On Kinds... again.

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.
as for theh "catch-22" -there is none -obviously the whole ark story is meant as a miracle on par with other miracles that occur. So the answer is -a kind is whatever size it is but they all fit on the ark. There is no logical problem here, only a problem of understading the nature of a miracle. Either way, who said microevolution is a problem for literalists...

I think kinds of locusts and grashoppers are meant which have extra appendages they use...definitely 2, maybe even 4? need to check but i think i read that once...

Ok. First and foremost -this passage is not about classifying all living things - No one said there should be taxonomic similarities. Why do you think there should be one here or that it reuiqres one? If you read the chapter, its about [1] Giving kosher/non kosher signs for various animals and fish [2] LISTING non the kosher birds and grasshoppers. SO, why should there be a system of classification based on physicla similarities. There isnt and there shouldnt be. There are similarities in types of animals here in that all kosher animals [in verses preceding cited passage] are non aggresive herbivores, while those non kosher prey on others. There is your classification!. So cows, deer, giraffe are kosher - have split 'hooves' and chew their cud -lions, jaguars, etc dont. Its a 'spiritual' classification if you will - dont ea tthese things that menaces others -eat only peacefull ones -and here are their signs so you'll know which is which. Besides which my previous post was general. i recall reading that the system in biblical usage in general in putting 'kinds' together is based on similar appearances and percieved "life styles" of animals in nature - how they lived, ate, slept. More later -this is off the top of my head...

Listen NosyNed,
This forum is discussing a particular topic. Just because you are closeminded to other ideas is not my fault. If you can not even imagine the simple idea of a G-d and the idea of a miracle WHEN TALKING ABOUT A BIBLICAL PASSAGE then you have no understanding of the basic ideas of the story...and we are discussing aspects of A biblical story. As for us discussing science, we are trying to understand a passage in Leviticus, not read a science book. So, yes, i gave you a theory - if you cant handle the G-d idea when talking about bible, read and talk about another book. And be nice. Just because we disagree doesnt mean you have to be nasty. as for being a fundamentalist - if you mean following eye witness testimony of my ancestors - then i am one. Nuff said for now.

Rabbits are not kosher. Some say that this is explicit in the text -modern hebrew calls a rabbit an "arnevet" or a "shafan" [which might be a hare] -this is one of the four examples of non kosher animals brought down. Any which way -rabbits dont chew their cud..so not kosher

OK - you got me Ned,
when I'm wrong, Im wrong -i just said it from memory and had it backwards- i remembered it wasnt kosher, just forgot which was which. Funny thing i remember an article i once read that said that the hebrew there "arnevet" is not really a rabbit -...that it was a mistranslation..bacause rabbits really dont chew there cuds -they eat their own droppings...[i think that why i got it backwards - i was thinking of that]. either way i can tell you that rabbits today are not considered kosher

i speak, read and write fluent hebrew, and have a pretty good aramaic. the verses say "shafan" and "arnevet" translated as hare and rabbit. in modern hebrew, those translations are correct but i think they might be wrong for the biblical ones.
As for their knoweldge of animal physiology - i have to differ -consider that they were an agrarian society AND that they were constantly involved in anmial offerings which were disected. And remember that for offerings any slight blemish rendered it unfit,- i think they were intimately aquainted with physiology. I can say from talmud study that their oral knowledge on animal physiology, passed down from generation to generation, is immense. See Babylonian Talmud - tractate Chulin. So they knew physiology very well.

and so we said its a mistranslation -its not a rabbit - we shall leave the original wording-it was an "arnevet" whatever that is which does chew its cud but no slipt hooves. problem solved i think?

im not sure if we are clear. "chew the cud" is not mistranslated - since rabbits dont chew cuds and the example brought does chew cud then it seems abvious that that cant be the same animal. Rabbit does not mean arnevet - i dont know where that first came up .I once read some paper where other species were offered as the correct animal but i dont remember it. i dont have one, but i suspect the translation of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan on the Torah would have it. His edition specializes in dealing with these kind of issues....next time i see noe ill try to look it up

i think its fair to say that they knew what they were talking about when they bring that very animal as AN EXAMPLE... i think that kind of mistake is too blatant....and considering the numerous tranlational steps it takes to get from hebrew to greek to latin to enlgish -ill go with the mistranlation, which in general are not that uncommon.

well, i guess we disagree then. But i think i have a possible way to solve it; Can anyone do trace the translation of 'arnevet' and 'shafan' in those verses in a few arameic, greek, and latin editions?....we can then see if anything changed throughout the years or that it indeed a rabbit is and always was a rabbit - does anyone see a problem with the idea? Where is the first time arnevet=rabbit? septuagint? if we find that one of those editions has ana nimal besides rabbit then we have found that somwhere down the road someone changed it..in one direction or another....

This will be my last remark about my ark comment here and i will mosey over to the ark debates. I am aware of the magnitude of the numbers you mention - all this only enforces the idea that when reading the whole flood/ark story -its all MEANT as a miracle story; No one could entertain that one boat of any size, much less 300x50x30 could hold everything....[as for marine life - one can say they survived in the waters] and for those who keep telling me its not science - I KNOW! I GOT IT! i never said it was science - but when reading the bible with a supernatural being, supernatural events are part of the literature...i wasnt talking about kinds but about the arc story! OK! its not really an issue of miracles per se, but of G-d per se..if there is G-d, there can be miracles etc..so lets leave it at that and ill mosey over to the ark debate when i have time.

um... curious -how have i departed from the ark story?

well, i cant see how anyone can see this ark story as a non miraculous story - obviously all the speices could not naturally fit. If there is anyone out there who believes that they could naturally fit -please explain this to me [not you guys who deny it all]. So kind in the ark story does imply a large grouping. in fact when i reread the verse [gen6/20] in hebrew, my understadnig is - that every TYPE of bird, animal or creepy will come.
To prove from here that small scale evolution does not occurr seems a hard stretch even if 'kind' is expansive....perhaps all the animals OF THAT TIME came, but some found today have changed a bit....i need to read more on the small scale evolution issue before i can say morea bout it itself and whther it necessarily proves large scale evolution...
as for your comments that leviticus oimplie that kind is limited - first- i found that your translation of the birds was off...i have very different versions........see the book: BIRDS of the Torah by Pinchus Presworksy [isbn 1-931681-22-8 - might be hard to get] where his study on these verses and ornithology lead him to a very different list than yours- and the owls issue is gone... but overall i think that a more limited definition of kind is meant as well - but that does not contradict the word kind as used in the ark story -we can say -in the ark story the meaning [and this works in the hebrew] is -every kind of bird out there will come - all the kinds of the world [btw all christians-you should know that jewish tradition has it anyway that NOT ALL animals, birds and creepies came into the arc....some were excluded and evidently were destroyed as a species- see medieval jewish commentaries on the logic of this thought as based on the verses..see Rashi...] so all kinds means all the kinds of those who entered...a more limited but still vast number... while in leviticus kinds means the kind of that particular bird -basically im saying the USAGE if th eword kind in each context is different and hence not contradictory.
ok got to go. thanx to all who educate me here.

i delat with th eowl problem above - once again -english translation off and now on the bettles its drastic
22: Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
beetles? -im reading the hebrew and its it says 'chargol' which the comentators i see say is another type of grashopper...which fits right into the context of the verse..why mention 2 locusts, then a bettle and again a grasshopper....
so the beetles problem is gone....