Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 286 of 302 (408675)
07-04-2007 2:17 AM


WISDOM.
This is not an automatic phenomenon, nor the result of a particular pattern of particles, or defined by natural selection: all indicators point to natural selecTEE. The phenomeon of wisdom, far from being free floating, is focused and particularised, deemed so by the reults. There is no equivalent natural selection wisdom on the moon - but there is a wisdom which upholds the moon in its orbits: this indicates a focused, particularised wisdom, the results being selected and aligning with a purpose in its result. We cannot say a car is a result of natural selection - the same applies here. The difference between random and a purposeful intelligence is the result - even where proof of that intelligence is not possible: the sound premise prevails here.
An anicent science called kabalah says this of wisdom:
'THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED IN WISDOM - AND WISDOM IS A PLACE'.
Wisdom predates the universe - it has to, and is sited as an emanation of a supreme mind - akin to a ray of light, and aligned with 'LET THERE BE LIGHT' (Genesis), and the station wherein the universe was created. What we call 'science' - is an understanding of that wisdom at work; but science is limited to *THIS* side of creation, and does not apply outside or precedent of the universe - same as one would not require science and maths to measure nothingness - where there is not yet any matter, time or energy. Its not that science is not viable, but that it is not applicable pre-universe: because science measures what is this side of the universe. MC2 does not apply where there is no matter. Here we can see a most hedy cadence with a simple verse 'THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED IN WISDOM'.

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 287 of 302 (408678)
07-04-2007 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by IamJoseph
07-04-2007 1:46 AM


Re: is this even on-topic?
quote:
vacate
why are you confused
Several reasons. I will select a few quotes from you to show my confusion.
it is possible that all animals are one specie (or 'kind') according to genesis
Kind seems to imply "anything thats not rock" here.
No, it does not. I gave you extentions of descriptions and definings from the actual texts. Each 'kind' is particularised, albeit differently from Darwin and our current categorising of species. There is no dodgings.
quote:
If you do not see a problem with this suggestion, I will remind you that Noah took 2 of every kind on the ark. It also leaves scant time for macro evolution to have produced the millions of species we see today.
This does not assist you. The 2 animals of each kind can be applied to a regional flood of the then known world, and refer to domestic animals. Correct protocol of grammar vindicates this premise: relevency applies.
quote:
Here you have decided that a Kind is at the species level. You also include humans at the species level. The only justification for these two at this level seems to be that Neaderthal didnt speak, and Humans do.
The genesis categories are intelligent, and vindicated. Yes, it means if any human prototype is addressed, they would have been separated from modern humans by speech.
quote:
There is a mysterious statute in the OT which says the pig has a hidden biological attribute not shared by any other life form
Without including the possibility of evolution how does the pig become seperate from all the other kinds? Was the pig also its own kind? (species level once again)
My reading of 'kind' in genesis would be, as a minimum, the species sited in genesis (veg, fish, mammals, birds, animals, humans).
There you see, the categorising of animals into species is not a lacking in the OT. There was a major court battle in Canada 3 years ago. An animal rights group embarked on a powerful action to forbid kosher slaughtering of animals as cruelty, siting that when the throat is slit, blood rushes to the brain and pain results. They lost the case, and were ordered to pay all costs, and to site that courts decision in any future action. It turns out that the pig, the only animal with split hooves but which does not chew (maticate) its cud (hay), also has another hidden attribute corresponding to it: of the 4 blood vessels from the throat, one does go to the brain, and this can cause pain. But - all animals with split hooves and that chew the cud, also possess a loop in the vessel that leads to the brain - which ceases all blood flow, and thereby eliminating pain by rendering that animal unconscious within seconds. The pig does not harbour this attribute - and slitting its throat would result in pain. This is the reason the pig is forbidden for consumption - not for any ill-concieved hygience reasonings, but to protect that animal from pain. All animal rights laws come from the OT.
quote:
Equinox pointed out the errors in this classification attempt in message 274
Your simple separation of animals/plants is based only on its obvious attributes (flies, swims, speaks, produces milk, or is plant-like). There are many very obvious problems with this method of classification.
Penguin - Obviously a bird, but does not fly.
Duck-billed Platapus - Bird, Reptile, or Mammal? How about the Obdurodon, slightly more confusing as this kind had teeth.
Virus - Its own kind? Its technically not even alive.
Fungus - Absorbs nutrients after decomposing organic material, do we still place this with the plant kind?
Bacteria - Do we insert prokaryotic organisms as its own kind?
If you examine the texts again, this is catered to.
quote:
My point here is that your generalized definitions do not help in being clear why you feel the bible successfully rules out evolution. As I have said already - you have classifications range from all of biology to the species level.
genesis does not rule out evolution - it introduced this concept. But it differs with Darwin's mode only in cross-specie transfers, and applies this to 'within kind' of a life form. We have been deliberating the boundaries and definitions of the genesis term of 'kind'.
quote:
If each example of species is a kind they cannot all fit on the ark.
better, you select the path of wisdom and go via a texts posibility - this is correct grammatical protocol, and would also apply in a book of wisdom. One does not get genius marks for observing all the world's animals do not fit in a boat!
If all of biology is one kind then there would be no need for an ark (a canoe would suffice) but you have let macroevolution run rampant.
quote:
Now do you see what my problem is, and why I am confused? I see no reason for you to immediatly "vindicate" Genesis when there are so many issues that you fail to address first. Genesis is not vindicated until you are able to deal with the obvious contradictions to your claims.
There are no contradictions in my claims, nor have you pointed any.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 1:46 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Vacate, posted 07-04-2007 3:29 AM IamJoseph has replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 288 of 302 (408682)
07-04-2007 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by IamJoseph
07-04-2007 2:50 AM


