Hebrew dictionary on "species"
TomS
"species." This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between the
word _mi^n_ with the biologist's descriptive term species cannot be
substantiated, and because there are as many definitions of species
as there are biologists.
entry #1191a, mi^n
volume 1, page 503
R. Laird Harris et al. editors
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
Chicago: Moody Press, 1980
--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
Garamond Lethe
> Some have argued that when God created _mi^n_, he thereby fixed the
> "species." This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between the
> word _mi^n_ with the biologist's descriptive term species cannot be
> substantiated, and because there are as many definitions of species
> as there are biologists.
That made a lot more sense after I realized you weren't making a
link between species and i raised to the nth power.
John Wilkins
<TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Some have argued that when God created _mi^n_, he thereby fixed the
> "species." This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between the
> word _mi^n_ with the biologist's descriptive term species cannot be
> substantiated, and because there are as many definitions of species
> as there are biologists.
>
> entry #1191a, mi^n
> volume 1, page 503
> R. Laird Harris et al. editors
> Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
> Chicago: Moody Press, 1980
There are only 26 biologists?
VoiceOfReason
wrote:
> On 2009-08-31, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > Some have argued that when God created _mi^n_, he thereby fixed the
> > "species." This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between the
> > word _mi^n_ with the biologist's descriptive term species cannot be
> > substantiated, and because there are as many definitions of species
> > as there are biologists.
>
> That made a lot more sense after I realized you weren't making a
> link between species and i raised to the nth power.
Indeed. For a minute there, I thought biology had REALLY changed
since I took it last...
Stephen
I think it's related to bar_mi^n_ology, if not to species ...
Regards,
Stephen
--
Robert Carnegie
> Some have argued that when God created _mi^n_, he thereby fixed the
> "species." This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between the
> word _mi^n_ with the biologist's descriptive term species cannot be
> substantiated, and because there are as many definitions of species
> as there are biologists.
>
> entry #1191a, mi^n
> volume 1, page 503
> R. Laird Harris et al. editors
> Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
> Chicago: Moody Press, 1980
That's a quote from the book?
If mi^n are fixed, which is implied by the bible saying that God
created the "kinds" in the beginning that are still around just the
same "today" (i.e. when that part of Genesis was written, which is now
a long time ago by everyday standards), then that implies something
about "species" studied by biologists. Now, it isn't hard to select
two fossil or live or dead animal or plant or other specimens and then
find two or more biologists who will argue about whether they are the
same species or not. But what "species" in general means, is
generally agreed, I think.
Accordingly, I think the biblical implication that living things exist
as the mi^n that God originally created is refuted by the existence of
many fossils from ancient times that look very different from
everything that's alive today, and no fossils from older periods that
do look like modern species.
I say that the bible at face value says that mi^n are fixed, and it
would be easier for creationists if it didn't say that, because they
aren't fixed. I think
_Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament_ maybe isn't denying that
that's what the bible does say, but is denying that it should be taken
seriously, or that this should be considered a problem.
Incidentally, do you know if I can program my computer to sigh every
time I look up Genesis in _The NET Bible_ on their web site? To save
the effort of sighing myself.
Friar Broccoli
[]
> I say that the bible at face value says that mi^n are fixed
I have never seen this position presented coherently or convincingly.
The "after its own kind/mi^n" doesn't imply immutability because all
animals produce more or less faithful copies of themselves.
It is entirely correct to say that all species produce other
copies of their own species.
TomS
<af60c3a4-5163-4600...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, Robert
Carnegie stated..."
>
>On Aug 31, 7:15=A0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Some have argued that when God created _mi^n_, he thereby fixed the
>> "species." This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between the
>> word _mi^n_ with the biologist's descriptive term species cannot be
>> substantiated, and because there are as many definitions of species
>> as there are biologists.
>>
>> entry #1191a, mi^n
>> volume 1, page 503
>> R. Laird Harris et al. editors
>> Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
>> Chicago: Moody Press, 1980
>
>That's a quote from the book?
Yes.
>
>If mi^n are fixed, which is implied by the bible saying that God
>created the "kinds" in the beginning that are still around just the
>same "today" (i.e. when that part of Genesis was written, which is now
>a long time ago by everyday standards), then that implies something
>about "species" studied by biologists. Now, it isn't hard to select
>two fossil or live or dead animal or plant or other specimens and then
>find two or more biologists who will argue about whether they are the
>same species or not. But what "species" in general means, is
>generally agreed, I think.
One problem is that the Bible does *not* say that God created "kinds".
It says that various animals and plants were created "according to
his/their kind".
>
>Accordingly, I think the biblical implication that living things exist
>as the mi^n that God originally created is refuted by the existence of
>many fossils from ancient times that look very different from
>everything that's alive today, and no fossils from older periods that
>do look like modern species.
One doesn't have to go to the fossils to see that fixity is not a
universal rule of life.
>
>I say that the bible at face value says that mi^n are fixed, and it
>would be easier for creationists if it didn't say that, because they
>aren't fixed. I think
>_Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament_ maybe isn't denying that
>that's what the bible does say, but is denying that it should be taken
>seriously, or that this should be considered a problem.
>
>Incidentally, do you know if I can program my computer to sigh every
>time I look up Genesis in _The NET Bible_ on their web site? To save
>the effort of sighing myself.
>
TomS
<4d526227-ca26-4573...@d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, Friar
Broccoli stated..."
Another little point is that the Bible does *not* use the word kind/min
with respect to humans.
