1

According to Genesis 1, among all the living creatures (humanity included), the Lord didn't specifically bless the land beasts with reproduction and multiplication. In Genesis 1:24-25 He just created them without giving them the blessing to reproduce unlike the sea and sky creatures (vv. 20-22) and humankind (vv. 26-28).

Is this difference thought to be significant, and is there an explanation for it? What is the theological interpretation?

I'm open to any and all denominational perspective regarding this.

Improve this question
9
  • Heeey what was with the downvote? I think I asked a pretty valid question. I did some research and couldn't find any answers that's why I turned here for some insights.
    – Philip
    Jan 2 '19 at 7:09
  • 1
    'Beasts' as opposed to life-forms that fly in the heavens or swim in waters, are seen as representative of something in scripture. Your question is quite valid but it might better be asked on Bible Hermeneutics (specifying the exact text).
    – Nigel J
    Jan 2 '19 at 9:44
  • Got it. I'll specify that when I edit.
    – Philip
    Jan 3 '19 at 9:53
  • "Evangelical" isn't specific enough for a question like this which isn't about the shared characteristics of the Evangelical movement. I doubt any denomination actually has an official position on this though. Questions like this are what the Biblical Hermeneutics site are for, where you can ask questions and get answers that give thorough reasoned arguments for particular interpretations. Even then though, asking why God didn't write something rarely makes for a great question. None of us can read the mind of God to know why he rejected hypothetical alternatives.
    – curiousdannii ♦
    Jan 3 '19 at 11:46
  • 2
    I've edit the question to ask what I think you want to know but closer to the guidelines of the site. You might want to pick a more specific tradition than Evangelical though.
    – DJClayworth
    Jan 21 '19 at 14:42
0

Actually....I've done a study on that. The verse you're quotiong

And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.<

Actually DOES show GOD giving them the right to reproduce, it's in the phrase "according to their own kind". For them to produce "according to their own kind" , especially when they're the first of their own kind means that there will be others of their own kind to follow these beasts. GOD gave them reproductive rights as soon as they made them, and note at the end of that story , Genesis 1:31

And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.<

What could be more of blessing than GOD saying it was good!

Improve this answer
1
  • But the question is asking why the overt "bless" vocabulary used in verses 22 and 28 isn't used for the land animals. You're not wrong that God's declaration of goodness is an implicit blessing, but that would also be true for the sea creatures and humans.
    – curiousdannii ♦
    Jan 4 '19 at 0:19

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.