Re: is this even on-topic?
I gave you extentions of descriptions and definings from the actual texts.
So your proposal of all animals being of one kind is retracted or now includes sub-kinds. I am ok with either option really, but if you wish to have sub-kinds it may need clarification to limit confusion. Science has proposed one such option if you care to use it - Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.
The 2 animals of each kind can be applied to a regional flood of the then known world, and refer to domestic animals.
Regional flood, I didn't expect that actually.
One does not get genius marks for observing all the world's animals do not fit in a boat!
Sorry to have stated the obvious, but one never knows when talking creationism.
If you examine the texts again, this is catered to.
From the quotes you supplied regarding the categories of kind within the bible I do not see my examples being catered to. I checked again and you did not say "A platapus is not a reptile" or "A whale is not a fish" or "archaeopteryx not a dinosaur". Virus, bacteria, and fungus are all important considerations and the quotes you supplied do not tell me if I should put them in animalkind or plantkind as they are obviously neither.
But it differs with Darwin's mode only in cross-specie transfers, and applies this to 'within kind' of a life form.
This is exactly the reason that a clear and concise definition of "kind" needs to be proposed before declaring Genesis "vindicated". If you are restricting evolution to being only within its kind - the exceptions to your proposals are indeed important.
There are no contradictions in my claims, nor have you pointed any.
If there are no contradictions, then perhaps you could address the examples I have stated so far. I imagine it would not be to difficult to dig up a bunch more, hence the reason I suggested taking this to a different thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 2:50 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 4:06 AM Vacate has replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 289 of 302 (408683)
07-04-2007 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by IamJoseph
07-02-2007 11:37 PM


Re: because the question posed was really stupid
night
Hi, IAG. Do you accept that there was a species of man classified Neaderthal? If so, were they pre-Flood or post-Flood?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neaderthal would have to be pre-adam. Genesis does not negate pre-speech prototypes. The 6000 only refers to speech endowed humans, not the age of the earth or when other life forms appeared.
Hi, IAJ (got it right this time ). So if Neanderthals are non-speaking, pre-Adam creations, how do you suppose their relics (bones,artifacts,charcoal fires, etc.) came to be found on TOP of the thousands of feet of sediments deposited by the Flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 11:37 PM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 290 of 302 (408686)
07-04-2007 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Vacate
07-04-2007 3:29 AM