But, then, creationist/fundamentalist/literalists aren't put off by
what the Bible explicitly says or omits, are they?
Friar Broccoli
> "On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:44:36 -0700 (PDT), in article
> Broccoli stated..."
>
>
>
> >On Sep 1, 9:15=A0am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >[]
>
> >> I say that the bible at face value says that mi^n are fixed
>
> >I have never seen this position presented coherently or convincingly.
> >The "after its own kind/mi^n" doesn't imply immutability because all
> >animals produce more or less faithful copies of themselves.
> >It is entirely correct to say that all species produce other
> >copies of their own species.
.
> Another little point is that the Bible does *not* use the word kind/min
> with respect to humans.
I'm not clear about what point you think this makes.
Mitchell Coffey
> In article <261742506.0001647a.090.0...@drn.newsguy.com>, TomS
27. We're talking Ancient Hebrew.
To anticipate: I know, but God doesn't speak Aramaic. That's why He
had to dictate it to Moses, who was bilingual.
Mitchell
TomS
<6931cf33-378b-460c...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, Friar
Broccoli stated..."
>
>On Sep 1, 1:16=A0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:44:36 -0700 (PDT), in article
>r
>> Broccoli stated..."
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 1, 9:15=3DA0am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >[]
>>
>> >> I say that the bible at face value says that mi^n are fixed
>>
>> >I have never seen this position presented coherently or convincingly.
>> >The "after its own kind/mi^n" doesn't imply immutability because all
>> >animals produce more or less faithful copies of themselves.
>> >It is entirely correct to say that all species produce other
>> >copies of their own species.
>
> .
>
>> Another little point is that the Bible does *not* use the word kind/min
>> with respect to humans.
>
>I'm not clear about what point you think this makes.
It appears that there is no Biblical basis for there being a kind/min
for humans.
>
>
>> But, then, creationist/fundamentalist/literalists aren't put off by
>> what the Bible explicitly says or omits, are they?
>
Walter Bushell
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:44:36 -0700 (PDT), in article
> <4d526227-ca26-4573...@d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, Friar
> Broccoli stated..."
> >
> >On Sep 1, 9:15=A0am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> >[]
> >
> >> I say that the bible at face value says that mi^n are fixed
> >
> >I have never seen this position presented coherently or convincingly.
> >The "after its own kind/mi^n" doesn't imply immutability because all
> >animals produce more or less faithful copies of themselves.
> >It is entirely correct to say that all species produce other
> >copies of their own species.
> >
>
> Another little point is that the Bible does *not* use the word kind/min
> with respect to humans.
>
> But, then, creationist/fundamentalist/literalists aren't put off by
> what the Bible explicitly says or omits, are they?
Force their opinion on the Bible they will. Comes from a book based on
stories told by goatherds and bronze age people. But irony hadn't been
invented yet, or at least had not come to the Hebrews.
Suzanne
>
The word "species" is a smaller category than the
word "kinds." Kinds is more like Genus, or Family,
or other.
>
Suzanne
Mitchell Coffey
How do you know that?
Mitchell Coffey
TomS
<c0fbf3cd-892e-4e9a...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, Mitchell
Coffey stated..."
>
>On Sep 3, 11:19=A0pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 1, 8:15=A0am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Aug 31, 7:15=A0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Some have argued that when God created _mi^n_, he thereby fixed the
>> > > "species." This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between the
>> > > word _mi^n_ with the biologist's descriptive term species cannot be
>> > > substantiated, and because there are as many definitions of species
>> > > as there are biologists.
>>
>> > > entry #1191a, mi^n
>> > > volume 1, page 503
>> > > R. Laird Harris et al. editors
>> > > Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
>> > > Chicago: Moody Press, 1980
>>
>> > That's a quote from the book?
>>
>> > If mi^n are fixed, which is implied by the bible saying that God
>> > created the "kinds" in the beginning that are still around just the
>> > same "today" (i.e. when that part of Genesis was written, which is now
>> > a long time ago by everyday standards), then that implies something
>> > two fossil or live or dead animal or plant or other specimens and then
>> > find two or more biologists who will argue about whether they are the
>> > generally agreed, I think.
>>
>> > Accordingly, I think the biblical implication that living things exist
>> > as the mi^n that God originally created is refuted by the existence of
>> > many fossils from ancient times that look very different from
>> > everything that's alive today, and no fossils from older periods that
>> > do look like modern species.
>>
>> > I say that the bible at face value says that mi^n are fixed, and it
>> > would be easier for creationists if it didn't say that, because they
>> > _Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament_ maybe isn't denying that
>> > that's what the bible does say, but is denying that it should be taken
>> > seriously, or that this should be considered a problem.
>>
>> > Incidentally, do you know if I can program my computer to sigh every
>> > the effort of sighing myself.
>>
>> > > Fnord
>>
>> The word "species" is a smaller category than the
>> word "kinds." Kinds is more like Genus, or Family,
>> or other.
>>
>> Suzanne
>
>How do you know that?
>
>Mitchell Coffey
>
The plural of the word "min"/"kind" does not occur in the Bible.
There is a discussion of the possibilities for the meaning of
"min"/"kind" in the Wikipedia article "Baraminology" under the
heading "Interpretations of Biblical kinds". If you can read
Polish, it is put a little more forcefully in the Polish
Wikipedia article "Baramin" under the heading "Etymologica i
odniesienia biblijne". (I don't read Polish, but the meaning
comes through in a Babelfish translation.) I especially like the
concluding sentence which notes that, ironically, "bara min"
literally means that evolution, rather than God, created.
