Bible and "kind"

Perhaps someone has already explained this, and sorry if I missed it. I still don't understand what the bible means by "kind" when refering to animal.Could someone please explain to me?

---

The Laminator

​

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

It's about time. There couldn't be a better choice for an admin.

Strictly speaking the Bible doesn't use "kind" - it is a translation of a Hebrew word.But in all probability it refers to the "folk-concept" of species - the distinctions that would be made by the people who wrote thos books of the Bible. There's really no plausible case that it means anything significantly different.

There is no textual reason to think that 'kind' has a meaning in the bible, any more than 'kind' has a specific meaning in common usage. The bible refers (let us not forget) to there being kinds of cattle.

I guess what I really meant was if "kind" distincts individual species within the same genus like Acanthoscurria geniculata (giant white knee tarantula) and Aphonopelma seemanni (zebra tarantula). What about the ones that are in different genus like Aphonpelma seemanni and Grammastola Rosea (rose hair tarantula)?This refers to the story of the flood. Biblically speaking, did Noah really bring onboard over 4 thousand individual tarantulas to keep every species of tarantula alive, several hunreds of tarantulas to preserve each genera, or 2 to preserve the family???

---

The Laminator

​

If you mean "kind" as creationists use it then I am afraid that you have to say so. Creationists like to pretend that the idea comes from the Bible but it has much more to do with their need to set limits on evolution.As for your specific examples "it's still a spider!" is the sort of answer you can expect. Only the most educated creationists would see the need to make any finer distinction than that - and even most of them would be strongly biased in favour of lumping the tarantulas all together (since there is no theological problem in having different species of tarantula related and it saves room on the Ark).

Correct observation.As for kind it is infact a word in the english bible. It is used in Genesis - Don't make me quote it.

I dealt with your comments in my first post to this thread.Yes "kind" is used in English translations of the Bible, but no, the Bible doesn't use it in the technical sense some creationists do.

That's just it. Tarantulas that are in the same genera but different species cannot interbreed without having deformed offsprings. Tarantulas that are in different genus can't interbreed at all.

---

The Laminator

​

I really believe that it is only a very, very small but vocal minority of Christians that take the Bible literally. Noah and the Ark is a great childrens story that could be acted out around the campfire with the little kids being all kinds of animals. Two could be tall, swaying giraffe and two could be big roaring lions, another two would be great lumbering elephants while the last little child herded baby ducks up the ramp.But when Noah brought the tarantulla aboard my best guess is they were met by Mrs. Noah's broom and a short squishing sound.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes - now they can't interbreed, they have changed within their kind. Remember - their kind is still a "spider". It may well be a one way system. Isn't natural selection responsible though? You see, they will adapt to their environments, and make the changes. Yet they will still produce after their kind. A spider will never become anything other than a spider. If they can't interbreed it simply means they have branched off of the main group and so that species gene pool has changed = evolution, or rather = natural selection. Even creo's allow for change - within a kind.

That's what I've been saying. The whole idea of a "kind" is to invent a limit for evolution.If "kinds" were real then we should be able to find them. Instead the only way to get a definite boundary between "kinds" is to propose soem example of evolution that a creationist finds theologically unacceptable.

But there is a certain logic to it is there not. For example - the barrier seems to be real. Spiders really do produce spiders, when discussing spiders - we are discussing "kinds". It's not to invent an "evolution limit" because we can see that spiders=spiders. If you can show otherwise then I won't argue it.

The "barrier" only looks real because we have these general classifications in our minds and because evolution is very slow. There is a lot of diversity between spiders (considered objectively I'd guess more than between all the primates put together, let alone humans and chimpanzees). Once it SEEMED obvious that species never changed at all - we could find modern species mummified in ancient Egyptian tombs ! Now even creationists rarely take that view.On the one hand scientists investigating evolution have come up with very good evidence of the relationships between species based on morphological comparisions and more recently genetic studies. Although there are complications at the very roots there is no sign of any real barrier. On the other humans and chimpanzees are classified as different "kinds" not on morphological or genetic evidence but because Genesis lists man as a seperate creation.