Re: is this even on-topic?
quote:
vacate
if you wish to have sub-kinds it may need clarification to limit confusion. Science has proposed one such option if you care to use it - Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.
Genesis's employed breakdowns is superior in the application of a creational overview and applying for all generations. Your description can be wrong with a new insight, or it can be less than adequate when finer differentials are discovered - but these are not impacting. As a minimilist, big pic overview, and as the applicable factors of the narrative's fundamental message, which is not narrowed to our current assessments of life form divisions, genesis is correct and wise. 'And everything that creepeth' anticipates all subjective categories:
quote:
24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
quote:
The 2 animals of each kind can be applied to a regional flood of the then known world, and refer to domestic animals.
Regional flood, I didn't expect that actually. Sorry to have stated the obvious, but one never knows when talking creationism.
The OT is the epitome of grammar. There is no other conclusion than it is a depiction of the then known world ('HE SPEAKETH IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE'; 'HE UNDERSTANDETH THE NATURE OF MAN'). Why did YOU not figure that out![/quote]
quote:
From the quotes you supplied regarding the categories of kind within the bible I do not see my examples being catered to. I checked again and you did not say "A platapus is not a reptile" or "A whale is not a fish" or "archaeopteryx not a dinosaur". Virus, bacteria, and fungus are all important considerations and the quotes you supplied do not tell me if I should put them in animalkind or plantkind as they are obviously neither.
Wrong again. You have to render the same deliberation as you would a science or math equation. Note the clause: 'and every living creature' - it caters to bacteria, germs and yet some futuristically discoverable life group:
quote:
20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Vacate, posted 07-04-2007 3:29 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by anglagard, posted 07-04-2007 4:27 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 293 by Vacate, posted 07-04-2007 4:34 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 291 of 302 (408687)
07-04-2007 4:12 AM


quote:
night
Hi, IAJ (got it right this time ). So if Neanderthals are non-speaking, pre-Adam creations, how do you suppose their relics (bones,artifacts,charcoal fires, etc.) came to be found on TOP of the thousands of feet of sediments deposited by the Flood?
...because they did'nt possess speech?

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 292 of 302 (408688)
07-04-2007 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by IamJoseph
07-04-2007 4:06 AM


Re: is this even on-topic?
IAJ writes:
Genesis's employed breakdowns is superior in the application of a creational overview and applying for all generations. Your description can be wrong with a new insight, or it can be less than adequate when finer differentials are discovered - but these are not impacting. As a minimilist, big pic overview, and as the applicable factors of the narrative's fundamental message, which is not narrowed to our current assessments of life form divisions, genesis is correct and wise. 'And everything that creepeth' anticipates all subjective categories:
Do bats lay eggs?
The OT is the epitome of grammar.
Which version?
Wrong again. You have to render the same deliberation as you would a science or math equation. Note the clause: 'and every living creature' - it caters to bacteria, germs and yet some futuristically discoverable life group:
I guess every living creature would by definition mean all life, is a tautology meaningful? Does it win wars, provide for economic development, cure diseases, or even add to human understanding?
I have to agree with Dr A, I suppose every court needs a jester.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 4:06 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 293 of 302 (408689)
07-04-2007 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by IamJoseph
07-04-2007 4:06 AM


Re: is this even on-topic?
Genesis's employed breakdowns is superior in the application of a creational overview and applying for all generations.
Generalized terminology may be superior for the creational overview, but it is inadequate for disproving a different mechanism altogether. You really don't understand that?
Your description can be wrong with a new insight, or it can be less than adequate when finer differentials are discovered
Absolutely! There have been many revisions in biology as we learn more. Even the general "biology" has a tough time with the virus. This does not change the fact that such revisions are the result of a better understanding of life on Earth. With a better understanding your proposals become more and more confusing. For example, your latest reply:
Note the clause: 'and every living creature' - it caters to bacteria, germs and yet some futuristically discoverable life group
This does not help anything. I still don't even know if you consider them a plant or an animal. How am I to understand why you consider Evolution to be incorrect when you are comfortable with the "big pic overview" but the big picture tells me nothing? The most I can take from this is that Genesis is right because its author knew that a fish differed from a human, bird, or repitle. Science is also well aware of this fact, so to decide what one is possibly correct more precise terms are needed. I know a fish is a fish, such an observation is another example where it does not take a genius to understand.
and God saw that it was good
but not good enough! Hence a mountain of exceptions to the rule that remain undefined as of yet.
You have to render the same deliberation as you would a science or math equation.
As I have been saying all along. Its fine to start with general terms, but you will find that science or math does not stop with the big picture and simply declare "all math is numbers" and "all biology is kind".
Edited by Vacate, : Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 4:06 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 5:01 AM Vacate has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 294 of 302 (408691)
07-04-2007 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by IamJoseph
07-04-2007 1:46 AM