As long as the concept of "fixed species" dates only from some
2000 years after the composition of Genesis, it is clearly a
gross anachronism to find it there. Yes, I know that Moses could
be prophetically informed of this, but somehow or other he didn't
manage to inform his audience very well. If he had the supernatural
gift of prophecy, then he didn't have the natural gift of making
himself clear.
And the speculative meaning that "min"/"kind" means a vague
something-or-other bigger than "species", that doesn't seem to
have been "discovered" until the 19th century.
Ye Old One
Please provide evidence for that claim.
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
The little god she has talking to her blood pump told he so.
--
Bob.
Mitchell Coffey
> "On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 08:35:32 -0700 (PDT), in article
Thank you. What's going on here is some sad and sinister waste of
brain power. It appears classic crank science. I'm particularly
disturbed by their tossing out evidence that conflicts with their pre-
conclusions.
By the way, I cut and pasted the whole damn thing into the Google
translator, and am amazed at the progress machine translation has
made.
Mitchell
John Wilkins
<TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Twentieth century, sir.
TomS
<050920091349413120%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
I was thinking of Erich Wasmann. I don't know when he came up with the
idea that common descent worked for something larger than species -
genera or families - whether that was before 1901. I don't think that
he referred to "min"/"kind" from the Bible. Anyway, I was trying to be
generous.
John Wilkins
<TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Yeah I was also thinking of Wasmann. He's early 20th:
Wasmann, Erich. 1910. Modern Biology and the Theory of Evolution.
Translated by A. M. Buchanan. 3rd ed. London: Kegan Paul, Trench,
Tr�bner. Original edition, 1906.
TimR
>
> The word "species" is a smaller category than the
> word "kinds." Kinds is more like Genus, or Family,
> or other.
>
> Suzanne
But there's the logic trap.
The Biblical writers observed and described individual animals. Every
individual animal you see is a member of a species.
Where are you going to find a kind to look at?
How do you know a kind even exists? If it's merely a conceptual
grouping and you can't see one?
While I've never heard a creationist articulate this, clearly a kind
is supposed to be some generic undifferentiated precursor of modern
species. Why, then, is there not a single description of such in the
Bible?
I propose we reject the entire concept of kind as anti-scriptural, and
refuse to give it validity by discussing definitions. It is after all
a very modern interpretation, not appearing until Woodmorappe realized
he couldn't fit modern species onto the ark.
TomS
<050920092238548457%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
Wasmann was born in 1859, so he would have been 41 in 1900. Do
you think that someone would have an orginal idea after age 40?
I suppose it's *possible*.
John Wilkins
<TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
He was just a young fellow when he published his book. By the way, Tom,
how old are you?
Suzanne
> "On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 08:35:32 -0700 (PDT), in article
Barbara means "stranger." Abraham's name is "A-bara-m/ham" He crossed
over the river and
into the unknown. God said that he should leave Ur with his loved ones
and go "to a land which I will show you,"
which is to say, they didn't know where they were going, but that God
would make it known as they went. That means that he crossed over into
the unknown, to a strange place to him, one might say. With this
context in mind, God's way is what is unknown to us until we follow
him. Also creation, itself, being that it was supernatural, is
strange to our natural way, super, meaning above that which is
natural.
>
If you applied evolution to "bara miyn," is your concept of evolution
by natural selection, or by strange and unkown selection? It seems to
me that evolutionists would want evolution to be known as a natural
process, rather than a supernatural process. However, you could look
at it a different way from your point of view, and that is that how
life got started is one thing, but how it continued is the natural
way. In other words, evolution could not start your way until after
something had been created. To me, "bara miyn" would mean a species
came about from a means that is in the unkown, or in the beyond. To me
that is the Lord, from a biblical perspective. As a matter of fact,
even from the evolutionist point of view, how life got started is
equally mysterious. It's just that the Bible tells who is behind that
which is beyond.
>
> As long as the concept of "fixed species" dates only from some
> 2000 years after the composition of Genesis,
>
creation in the Bible. Either what he
wrote had been passed down in the oral tradition, or the Lord had told
Moses what to write about the creation in Genesis, chapter 1.
>
> it is clearly a
> gross anachronism to find it there. Yes, I know that Moses could
> be prophetically informed of this, but somehow or other he didn't
> manage to inform his audience very well. If he had the supernatural
> gift of prophecy, then he didn't have the natural gift of making
> himself clear.
>
>
> And the speculative meaning that "min"/"kind" means a vague
> something-or-other bigger than "species", that doesn't seem to
> have been "discovered" until the 19th century.
>
a species is, would bring out people clarifying (right or wrong) what
is in the Bible. Before this, people didn't have reason to be talking
about
species in evolution vs. kinds in the Bible, don't you think?
>
It's great to know that Babelfish is doing such a great job. I
remember when it sometimes couldn't translate something, and and other
times when the translations were very strange. : )
>
The Bible does not say that the species are "fixed."
It simply says that God created things with the ability to
reproduce decendants like themselves. The principle
being that if you plant a lemon seed, you will get a lemon tree. If
you plant a cherry pit, you will get a cherry tree. It does not say
that you should not create
hybrids, or grafts. It does not say that you are forbidden to create a
tangelo. It simply says that what is fixed is that if you sow
something, you will reap that same thing.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
from what it first was. Because
of new finds in science, evolutionists have come up
with a problem in defining species, in that in their
definition, it no longer covers all organisms. So when
the Bible talks about species (kinds) it means one thing,
where as when the evolutionist talks about species, it
means another thing. Linnaeus found the words species and genus in the
Latin form of the Bible, and
that seems to be where he got them from.
