Thread: How is the word "kind" in "two of every (kind)" (gen 6:19) exactly defined by the bible?

Is "kind" by the bible defined by: The inability to interbreed?
Or is "kind" by the bible defined by: other things?

i want to know what exactly it is defined as.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology

Reading that, it is clear that the use of "kind" to represent anything like species or type is (a) wrong, i.e. a mistranslation; and (b) a modern invention to support cretinism.

what is cretinism? do you mean creationism?

Post number 2 answered your question.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

How is the word "kind" in "two of every (kind)" (gen 6:19) exactly defined by the bible?

The word "kind" or "sort" appears in English translations for the Hebrew word that we transliterate as miyn. It seems pretty obvious that putting two of most "kinds" of animals onto the ark was meant to preserve them for reproductive purposes, so I think most people would take the Hebrew word miyn to mean "species".

Other books of the Hebrew Bible (Leviticus and Deuteronomy) use the Hebrew word miyn when talking about "any kind of _____" (falcon, raven, hawk, heron), where the terms falcon, raven, hawk, and heron refer to genuses or other levels of classification higher than species, so it makes sense that Hebrew miyn would mean species.

The Bible does not define any words. However, you can use Google Translate to translate "species" into Modern Hebrew and see that it translates as miyn. Note: Hebrew writes right-to-left, so the Hebrew appears as nyim, or actually just nym, where the i is not a letter as in English, but a vowel mark on the m to indicate that vowel after the m. Hebrew does not have vowels letters, but only vowel marks on consonants. Google Translation does not give vowel marks, so it appears as nym.

Like everyone else has said, it is not defined in a way which relates it to modern binomial nomenclature. To attempt to make the connection would be dishonest.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

Is "kind" by the bible defined by

It's not defined.
In fact that word leads me to suspect that an omniscient god may possibly exist.
It seems to have been "created" as so deliberately nebulous it can be "defined" in any way possible to "justify" fundamentalists claims.

Very true. We cannot comprehend any word at any point in history without a definition for that specific time, and this is especially true due to the semantic changes of amelioration and pejoration, which probably occurs in every language. Thus, scientifically, the entirety of both the Old Testament (in Hebrew) and the New Testament (in Greek) are without meaning.

Even someone unfamiliar with current English would be very confused with the use of the word "bad" in two very simple and very similar modern phrases, "My bad" and "I'm bad", where the former use is in a negative sense (the most widely accepted sense), but the latter use is in a less common, positive sense (having undergone amelioration).

In the English language, according to Wikipedia, the document entitled "A table alphabeticall" by Robert Cawdry in 1604 was the first record of what could be considered an English dictionary, so we can only guess as to the meaning of any English document written before 1604. Even then, Cawdry's work, which describes itself as

A table alphabeticall, conteyning and teaching the true writing, and understanding of hard usuall English wordes, borrowed from the Hebrew, Greek, Latine, or French etc with the interpretation thereof by plaine English words, gathered for the benefit & helpe of ladies, gentlewomen, or any other unskilfull persons, whereby they may the more easilie and better understand many hard English wordes,

is a regrettably incomplete, self-defining document. If we are to properly interpret its self-defining statement, it provides an "understanding" in "plaine English words" of "hard usuall English wordes". So even then, without a dictionary of "plaine English words" (which was written in 1658 by Edward Phillips), Cawdry's document is pretty useless. Thus, any history written in English prior to 1658 is pretty useless (which schoolchildren of every age will be happy to hear!).