The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1

quote:

---

vacate

​

IamJoseph writes:
*snip* according to genesis and my understandinging of it, neanderthal or any other life form, and human derivitive from them, has no impact here. Whether neaderthal constitutes a prototype of modern humans, or of another life form (a certain ape?), does not negate or impact, because genesis, which is minimilist *snip*

​

*emphasis is mine

​

This is just a dodge of the issue. You claim that the definition of "Kind" has no impact merely because genesis is minimilist. Yet you use it as a method of disproving evolution?

---

Since when is referring to the actual texts, a *DODGE* of the issue - and by whom - the dodger?

quote:

---

One that you brought up, (nighttrain asked for clarification in message 216) and I requested that you create another thread to specifically address. What is the IamJoseph definition of "kind", in such that it shows the Theory of Evolution to be incorrect?

---

Well, why don't you read the texts and give your appraisal - if this is a battle of textual comprehension I welcome it? My reading of it says genesis separates life forms as vegetation - meaning all plants which do not talk and talk; fish are ocean based; birds are flying things; the last life form is one that TALKS! etc. The distinction made by genesis is correct - and it stands today after 3500 years - why are you confused - you have to explain your display of aghastness.

quote:

---

So your position regarding "kind" is that it could mean all of biology, kingdom, class, species or {speaks/does not speak}.

---

Obviously, you are not addressing anything in the text, while accusing me of selecting what I want to. Its not about me - its about what the text says, and you have not addressed it. The texts clearly describes what it means by 'kind' - for fish (swarming in the oceans) and for birds (who have flight), and same for vegetation (a myriad of plants and shrubs of every kind). Genesis, IMHO, is correct to its texts. The last life form - before which none others had speech - also is correct and vindicated. Cross-specie has some way to go - even by its own manipulations in dividing humans by skeletal design: as if this is the differentials between animals and humans! - no sir - skeletal design and life are common to all life forms.

quote:

---

Depending on what one you decide to choose at any given moment you can immediatly conclue that Darwin is incorrect. This is hardly a strong case against Evolution, and I ask again if you would be willing to create a new thread to clarify your definition of "kind" so you can once and for all put this silly Theory of Evolution to rest?

---

Genesis is not out to prove or disprove darwin. Its the other wy around - and Genesis is winning.

VacateHere is Genesis' reading of what it means by 'kind' - an apt term used for all generations of mankind's understanding:Vegetation - a comprehensive, non-confusion description:

quote:

---

11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so.

---

Another descriptive 'KIND' (aka FISH):

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.'

---

Mammals and crawleys:

quote:

---

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.

---

ETC, ETC, ETC.

quote:

---

rahvin
Species do not "decide" to grow wings or develop sentience - the concepts of intelligence and wisdom are completely irrelevant. If you disagree, and you believe some form of wisdom guides evolution, then explain why evolution makes such idiotic "decisions" as the human appendix, or the flawed human eye, or the fact that we use a single tube for breathing and food intake, allowing for easy choking.

---

I don't see wisdom as irrelevent, nor any viability whatsoever where there is no wisdom derived program to justify a result. The phenomenon you describe and aspire to, is non-existent outside darwin's novella. It is worth diverting to define 'wisdom' - this is NOT an autmatically evolved phenomenon, and requires equal defining as anything.Nor do I see the human body as idiotic or flawed, just because we do not see yet what a particular organ's function is: if anything, positing idiocy to life's mechanism only negates your own premise: your jitterbugging particles are the idiots. Nor does it mean if there are really some errors in the human body - that it signifies anything other than, or negates, wisdom. We have medicine only because of some wise imperfections in the system.

quote:

---

I didnt say they were random. I said that evolution uses natural selection to select from natural random mutations to cause gradual change over generations.

---

The criteria for random is where an intelligent source is not involved; using the placebo of natural selection from random mutations is totally contradictory of its own premise. There is no such thing as NS - this is a recent term to not have to explain the inexplicable - the instant we find an intelligent program behind it, the term NS is discarded - gravity becomes the new buzz word - and gravity is based on a premise resultant from 'wisdom'.

quote:

---

That's entirely different from saying they are random. The point was to show that complexity does NOT require an intelligence to guide it - the patterns on butterfly wings do not require a painter to come and draw them, and neither do ice crystals need to be sculpted by hand.

---

Your premise is random and nothing else. Pushing the buck further does not change it. Its like saying a car does not result by random, but each car part's metal did not require 'an intelligence to guide it': who says that is not random!?

quote:

---

arach
and yet, evidently, misunderstood by you. when the text says "after its kind" it doesn't necessarily mean that the thing it names is a "kind." it means that those things have subsets that breed amongst themselves and the author doesn't want to list them all.

---

Interesting that you debated this factor - it shows deliberation is required with the exacting texts of the OT. While i agree there is no need to list all in a kind or group, I found the OT texts remarkable in positing a premise with the most appropriate and shortest measure of words. This indicates a majestic mastery of words and what it is saying: 'NOT TO OVERLOAD A DONKEY' aplies for all domestic working animals - no need to list them all.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. 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? Fluke or guessmatics are out - it goes on to do the same with fish hidden in the oceans, and other animals displaying the reverse of the pig! I find the uninitiated have not regarded impacting, relevent factors and determined selectively.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. But the mode of genesis' separation is a big picture view, and more importantly, it is fully in keeping with the relevent premise it makes. Genesis separates humans from other life forms in accord with the only unique factor applicable: speech; birds by flying; fish by water submerged; etc. It would have been ubsurd to nominate hidden, internal structural and skelatal factors here - they would be meaningless and superflous. There was never any need to list non-unique factors between humans and other life forms: Genesis, IMHO, is 100% correct and vindicated. Describing humans as 'son of man' (from the seed of man); from and to the dust (particles of matter); as the final life form; the only one able to have dominion of the universe; and unique by speech - are valid and vindicated constants.

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'.

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.

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.

---

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?

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

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.

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.

quote:

---

insects, cephalopods, and many higher mammals (dolphins and whales, particularly) all have complex forms of communication.

---

Speech and communications are different attributes. All life forms have communications and brains.