>
Take this for example. The term "variation" in a species was used
before the terms "micrevolution" and "macroevolution" were used. So,
when a person says that they believe in variation within a species,
an evolutionist says, "Then you believe in evolution?"
and the person says "No," and that is because he
means it as an accumulation of alleles that he believes will
eventually work into another species, whereas the
person meaning for microevolution to be just variation,
he does not mean what the evolutionists means by the same term.
>
Suzanne
>
Suzanne
>
Bob, the dictionary talks about people speaking of their innermost
self by utilizing the word "heart," long before the evolution vs.
creation debate. People still use this term this way, not meaning the
organ, itself:
Websters:
choice 4-6:
4. the emotional or moral as distinguished from the intellectual
nature: as
a. generous disposition : compassion (a leader with heart)
b. love, affection (won her heart)
c. courage, ardor (never lost heart)
5. one's innermost character, feelings, or inclinations (knew it in
his heart) (a man after my own heart)
6 a. the central or innermost part
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
No, it can mean strange, as in exotic or mysterious, it can also mean
a foreign woman, but "stranger" is going too far.
>Abraham's name is "A-bara-m/ham" He crossed
>over the river and
You book of fairy tales explains the name.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2017:5;&version=ESV;
[snip more from a very stupid woman who has proved, time after time,
that she doesn't know what she is talking about.]
>Suzanne
Now, are you ready to admit that WvB was NEVER the Head of NASA, and
that the MSFC could not have been NASA's first field centre as there
were several already in existence when NASA was formed?
--
Bob.
If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
Ye Old One
This is supposed to be a group talking about science. Your abject
stupidity in using inappropriate language is just another sign of what
a total waste of oxygen you are.
--
Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
Ye Old One
No, a search for "species" gives zero hits.
> but today the term has changed somewhat
>from what it first was. Because
>of new finds in science, evolutionists have come up
>with a problem in defining species, in that in their
>definition, it no longer covers all organisms. So when
>the Bible talks about species (kinds) it means one thing,
>where as when the evolutionist talks about species, it
>means another thing. Linnaeus found the words species and genus in the
>Latin form of the Bible, and
>that seems to be where he got them from.
Did he? Please provide a cite for that.
>>
>Take this for example. The term "variation" in a species was used
>before the terms "micrevolution" and "macroevolution" were used.
There is only one evolution.
> So,
>when a person says that they believe in variation within a species,
>an evolutionist says, "Then you believe in evolution?"
Of course, because variation is the result of evolution. Speciation
occurs when a variation becomes dominant in an isolated group.
>and the person says "No," and that is because he
>means it as an accumulation of alleles that he believes will
>eventually work into another species, whereas the
>person meaning for microevolution to be just variation,
>he does not mean what the evolutionists means by the same term.
A scientist sees evolution. Period.
>>
>Suzanne
>>
--
Bob.
A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest
imaginary friend.
Suzanne
word:
Eze 47:10
"And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from
Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets;
their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great
sea, exceeding many."
Technically you are right, though, because the Hebrew has the verb as
being just "miyn." However, there are irregular verbs in Hebrew just
like we have irregular verbs in English which could be singular or
plural just as in our language we have the word "sheep." Some
translators feel that the context of this verse calls for a plural
verb. If you were translating the word "sheep"
into another language, you would have to go by the context of the
sentence in order to know whether or not to pluralize the verb.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Sep 3, 11:19 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The word "species" is a smaller category than the
> > word "kinds." Kinds is more like Genus, or Family,
> > or other.
>
> > Suzanne
>
> But there's the logic trap.
>
> The Biblical writers observed and described individual animals. Every
> individual animal you see is a member of a species.
>
> Where are you going to find a kind to look at?
>
> How do you know a kind even exists? If it's merely a conceptual
> grouping and you can't see one?
>
species as well as genus, because in the Latin version of the Bible
which he seems to have been using, the word "kind" is translated as
"species" in the English translation of the Latin Bible. So he was
speaking of
a "kind" as being a species. However, evolutionists today seem to have
changed what the earlier form of species was. So, when speaking to an
evolutionist, the creationist has to be aware that what an
evolutionist means by the word "species," may be different than what a
Bible follower may mean by the word "species."
You know, it's a matter of semantics.
>
> While I've never heard a creationist articulate this, clearly a kind
> is supposed to be some generic undifferentiated precursor of modern
> species. Why, then, is there not a single description of such in the
> Bible?
>
but it did mean the same thing as kind, earlier.
>
> I propose we reject the entire concept of kind as anti-scriptural, and
> refuse to give it validity by discussing definitions. It is after all
> a very modern interpretation, not appearing until Woodmorappe realized
> he couldn't fit modern species onto the ark.
>
in the Bible. Many scientists are Christains and Jews, you know.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
You can find it that way in name books.
>
> >Abraham's name is "A-bara-m/ham" He crossed
> >over the river and
>
> You book of fairy tales explains the name.
>
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2017:5;&version=ESV;
>
> [snip more from a very stupid woman who has proved, time after time,
> that she doesn't know what she is talking about.]
>
the person that gave it to you if you don't like the answer.
