On Kinds... again.

quote:

---

IM not sure what the problem is - a biblical kind is defined differently than our scientific species and genus, thats all - so its a different way of ordering things, but there is logic to it.

---

"Defined"? Really? How?
"Logic"? Really? What?

This topic is related to so-called "scientific" creationism's use of the word "kind", which seems to be so flexible and ill-defined as to be meaningless.For example, "scientific" creationists claim that evolution is possible only within "kind".Well, what does that mean? Read your last post to me. Does your answer make any sense if you want to claim that evolution is limited to "within kind"? Can a cow evolve into a giraffe, for example?You might lack context for understanding why the issue of "kind" is important in the evo. vs. creationism discussions, I hope this at least gives you an idea.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-31-2003]

Well, actually they DIDN'T have their physiology down, if the passage does indeed say that rabbits chew the cud. Because they don't.

We've "said" it's a mistranslation, but do we *know* its a mistranslation? Is there reason to believe one way or the other?Actually, I've heard discussions of this passage before, and while folks have claimed that "chew the cud" is a mistranslation, I've never heard the identity of the animal itself questioned.

quote:

---

since rabbits dont chew cuds and the example brought does chew cud then it seems abvious that that cant be the same animal

---

Only if you're convinced the ancient Hebrews were not mistaken. Actually, it's been a common mistake through history to think that rabbits chew the cud (Linnaeus thought so), since they appear to be chewing much of the time (they aren't, but they look like it).Which is why I don't assume the word is mistranslated. If the word does mean "rabbit" at a later time, and the description is consistent with common folk understanding of rabbits, it seems reasonable to think it means "rabbit".Is there some reason to think it is mistranslated, other than assuming the ancient Hebrews fully understood the habits of wild rabbits?

But if they weren't aware it was a mistake, it wouldn't be "blatant" to them! As I've said, this is actually a very common misconception in folk biology. It's not a "blatant" mistake at all, but a very common one. Even Linnaeus made this mistake in the 18th century, showing that even then the belief was common.The statement is entirely consistent with pre-scientific understanding of rabbit behavior of many peoples. I see no reason at all to suspect an error in the text's translation of the animal in question.Your only reason to suspect mistranslation is your belief that it is a "blatant" mistake, when in fact it's a common and widespread error that isn't blatant at all, if the people writing it believe it to be true.

That indeed sounds like a good idea, and is the sort of thing I'd be interested in knowing. Not researching myself mind you, I'm far too lazy for that.

Astonishingly enough, I have a book, written under the name Woodmorappe, called "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study", which argues precisely that no miracles are necessary for Noah's Ark to be true.I agree with your assessment, not Woodmorappe's (not his real name, I forget his real name).[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 11-03-2003]