Re: is this even on-topic?
I found the OT texts remarkable in positing a premise with the most appropriate and shortest measure of words.
which OT are you reading?
the "old testament" covers a vast range of writings, subjects, and authors, all with different styles associated. some are wordier than others. genesis/exodus/numbers (up to the census) are essentially one work that is a combination of two epics that span a great length of time: the beginning of the hebrew race to the gift of the covenant on mt horeb, some 2,000 years. the terse quality is sort of required.
other works, like the books of samuel and kings cover a period of only four hundred years or so, and comprise about twice the length.
Reading your link, there is no question the OT undrstands minute breakdowns and variances of life forms, and this pertains also to the 'hidden' biological structures of life forms.
what should have been apparent is that "kind" is just as a general word in hebrew as it is in english. it's not talking about a specific biological division. it's talking about "variety" on any level.
The pig is noted for having a hidden attribute not shared by any animal, and this is vindicated till today: how was this info derivable, considering we could not perform this feat even in today's computer archives and biology prowess with animals - how would the OT know there is no similar animal harbouring that hidden attribute in the amazon, tasmania, africa or iceland?
what hidden attribute would that be?
it's an artiodactyl (even-toed ungulate) but not a ruminant. that makes it not kosher (along with peccaries, hippos, and camels). ruminants (deer, sheep, goats, etc) are. it's not a surprise that the people that wrote the bible observed these animals enough to be able to basically classify them.
The variations between kinds, eg different sub-groups with animals and birds, does not impact Genesis at all. We will probably find more sub-groups within the sub-groups in the future, and devise new categories.
my point was a linguistic one. it is a bad idea to look at one source and assume that because it uses it one way, that that is the definition, when it might be a more broad, vague term. in this case, leviticus tells us that it's used to mean something else. the word, it seems, simply means "group of animals," and not a specific sort of group. sort of like, in biology, the term "taxon." it could be used to mean "family" or "order" or "genus" or even "species." it's the just a general term.
Genesis separates humans from other life forms in accord with the only unique factor applicable: speech; birds by flying; fish by water submerged; etc.
genesis (one) separates mankind from other forms of life in two ways: firstly, the verb it uses. bara is used for special creations -- other life is simply "brought forth" from the earth or the sea. second, it says we are made in the image of god. genesis (two) also says that we are containers for the breath of god.
Describing humans as 'son of man' (from the seed of man);
"son of man" is a hebrew idiom. it means "lowly mortal." it's used in contrast to god. see the book of ezekiel, where god calls the titular prophet by that name. figuratively, it's the equivalent of "lower than dirt." (the name adam being from the word for dirt)
as the final life form; the only one able to have dominion of the universe; and unique by speech - are valid and vindicated constants.
actually, it's rather vain. and somewhat wrong by one account. genesis 1 has us the final creation with dominion over all else, but genesis 2 has us as one of the first creations. animals (and then woman) are created because man is lonely, on a trial-and-error basis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 1:46 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 5:24 AM arachnophilia has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 295 of 302 (408692)
07-04-2007 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Vacate
07-04-2007 4:34 AM