>
Suzanne
wf3h
>
> If you applied evolution to "bara miyn," is your concept of evolution
> by natural selection, or by strange and unkown selection? It seems to
> me that evolutionists would want evolution to be known as a natural
> process, rather than a supernatural process. However, you could look
> at it a different way from your point of view, and that is that how
> life got started is one thing, but how it continued is the natural
> way. In other words, evolution could not start your way until after
> something had been created. To me, "bara miyn" would mean a species
> came about from a means that is in the unkown, or in the beyond. To me
> that is the Lord, from a biblical perspective. As a matter of fact,
> even from the evolutionist point of view, how life got started is
> equally mysterious. It's just that the Bible tells who is behind that
> which is beyond.
you use 'mysterious' in a way designed to cause confusion. any
supernatural perspective is useless. how life got started, from a
scientific perspective is, in principle open to research. for
religion it's guesswork and usless supposition based on whatever god
your parents happened to tell you was true.
and that's a useless way of looking at reality
>
> I'm not sure what you are speaking of, but the modern talk about what
> a species is, would bring out people clarifying (right or wrong) what
> is in the Bible. Before this, people didn't have reason to be talking
> about
> species in evolution vs. kinds in the Bible, don't you think?
boy you'd think that, if all this stuff is in the bible, the bible
believers would know it instead of discovering it ex post facto after
science finds it.
Ye Old One
Try reading a few, I did. As usual you are wrong.
>>
>> >Abraham's name is "A-bara-m/ham" He crossed
>> >over the river and
>>
>> You book of fairy tales explains the name.
>>
>> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2017:5;&version=ESV;
>>
>> [snip more from a very stupid woman who has proved, time after time,
>> that she doesn't know what she is talking about.]
>>
>You ask serious questions and then when you get an answer, you trash
>the person that gave it to you if you don't like the answer.
nope. I trash YOU because YOU get it wrong. Your explanation of his
name was wrong - something I've come to expect from you.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Sep 5, 8:09 am, TimR <timothy...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 3, 11:19 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > The word "species" is a smaller category than the
>> > word "kinds." Kinds is more like Genus, or Family,
>> > or other.
>>
>> > Suzanne
>>
>> But there's the logic trap.
>>
>> The Biblical writers observed and described individual animals. Every
>> individual animal you see is a member of a species.
>>
>> Where are you going to find a kind to look at?
>>
>> How do you know a kind even exists? If it's merely a conceptual
>> grouping and you can't see one?
>>
>Well........Linnaeus is the one who used the word
>species as well as genus, because in the Latin version of the Bible
>which he seems to have been using, the word "kind" is translated as
>"species" in the English translation of the Latin Bible. So he was
>speaking of
>a "kind" as being a species.
The word "species" in Latin, literally means appearance or form,
though it can also have a meaning associated with beauty. It comes
from the Latin root "specere" 'to look'.
>However, evolutionists today seem to have
>changed what the earlier form of species was. So, when speaking to an
>evolutionist, the creationist has to be aware that what an
>evolutionist means by the word "species," may be different than what a
>Bible follower may mean by the word "species."
Since most English speaking christians would not be aware of the Latin
Vulgate Bible I doubt most ignorant creationists would even be aware
of it.
>You know, it's a matter of semantics.
When talking science the names science uses are important.
>>
>> While I've never heard a creationist articulate this, clearly a kind
>> is supposed to be some generic undifferentiated precursor of modern
>> species. Why, then, is there not a single description of such in the
>> Bible?
>>
>A kind does not seem to be identical with today's version of species,
>but it did mean the same thing as kind, earlier.
>>
>> I propose we reject the entire concept of kind as anti-scriptural, and
>> refuse to give it validity by discussing definitions. It is after all
>> a very modern interpretation, not appearing until Woodmorappe realized
>> he couldn't fit modern species onto the ark.
>>
>But you have to deal with reality, and the word "kinds" is definitely
>in the Bible. Many scientists are Christains and Jews, you know.
Some maybe, but they would use the scientific terms first and
foremost.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
TomS
<e21c4274-b273-4e6b...@p20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, Suzanne
stated..."
[...snip...]
>But you have to deal with reality, and the word "kinds" is definitely
>in the Bible. Many scientists are Christains and Jews, you know.
>>
>Suzanne
>
OK, I looked up in Strong's Concordance for the instances of the word
"kinds" in the Bible. There is precisely one instance where Strong's
refers to the Hebrew word "min" - the "kind" word used often in Genesis
1 - and this is in Ezekiel 47:10. Yes, the KJV has the phrase "according
to their kinds", but the Hebrew which is being translated is "l'minah",
literally "according to her kind".
Hebrew dictionaries invariably note that the word "min" is used in the
Bible exclusively in the set phrase "l'min+" ("according to kind")
and the possessive pronoun suffix ("his", "her", "their"). Never with
a plural form of "min".
There is nothing in the Bible which even hints at any properties of
"kinds".
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Vend
> Garamond Lethe wrote:
> > On 2009-08-31, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > Some have argued that when God created _mi^n_, he thereby fixed the
> > > "species." This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between
> > > the word _mi^n_ with the biologist's descriptive term species
> > > cannot be substantiated, and because there are as many definitions
> > > of species as there are biologists.
>
> > link between species and i raised to the nth power.
>
> > > entry #1191a, mi^n
> > > volume 1, page 503
> > > R. Laird Harris et al. editors
> > > Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
> > > Chicago: Moody Press, 1980
>
Sure, it is purely imaginary.
alextangent
snipped
>
> Bara means that which is unkown, strange.
> Barbara means "stranger." Abraham's name is "A-bara-m/ham" He crossed
> over the river and
> into the unknown.
Is there absolutely no subject on which you will spout rubbish?
Barabara is from barbarian, a foreigner, root barbar (from the
Sanskrit for stammering), not bara. Abraham is derived from the roots
abh (father) and raham (multitude). Again, not bara.
TomS
<e1db865e-5685-46b1...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, alextangent
stated..."
Unfortunately, there is a long tradition in certain circles for
people just making stuff up, and others repeating it.
Mitchell Coffey
Again, how do you know that, as you put it, "The word 'species' is a
smaller category than the word 'kinds.' Kinds is more like Genus, or
Family, or other?"
Mitchell Coffey
TomS
<32abaf15-cea4-48e4...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, Suzanne
stated..."
>
>On Sep 4, 12:43=A0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 08:35:32 -0700 (PDT), in article
>hell
>> Coffey stated..."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 3, 11:19=3DA0pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sep 1, 8:15=3DA0am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote=
>:
>>
>> >> > On Aug 31, 7:15=3DA0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Some have argued that when God created _mi^n_, he thereby fixed th=
>e
>> >> > > "species." This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between =
>the
>> >> > > word _mi^n_ with the biologist's descriptive term species cannot b=
>e
>> >> > > substantiated, and because there are as many definitions of specie=
>s
>> >> > > as there are biologists.
>>
>> >> > > entry #1191a, mi^n
>> >> > > volume 1, page 503
>> >> > > R. Laird Harris et al. editors
>> >> > > Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
>> >> > > Chicago: Moody Press, 1980
>>
>> >> > That's a quote from the book?
>>
>> >> > If mi^n are fixed, which is implied by the bible saying that God
>> >> > created the "kinds" in the beginning that are still around just the
>ow
>> >> > a long time ago by everyday standards), then that implies something
>lect
>> >> > two fossil or live or dead animal or plant or other specimens and th=
>en
>> >> > find two or more biologists who will argue about whether they are th=
>e
>> >> > same species or not. =3DA0But what "species" in general means, is
>> >> > generally agreed, I think.
>>
>> >> > Accordingly, I think the biblical implication that living things exi=
>st
>> >> > as the mi^n that God originally created is refuted by the existence =
>of
>> >> > many fossils from ancient times that look very different from
>t
>> >> > do look like modern species.
>>
>> >> > I say that the bible at face value says that mi^n are fixed, and it
>> >> > would be easier for creationists if it didn't say that, because they
>> >> > _Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament_ maybe isn't denying that
>en
>> >> > seriously, or that this should be considered a problem.
>>
>> >> > Incidentally, do you know if I can program my computer to sigh every
You don't realize that what you wrote is just gobbledygook, do you?
You don't have a clue about Hebrew, do you? Or English, for that
matter?
The word "miyn" is *not* a verb in Hebrew. The word "sheep" is not
a verb in English. There are *not* irregular verbs in Hebrew "just
like we have irregular verbs which could be singular or plural".
Even in this English translation, the word "kinds" is not the
subject of a verb, it does not call for the plural form of any
verb.
And I am being generous in trying to dig some kind of sense out of
the gobbledygook that you write.
Mike Lyle
[...]
>>
> This latter is a stretch. Bara means that which is unkown, strange.
You mean "Barbara" is a Hebrew word? We certainly learn something new
every day round here.
--
Mike.
Suzanne
> On Sep 1, 9:15 am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> []
>
> > I say that the bible at face value says that mi^n are fixed
>
> The "after its own kind/mi^n" doesn't imply immutability because all
> animals produce more or less faithful copies of themselves.
> It is entirely correct to say that all species produce other
> copies of their own species.
>
I agree with you. It does not say in the Bible that God fixed the
species, it says that God made it possible that a lifeform could have
decendants from itself. One
of the first things he created was a garden and he wanted someone to
tend the garden. In a garden people cross-pollinate, graft, produce
hybrids, prune,
nurture and care for an optimum product, however it can come about.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> "On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:44:36 -0700 (PDT), in article
> <4d526227-ca26-4573-9916-17ee78543...@d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, Friar
> Broccoli stated..."
>
>
>
> >On Sep 1, 9:15=A0am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >[]
>
> >> I say that the bible at face value says that mi^n are fixed
>
> >I have never seen this position presented coherently or convincingly.
> >The "after its own kind/mi^n" doesn't imply immutability because all
> >animals produce more or less faithful copies of themselves.
> >It is entirely correct to say that all species produce other
> >copies of their own species.
>
> with respect to humans.
>
> But, then, creationist/fundamentalist/literalists aren't put off by
> what the Bible explicitly says or omits, are they?
>
I'm not put off by that, nor are any of my friends.
The Bible does not say that God fixed the species; it just says that
things were created in a species and gave them the ability to
reproduce that species. Their
normal tendency is to stay within that species. If a few members of a
population are stranded somewhere
like on an island, it seems that that would make a difference if they
had the strong enough desire to
keep on being fruitful and multiplying. It seems to me that if two
species mated together and it took then there would not have been a
barrier in place. So I can't see that the species are fixed, if that
is what happens.
Fixity of the species would be that they could not mate
with other species and produce, I would think. Does everyone agree?
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> "On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:44:36 -0700 (PDT), in article
> <4d526227-ca26-4573-9916-17ee78543...@d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, Friar
> Broccoli stated..."
