The "Kinds" In Genesis

Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/1 (Spring 2003): 86–100.
Article copyright © 2003 by A. Rahel Davidson Schafer.

The “Kinds” of Genesis 1:
What Is the Meaning of Mˆîn?
A. Rahel Davidson Schafer
Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary
Andrew University

Introduction
The pervading influence of Charles DarwinÕs theory of evolution tends to
obscure the reasons for itsacceptance and power today. Darwin was not initially
opposed to the creation story in the Bible, but the evidence he acquired over
many years seemed to be absolutely at odds with Genesis. However, upon closer
examination of his growing uneasiness with creation, one finds that it was built
upon an incorrect interpretation of the Bible. In DarwinÕs day, fixity of species
was considered a fact,supported by the phrase Òafter its kindÓ (l§mˆînaœh [;hÎnyImVl]
and with other suffixes) in Genesis, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. In other
words, the species present today must have continued exactly as they were since
God created them.1 Not only that, but individuals of each species were thought
to Òincrease in number . . . like the coinage of dimes, no variation.Ó2
Even though Darwin had sometraining for the clergy, he apparently accepted the interpretation of his day without looking at the original language to
discover the meaning of mˆîn [NyIm]. DarwinÕs discovery of microevolution and his
1
See Leona G. Running, ÒA Study of Hebrew Words in the Creation Record,Ó The Ministry
(Sept 1964): 19; Frank L. Marsh, ÒVariation and Fixity Among Living Things: A New BiologicalPrinciple,Ó Creation Research Society Quarterly 15 (1978): 115. Even in 1930, fixity of species was
thought to be true by many creationists. Byron C. Nelson wrote, at that time, ÒWhile the Bible allows that new varieties may have arisen since the creative days, it denies that any new species have
arisen, using the term species to denote natural rather than systematic speciesÓ; ÒAfter Its KindÓ: The
Firstand Last Word on Evolution (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1930), 21. (All dogs are one natural
species to Nelson, while the fox-terrier would be a systematic species produced by man. Seemingly,
the term species could refer to broader categories than today).
2
Frank L. Marsh, ÒThe Genesis Kinds in the Modern World,Ó in Walter E. Lammerts, ed. Scientific Studies in Special Creation, 136Ð155(Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971),
142.

86

SCHAFER: THE ÒKINDSÓ OF GENESIS 1
propagation of the idea of macroevolutionÑan idea he believed was implied by
microevolution, though he had no proof of itÑas well as the finding of multitudes of fossils from animals extinct today, completely undermined the then
current Òextreme interpretation ofÓ the Biblical creation account.3Eventually,
Genesis and much of the Pentateuch came to be seen as mythical or simply
theological in meaning. Although this issue has been discussed for many decades, the controversy continues. Many people today, including influential biblical commentators, still believe the Bible refers to fixity of species in the creation
story and beyond. For example, a well-recognized Old Testament scholar recentlywrote, concerning the meaning of Genesis 1, that Òeach type reproduces
after its own kind, so . . . there is no possibility of creating new species through
mutation.Ó4 Due to the large number of new species being found,5 this assumption increases skepticism regarding the historicity and authenticity of the Bible.
The interpretation of mˆînÑwhat is meant by a ÒkindÓÑis thus fundamental
to aproper understanding of the relationship between science and religion. The
chief purpose of this article will be to consider the word mˆîn in Genesis, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. My working assumptions include the unity of the Pentateuch under the authorship of Moses.6 Many others have attempted to solve the
mˆîn problem only within Leviticus (or even within Genesis alone), but the later...