Re: is this even on-topic?
quote:
vacate
As I have been saying all along. Its fine to start with general terms, but you will find that science or math does not stop with the big picture and simply declare "all math is numbers" and "all biology is kind".
Its not a general term. The operative premise is to seperate life forms by their 'separating' (exclusive/unique) factor. Else there is no dif between humans and animals. Nominating sub-plot variances between kinds of life forms is irrelevent to the operative premise. Its like those tick the factor which does not match questions - what would you tick in separating humans from other life forms:
BODILY HAIRS
BONES
LUNGS
EYES
TEETH
SKIN
EXTENDED CHINS
THUMBS
SPEECH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Vacate, posted 07-04-2007 4:34 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Vacate, posted 07-04-2007 5:56 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 299 by arachnophilia, posted 07-04-2007 6:06 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 296 of 302 (408693)
07-04-2007 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by arachnophilia
07-04-2007 4:53 AM


Re: is this even on-topic?
quote:
atach
which OT are you reading?
Only the five books of Moses, not the later prophetic writings. Christianity measures all as the OT, but this is an eronous allocation. Books of Isaiah, Psalms, etc are prophetic reflections of the Mosaic.
quote:
what should have been apparent is that "kind" is just as a general word in hebrew as it is in english. it's not talking about a specific biological division. it's talking about "variety" on any level.
Disagree. The divisions are critical, pivotal and fundamental - far more so than our current divisions.
quote:
what hidden attribute would that be?
it's an artiodactyl (even-toed ungulate) but not a ruminant. that makes it not kosher (along with peccaries, hippos, and camels). ruminants (deer, sheep, goats, etc) are. it's not a surprise that the people that wrote the bible observed these animals enough to be able to basically classify them.
Perhaps the point escaped you. The pig is differentiated by having split hooves and not chewing its cud - no other animal does that; exactly three other animals are described as having the reverse of the pig: they chew the cud and do not have split hooves. These four animals do not have a 'loop' which ceases blood supply to the brain. Elsewhere, fish are differentiated by fins and scales; insects and crawleys by subtle features. IOW, the OT understands biology before the term was invented.
quote:
in this case, leviticus tells us that it's used to mean something else. the word, it seems, simply means "group of animals," and not a specific sort of group.
I don't think so - that is not correct. The critical factors are highlighted here (water based, land based, speech based, etc), making it varied from a generic group listing.
quote:
genesis (one) separates mankind from other forms of life in two ways: firstly, the verb it uses. bara is used for special creations -- other life is simply "brought forth" from the earth or the sea. second, it says we are made in the image of god. genesis (two) also says that we are containers for the breath of god.
The IN GD'S IMAGE' is counted as the bestowing of speech. In Exodus you find that after the first two Commandmentss were give (directly, via speech), is says, 'NOW YOU HAVE SEEN THE LRD CAN SPEAK AS YOU'. The breath of life is another matter.
quote:
"son of man" is a hebrew idiom. it means "lowly mortal." it's used in contrast to god. see the book of ezekiel, where god calls the titular prophet by that name. figuratively, it's the equivalent of "lower than dirt." (the name adam being from the word for dirt)
Its also a descrion of man's kind, from a big picutre view - eg. not the son of birds. The condescending factor is conditional to the context.
as the final life form; the only one able to have dominion of the universe; and unique by speech - are valid and vindicated constants.
quote:
actually, it's rather vain. and somewhat wrong by one account. genesis 1 has us the final creation with dominion over all else, but genesis 2 has us as one of the first creations. animals (and then woman) are created because man is lonely, on a trial-and-error basis.
Man and woman were created at the same instant - when they were separated, the word created is not used. The term of 'man' in IT IS NOT GOOD FOR MAN TO BE ALONE' - refers to human here. Adam = both man and human.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by arachnophilia, posted 07-04-2007 4:53 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by arachnophilia, posted 07-04-2007 5:53 AM IamJoseph has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 297 of 302 (408695)
07-04-2007 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by IamJoseph
07-04-2007 5:24 AM