>
>
>
> >On Sep 1, 9:15=A0am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >[]
>
> >> I say that the bible at face value says that mi^n are fixed
>
> >I have never seen this position presented coherently or convincingly.
> >The "after its own kind/mi^n" doesn't imply immutability because all
> >animals produce more or less faithful copies of themselves.
> >It is entirely correct to say that all species produce other
> >copies of their own species.
>
> Another little point is that the Bible does *not* use the word kind/min
> with respect to humans.
>
> But, then, creationist/fundamentalist/literalists aren't put off by
> what the Bible explicitly says or omits, are they?
>
anywhere in the Bible. Some try to prove this but their arguments
fail. If someone believes there were real people named Adam and Eve,
as I do, then they would
not be able to say that the races should not mix, since we all came
from the same parents.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> In article <261825414.00013e1e.053.0...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > "On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:44:36 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > <4d526227-ca26-4573-9916-17ee78543...@d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, Friar
> > Broccoli stated..."
>
> > >On Sep 1, 9:15=A0am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > >[]
>
> > >> I say that the bible at face value says that mi^n are fixed
>
> > >I have never seen this position presented coherently or convincingly.
> > >The "after its own kind/mi^n" doesn't imply immutability because all
> > >animals produce more or less faithful copies of themselves.
> > >It is entirely correct to say that all species produce other
> > >copies of their own species.
>
> > Another little point is that the Bible does *not* use the word kind/min
> > with respect to humans.
>
> > But, then, creationist/fundamentalist/literalists aren't put off by
> > what the Bible explicitly says or omits, are they?
>
> stories told by goatherds and bronze age people. But irony hadn't been
> invented yet, or at least had not come to the Hebrews.- Hide quoted text -
>
One of the problems is that a lot of people who profess faith in God
are very remiss about reading the Bible and seeing what it really
says. But if you don't mind me stating an opinion to what you just
said, basing ones faith on what the Bible does say, is basing your
opinion on what God says through man. The men that wrote the Bible
obviously were not idiots who couldn't think for themselves, but what
they wrote was what God told them to write, but he let them say it in
their own words.
Yet he is still the author of it, because he impressed the writers
with his thoughts, so it was not a matter of their thoughts. I could
tell someone about an accident. I could say that a car ran into a post
of some kind. It might turn out to be retold as "an automobile ran
into a fixed upright object." Different words but same meaning.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Stop using a book of bronze age fairy tales to describe the real world
- it makes you look very stupid.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
You really are demented, deluded and totally nuts.
--
Bob.
Theists think all gods but theirs are false. Atheists simply don't
make an exception for the last one.
Suzanne
wrote:
Often you will see Barbara as being Arabic. But
Arabian words and Hebrew words are intertwined.
Salaam from Arabic and Shalom from Hebrew are
from the same source. Both "Bar" and "Bara" are
Hebrew. You can find it written in name books as having it's origin in
Latin, in Greek, in Arabic, and
in Hebrew. All those languages borrowed from one another, probably
because they are all Mediterranean countries. Usually you will see the
meaning as being
stranger, or foreign, which is what "bara" is in Hebew.
of Barbara mean in Hebrew. My own name, Suzanne,
is considered to be French in some books, but in
others it is Hebrew or Persian. Same as with the name
Susan. It means 'lily." I guess you know your name is an archangel's
name, and it means "Who is like God?"
Back when I was looking for names for my children,
I got interested in the meaning of names, and it's sort of a hobby of
mine.
>
Suzanne
SkyEyes
wrote:
Suzanne is, as usual, talking out of her ass. "Barbara" is a *Greek*
name, not a Hebrew one. (Although I wouldn't put it past Suzanne to
confuse Greek and Hebrew as being the same, or closely related,
languages.)
http://www.parents.com/baby-names/barbara/
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Suzanne
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 5, 8:09 am, TimR <timothy...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 3, 11:19 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > The word "species" is a smaller category than the
> >> > word "kinds." Kinds is more like Genus, or Family,
> >> > or other.
>
> >> > Suzanne
>
> >> But there's the logic trap.
>
> >> The Biblical writers observed and described individual animals. Every
> >> individual animal you see is a member of a species.
>
> >> Where are you going to find a kind to look at?
>
> >> How do you know a kind even exists? If it's merely a conceptual
> >> grouping and you can't see one?
>
> >Well........Linnaeus is the one who used the word
> >species as well as genus, because in the Latin version of the Bible
> >which he seems to have been using, the word "kind" is translated as
> >"species" in the English translation of the Latin Bible. So he was
> >speaking of
> >a "kind" as being a species.
>
> The word "species" in Latin, literally means appearance or form,
> though it can also have a meaning associated with beauty. It comes
> from the Latin root "specere" 'to look'.
>
Linnaeus read. It the Bible they are mean the words
species and genus, and are used that way.
>
>
> >However, evolutionists today seem to have
> >changed what the earlier form of species was. So, when speaking to an
> >evolutionist, the creationist has to be aware that what an
> >evolutionist means by the word "species," may be different than what a
> >Bible follower may mean by the word "species."
>
> Since most English speaking christians would not be aware of the Latin
> Vulgate Bible I doubt most ignorant creationists would even be aware
> of it.
>
well educated and often impart things from the Latin, the Koine Greek,
and the Hebrew,
explaining the meanings of the words. Most of us that do biblical
research would be familiar with the Vulgate.
We do have Latin taught in schools, as well as taking classes in the
Latin based languages
>
> >You know, it's a matter of semantics.
