Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana

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

  1. #1 How is the word "kind" in "two of every (kind)" (gen 6:19) exactly defined by the bible? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    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.


    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    what is cretinism? do you mean creationism?
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Post number 2 answered your question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    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.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    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.
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    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.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    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!).
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 27
    Last Post: July 1st, 2013, 08:16 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 15th, 2012, 12:11 AM
  3. "MOND", Prelude to "Critique of the Universe, Introduction"
    By Gary Anthony Kent in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: January 28th, 2012, 12:31 AM
  4. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: October 16th, 2011, 05:37 AM
  5. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: October 11th, 2011, 10:35 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •