Genesis 1:11-13 - Vegetation, Small Plants and Trees


We study the purpose in God's creation of plants on the third day.

Listen Online

It look's like you don't have Adobe Flash Player installed. Get it now.

Class Date:
January 20, 2013 //
64 min (14.7 MB) //

Scripture References


Genesis 1:11-13 - Vegetation, Small Plants and Trees
Genesis 1:11-13 - Vegetation, Small Plants and Trees
Genesis 1:11-13 - Vegetation, Small Plants and Trees
Genesis 1:11-13 - Vegetation, Small Plants and Trees

Additional Notes

Prayer verse: Lamentations 3:22-24

Spiritual principles:

  • God created over 300,000 kinds (species) of plants which could reproduce themselves (only).
  • God gave us a pattern/model by which we can exercise science (e.g., classifying plants and animals according to their "kinds").
  • Today, man is purposefully covering up that new species cannot evolve from existing species.


Given this study and the classical definition that was presented in which species=kinds, I simultaneously had a tiny dilemma to deal with concerning Nathaniel b/c he JUST GOT DONE with and tested Monday on a chapter in his Christian science text on origins & evolutionary claims. The text explicitly stated that species does not equal kinds and gave a few examples (dogs, cats, sparrows).

I found this article and thought it was helpful to describe why the equivalency of these terms is not as black-n-white today, although the earliest taxonomy of Linnaeus and the term usage by Biblical scholars for a long time had indeed been species=kinds.

As the article states,

"... a bait-and-switch fallacy had taken place. Christians were teaching fixity of species (kinds), but the definition of species changed out from under them. So, Christians looked ignorant when people began observing that species—by the new definition—do change. Of course, in reality, this was merely variation within the created kinds ...... So, it appeared that the created kinds were becoming new species (new definition), even though the animals did not change into a different kind of animal. It appeared that the church was wrong.
Even today, an objection commonly leveled at the Bible is that it claims that species are fixed. A good response would be: “To which definition of species are you referring?” "

His last few paragraphs demonstrate other 'bait-and-switch' term dilemmas that we should be aware of and ever be on the outlook for. I found the example of the term conception very interesting.

This is somewhat of a 'distinction without a difference' because the purpose of God's creating kinds is unchanged. Nevertheless, hopefully this addresses why man's terms are muddied.


"In light of the distinctions made in Gen 1, such as the distinction between herbs and grasses which are, however, members of the same class (Angiosperms), it is possible that in some cases the biblical term mîn (kind) may indicate a broader group, such as an order. Elsewhere, in Lev11:14, 15,16,19,22 (four times), Lev 11:29, mîn appears consistently as equivalent to nothing broader than genus. However, Lev 11:4 “the falcon after its kind,” and Lev 11:16 “the hawk after its kind,” refer to divisions within the order Falconiformes, yet both have subdivisions called mîn. Likewise, as in Lev 11:22, the locust, bald locust, cricket, and grasshopper all belong to the order Orthoptera and the locust, bald locust, and grasshopper belong to the family Acridiidae, but again each has its subdivisions called mîn (kind).
God created the basic forms of life called mîn which can be "classified" as sometimes species, sometimes genus, sometimes family or order. This gives no support to the classical evolutionist view which requires developments across kingdom, phyla, and classes.
It looks like Leviticus provides reason to avoid limiting the biblical "kind" to the equal of modern classification systems definition of "species". So, we really need to use "kind" in the context that it deserves—a biblical classification system. This system includes modern definitions of species but also includes genuses and sometimes family or order."

Perhaps we should spend more time showing the various definitions of species, since saying Kind = Species, depends wholly on understanding the definitions.

I'm wondering whether or not the biblical record of the creation process was chronological. This is because, for instance, Genesis 1:11-18 seems to indicate that plant life was created before light and the sun were. Yet today, most plant life fades, wilts or dies without light... Or , is it possible the first plants were the types that thrive without the sun and light?
- Could the biblical creation narrative be viewed as chronological or not?

Hi Ife',
I am reminded that Light was created on Day 1. (Darkness existed as a derivative of Light, existing wherever Light wasn't.) The sun is not the source of life, so the fact that it was created on Day 4 is no problem for the plants. That God presents each day with an incrementing number (Day 1, Day 2, ... Day 7) tells us that it was chronological. As Ken has pointed out, this is confirmed in the Law given to Moses where the 7th day of rest was clearly preceded by the first six.

Thanks, Russ, I appreciate your reaction. And I agree with you and do believe that God is the source of life, and that the sun is not that source but one of God's creations. I also did some reading which reminded me that lots of plant varieties do still thrive away from light sources.
Once again, thanks for this.