Re: is this even on-topic?
Only the five books of Moses, not the later prophetic writings. Christianity measures all as the OT, but this is an eronous allocation. Books of Isaiah, Psalms, etc are prophetic reflections of the Mosaic.
perhaps you should then use the correct terms. i will understand you if you write "torah" and "nevi'im" and "kethuvim." but normally, we use "old testament" and "OT" to refer to the entire tanakh according to the masoretic texts (protestant christian old testament).
Disagree. The divisions are critical, pivotal and fundamental - far more so than our current divisions.
then the authors should have taken more time to spell them out clearly, as they do later on in leviticus, where the critical divisions of what is and what is not kosher are made. perhaps they are more fundamental, yes, but that's exactly my point. the word is used both for fundamental distinctions AND for nitty-gritty precise ones.
Perhaps the point escaped you. The pig is differentiated by having split hooves and not chewing its cud
that's what i said. "artiodactyl (even-toed ungulate) but not a ruminant." perhaps the biology escaped you.
- no other animal does that;
i listed several. camel are non-ruminant artiodactyls. so are hippos. (hippos are even in the same family as pigs).
exactly three other animals are described as having the reverse of the pig: they chew the cud and do not have split hooves.
yes, and one of them is the camel. which is curious, because camels do have split hooves, being artiodactyls. and they do also chew the cud, but they are not ruminants, and should really be listed as not kosher for the exact opposite of the reason it actually says.
the other two are rabbits. which are not even close to being ruminants, and don't chew their cud.
IOW, the OT understands biology before the term was invented.
pretty poorly by modern standards if you ask me. but for 6th century bce judah, it was pretty good. they made some attempt at differentiating and classifying animals, and that's a start towards biology i suppose.
I don't think so - that is not correct. The critical factors are highlighted here (water based, land based, speech based, etc, making it varied from a generic group listing.
no, i mean the word itself is general term meaning "group" and can be applied to any group.
The IN GD'S IMAGE' is counted as the bewstowing of speech.
uh, that's a bit of a stretch, but since god in genesis 1 creates by speaking, i could see someone making this sort of point in the talmud or midrashim. i've certainly see crazier ways of reading these two chapters.
Its also a descrion of man's kind, from a big picutre view - eg. not the son of birds. The condescending factor is conditional to the context.
indeed.
as the final life form; the only one able to have dominion of the universe; and unique by speech - are valid and vindicated constants.
yes, if you read one chapter and not the other.
Man and woman were created at the same instant
in chapter 1. in chapter 2, man is formed from the dirt, and woman is made from him. at separate instants, and after some amount of time of man being lonely.
when they were separated, the word created is not used.
nor at all in the that story, which starts about halfway through genesis 2:4 and continues through ch 4. it is a separate story, and it is a mistake to conflate the two.
The term of 'man' in IT IS NOT GOOD FOR MAN TO BE ALONE' - refers to human here.
generalized, yes. but at that instant, there was only one human god was talking about it.
Adam = both man and human.
"adam" is also a proper name. in genesis 1, "adam" refers to mankind, as it is a generalized text. in genesis 2, "adam" is a proper name of a specific man, as it is a specific text.
the gender is not particularly implied in the mankind case, but it is in the proper name case. not many women running around named "adam."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 5:24 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 6:20 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 298 of 302 (408696)
07-04-2007 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by IamJoseph
07-04-2007 5:01 AM


Re: is this even on-topic?
Its not a general term.
I would somewhat agree with you when you apply the word "kind" to humans, neaderthal, or pig. You have also used the word as a method to describe all things living. I am sure you can agree that the spread you apply to this word is fairly general.
Else there is no dif between humans and animals.
Note that one of your definitions,'and every living creature', would do the very same thing.
what would you tick in separating humans from other life forms
From an observation standpoint I would say that these features would make us very closely related to neaderthal, followed by chimpanzees, gorillas down the line to a single celled organism that shares about the least amount of similar features.
Would it also be helpful to add to the list? Eukaryotic/Prokaryotic is likely the best place to start, its the first logical split before we start splitting hairs, bones, and skin. Do you suggest we call these two differences Eukaryotickind and Prokaryotickind, or is there some other term you would prefer?
Nominating sub-plot variances between kinds of life forms is irrelevent to the operative premise.
Besides the obvious problem attempting to define fishkind being different from humankind, and funguskind when all are included in the "every-living-creaturekind".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 5:01 AM IamJoseph has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 299 of 302 (408698)
07-04-2007 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by IamJoseph
07-04-2007 5:01 AM


