word Book of the Old
Testament) defines ‛ôp as a collective
noun meaning bird, fowl, or insect.13
Berndt points out some of the challenges that are still faced if insects are included
within the ‛ôp. Not all insects have
wings and fly. Loss of structures such as wings is not uncommon.14 Berndt considers that all true insects flew at
Creation and states: “Insects that used to
fly … but have lost the information content
for wings, either entirely and preferentially (New Zealand’s weta, with no
natural predators), or in part within their Kinds (ants, cockroaches), are still
to be regarded as insects.”11 This still leaves some creatures
with three body segments and six legs that may never have had winged ancestors.
It seems more natural to me to leave the standard definition of insects alone and
just recognize that most were probably associated with the
‛ôp at creation. It doesn’t appear to be a problem
that different mammals were created to inhabit land, sea, and air.
The creation account seems to suggest some discontinuity between creatures inhabiting
the sea, air, and land. Land animals were created on a separate day from creatures
of the seas and sky. Furthermore, creatures in the water and sky seem to be portrayed
as being distinct. This may provide some guidance to creationist taxonomies. However,
within a creature’s life-cycle they may inhabit several different realms.
In insects, larvae may develop in the water while the adult forms fly. It might
be inferred that life was created fully formed and ready to reproduce and fill the
earth. This would suggest that dragonflies are flyers created on Day 5 and amphibians
are land creatures created on Day 6.
©iStockphoto.com/meltonmedia
Turtles in the family Emydidae vary from terrestrial to aquatic. It may be that
they are land creatures created on Day 6 and some have adapted to spend more time
in water. They lay their eggs on land.
Still, classifying animals according to whether they originally inhabited water,
land, or air may pose some challenges in classifying certain animals, such as turtles,
where adults vary in the amount of time they spend in the water. For example, hybrids
have been identified between the Wood Turtle (Clemmys insculpta) and Blanding’s
Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii).15
In our current understanding of baraminology, this means the two species are derived
from the same baramin, yet the first is largely terrestrial while the second is
semi-aquatic. In fact this family, Emydidae, includes terrestrial box turtles and
aquatic sliders, although not all Emydidae species are linked by current hybrid
data. Some allowance may need to be made for adaptations, as with loss of wings
(or flying ability) in ‛ôp. It could be that adaptation to a new environment
may explain some aquatic forms of turtles. Further study is warranted to see if
these general categories of water, air or land creatures are useful in creationist
taxonomy
Conclusions
Serious study of Scripture must always play an important role in guiding the development
of creationist models. From a limited examination of the Hebrew terms used in creation,
it does not appear that God intended to give us a list of taxonomic terms. Instead,
the accounts appear to reflect the fact that God created all life in “every
corner” of the earth: sea, sky, and land. Life in all these regions is animate
and active. God put them under the dominion of people and provided for them. Of
all the groups of creatures listed, the birds (עוֹף,
‛ôp) appear to be used most consistently. These winged flying
creatures include more than just birds, but also bats and flying insects. Since
the creatures in the water and sky were created on a separate day from terrestrial
creatures, there may be some discontinuity between these groups that could be useful
in developing creationist taxonomies. Further detailed study of Scripture and baramins
is necessary before reaching strong conclusions on this matter.
Related articles
Further reading
References
- In the Flood account we have a record which puts clear limits
on the amount of genetic diversity within some kinds of animals. For example, there
was only a single pair that survived the Flood for all unclean animals. This means
a maximum of four alleles would have been carried into the post-Flood world by them.
Studies of allelic diversity in unclean animals make it clear that mutation has
added diversity within these kinds. The same is true of humans who would have brought
a maximum of 10 alleles through the Flood, barring mutations in Noah’s sons.
Lightner, J.K., Genetics of coat color I: the Melanocortin 1 Receptor (MC1R), Answers
Research Journal 1:109–116, 2008. Return
to text.
- McConnachie, M. and Brophy, T.R., A biblical word analysis
for the Landfowl (Aves:Galliformes), Occasional papers of the BSG 10:20–21,
2007. Lightner, J.K.,
Identification of species within the sheep-goat kind (Tsoan monobaramin),
Journal of Creation 20(3):61–65, 2006; Lightner,
J.K.,
Identification of species within the cattle monobaramin (kind), Journal of Creation
21(1):119–122, 2007. Return to text.
- Stambaugh, J., ‘Life’ according to the Bible, and scientific evidence,
Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (Now Journal of Creation
) 6(2):98–121, 1992. Kennard, D., Hebrew metaphysic:
life, holy, clean, righteous, and sacrifice, Answers Research Journal
1:169–195, 2008. Return to text.
- William, P.J., What does min mean? Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal
(Now Journal of Creation) 11(3):344–352, 1997. Turner,
K.J., The kind-ness of God: a theological reflection of mîn, “kind”,
CORE Issues in Creation 5:31–64, 2009.
Return to text.
- Berndt, C., Biblical Classification of Life: A Framework
and Reference for Authentic Biblical Biology, Elihu Publishing, 2000. Klenck,
J.D.,
Major terrestrial animal taxonomic classifications as defined by God, Journal
of Creation 23(2):118–123, 2009. Return
to text.
- For this study, Bibleworks v. 7.0 was the major reference
used. Return to text.
- English standard version (ESV), Crossway Books/Good News Publishers,
Wheaton, IL, BibleWorks, v. 7, 2001. Return to text.
- Kennard, D., Potential evil in the biblical account of the
original good creation, Occasional papers of the BSG 10:15–16,
2007. Return to text.
- If God had mentioned food for aquatic life, one wonders what
word would be used for plankton. Return to text.
- Strong, J., Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of
the Bible, #929, BibleWorks. v.7.0, 2001. Return to text.
- Berndt, C., The Unified Owph: Birds and Insects in Creation, November 2009.
Return to text.
- Klenck, ref 5. Return to text.
- Harris, et al., Theological Wordbook
of the Old Testament, #1582a, BibleWorks 7.0, 2001. Return
to text.
- Wieland, C., Beetle bloopers:
flightless insects on windswept islands, Creation 19(3):30,
1997; creation.com/beetle-bloopers. Return to text.
- Harding, J.H. and Davis, S.K., Clemmys insculpta
(Wood Turtle) and Emydoidea blandingii (Blanding’s Turtle) hybridization,
Herpetological Review 30(4):225–226, 1999.
Return to text.
| The great commission tells us to preach the gospel to every nation. We might not be able to go there in the flesh but this site can penetrate every country on the globe. Help the world find “creation”.  | | |
|