biology is fun
BODILY HAIRS
all mammals.
BONES
all vertebrates.
LUNGS
all amniotes, adult amphibians, and some various sarcoptergiian fish
EYES
oooh, tough one. most vertebrates, some molluscs, arthropoda... uhh... uh...
TEETH
easy, gnathostomata.
SKIN
not sure that's even a good definition. pretty much everything from the microscopic level on up.
EXTENDED CHINS
among hominids? that's actually a good one for homo sapiens that differentiates us from even our closes relatives.
THUMBS
primates (and possums).
SPEECH
insects, cephalopods, and many higher mammals (dolphins and whales, particularly) all have complex forms of communication.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 5:01 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 300 of 302 (408700)
07-04-2007 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by arachnophilia
07-04-2007 5:53 AM


Re: is this even on-topic?
quote:
perhaps you should then use the correct terms. i will understand you if you write "torah" and "nevi'im" and "kethuvim." but normally, we use "old testament" and "OT" to refer to the entire tanakh according to the masoretic texts (protestant christian old testament).
Perhaps - depending on its application.
quote:
then the authors should have taken more time to spell them out clearly, as they do later on in leviticus, where the critical divisions of what is and what is not kosher are made. perhaps they are more fundamental, yes, but that's exactly my point. the word is used both for fundamental distinctions AND for nitty-gritty precise ones.
There is a valid reason why the critical details for kosher are given there - but these are not required in distinguishing the unique factors of life forms. There is no anomoly here.
quote:
i listed several. camel are non-ruminant artiodactyls. so are hippos. (hippos are even in the same family as pigs).
yes, and one of them is the camel. which is curious, because camels do have split hooves, being artiodactyls. and they do also chew the cud, but they are not ruminants, and should really be listed as not kosher for the exact opposite of the reason it actually says.
It appears you should know, the camel in fact does not have split hooves, but appears so till a closer examination is made - it does not fit the requirements of split hooves, which are described as two factors, aside from the chewing of cud. Hippos don't fit the criteria.
quote:
the other two are rabbits. which are not even close to being ruminants, and don't chew their cud.
I don't recall the reasons now, but rabbits do not fit the criteria either. There are books which explain these items.
quote:
no, i mean the word itself is general term meaning "group" and can be applied to any group.
How so - when only the critical factors are nominated?
quote:
in chapter 1. in chapter 2, man is formed from the dirt, and woman is made from him. at separate instants, and after some amount of time of man being lonely.
Its not about being lonely in the common usage of this term. Its more about woman being the correct counterpart and helpmate of man, and that they have a common purpose in creation. Adam's words also signify against the premise of cross-breeding.
quote:
nor at all in the that story, which starts about halfway through genesis 2:4 and continues through ch 4. it is a separate story, and it is a mistake to conflate the two.
I see them as both separated and connected. One is a view of creation and human placement therein; the other is when man is within a personalised, historical context following the expultion from another realm. The scenario is very well meshed together, and signifies both a connection and separation overlap.
quote:
generalized, yes. but at that instant, there was only one human god was talking about it.
I see it as a general constant rather than an address to one man. This is a document for humanity and all generations. Grammatically, we must take the only logical path, and as adam was connected to eve - their separation would not make much sense. There is hedy literature here, akin to a math thesis.
quote:
"adam" is also a proper name. in genesis 1, "adam" refers to mankind, as it is a generalized text. in genesis 2, "adam" is a proper name of a specific man, as it is a specific text.
the gender is not particularly implied in the mankind case, but it is in the proper name case. not many women running around named "adam."
In ch 1, adam means generic 'man' (male/human); when there is dialogue in the following chapter, it becomes a Pronoun of a specific person. This was my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by arachnophilia, posted 07-04-2007 5:53 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024