>
> When talking science the names science uses are important.
>
"genus."
>
Suzanne
wf3h
>
> One of the problems is that a lot of people who profess faith in God
> are very remiss about reading the Bible and seeing what it really
> says.
like most creationists?
John Wilkins
<use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> <leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >On Sep 5, 8:09�am, TimR <timothy...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 3, 11:19�pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > The word "species" is a smaller category than the
> >> > word "kinds." Kinds is more like Genus, or Family,
> >> > or other.
> >>
> >> > Suzanne
> >>
> >> But there's the logic trap.
> >>
> >> The Biblical writers observed and described individual animals. �Every
> >> individual animal you see is a member of a species.
> >>
> >> Where are you going to find a kind to look at?
> >>
> >> How do you know a kind even exists? �If it's merely a conceptual
> >> grouping and you can't see one?
> >>
> >Well........Linnaeus is the one who used the word
> >species as well as genus, because in the Latin version of the Bible
> >which he seems to have been using, the word "kind" is translated as
> >"species" in the English translation of the Latin Bible. So he was
> >speaking of
> >a "kind" as being a species.
>
> The word "species" in Latin, literally means appearance or form,
> though it can also have a meaning associated with beauty. It comes
> from the Latin root "specere" 'to look'.
[Draws breath]
Okay, allow me... "species" is a vernacular term of Latin that, yes,
has an etymology from appearance, but actually the etymology is
irrelevant to its use, especially in classical and medieval Latin. It
basically, as Locke pointed out, means "kind" and has no particular
technical meaning in ordinary language. Likewise, "miyn" in Hebrew
means "kind" and has no particular technical meaning in ordinary usage;
the same is true of *all* languages that have a term that is cognate to
"kind", according to anthropological studies of the term.
The term "species" acquires technical meanings in logic, metaphysics,
theology, and currency. These are all relatively distinct and unusual,
with respect to the vernacular meaning. They are not
intertranslateable, and they are very special to the field in which
they are used. In theology, for example, it means the outward
appearance of the Host. In currency it means a small kind of coin. In
logic it means a formal class. In metaphysics it means a part of a
universal. And so on.
When non-biological (and non-theological, etc.) texts use the term
"kind" it means little more than that things are collected together for
some reason. In the case of living things, societies gather things
together in terms of the progeny resembling the parents. The technical
meaning of "species" in natural history before the modern period is
basically that. And, as was once pointed out on this group, one of the
very translators of the King James Bible themselves thought that
species were not fixed.
Linnaeus is *not* the man who introduced the term into natural history.
That was Conrad Gesner or Kaspar Bauhin in the 16th century. He is not
the man who defined it for natural history (in fact he never defined
the term) - that is John Ray at the end of the 17th century. Moreover,
Linnaeus did not think species were fixed towards the end of his
career.
In any case how the term was translated for the Bible is meaningless.
It was just a vernacular term. It didn't have a technical meaning,
either in the Vulgate or in the English version.
Suzanne
> "On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:25:08 -0700 (PDT), in article
> stated..."
> [...snip...]
>
> >But you have to deal with reality, and the word "kinds" is definitely
> >in the Bible. Many scientists are Christains and Jews, you know.
>
> >Suzanne
>
> OK, I looked up in Strong's Concordance for the instances of the word
> "kinds" in the Bible. There is precisely one instance where Strong's
> refers to the Hebrew word "min" - the "kind" word used often in Genesis
> 1 - and this is in Ezekiel 47:10. Yes, the KJV has the phrase "according
> to their kinds", but the Hebrew which is being translated is "l'minah",
> literally "according to her kind".
>
> Hebrew dictionaries invariably note that the word "min" is used in the
> Bible exclusively in the set phrase "l'min+" ("according to kind")
> and the possessive pronoun suffix ("his", "her", "their"). Never with
> a plural form of "min".
>
> There is nothing in the Bible which even hints at any properties of
> "kinds".
>
the originals and translate from them. The
Strong's version of the KJV is that the word is translated as "kinds"
plural in Ezekiel 47:10.
which is visible online at crosswalk.com, under "bible study tools."
But then it is translating the KJV. But
these others are not translating the KJV and have
gone back to the originals for their translations:
NIV, RSV, NRSV, KJV, NKJV, HCS, TDT, TLV...
HOWEVER, if you will recall, I said that technically you are right.
The literal translation, according to Young's
Literal Translation, though choppy sounding says:
"......a spreading of nets they are; according to their
own kind is their fish, as the fish of the great sea, very
many."
>
"according to their own kind is their fish," means that "fish" is
plural there, and since we ordinarily don't say "fishes," instead when
translating the phrase, they made the "kind" become "kinds," because
that's what the context called for.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
many nations. However...
Abraham's original name was Abram, and that was
suggested by the Ph.D. scholar from Johns Hopkins,
Merrill F. Unger to suggest that "Abram" meant "one
who had "crossed over" into strange, foreign and unknown territory
when he crossed over the river to
follow the Lord's command to go, and that the Lord would reveal to him
where he was going as he went,
which would take considerable faith. You can find this
in his Unger's Bible Dictionary.
>
The name "Barbara," is intertwined with the Hebrew
speech because Abram/Abraham came from Iraq.
Abram was from Ur of the Chaldees, which is the
name for Mesopotamia which is the name for present
day Iraq. Ur was not far from Babylon.
>
The "stammering" that you speak of was from the
Tower of Babel incident where the common language
was confounded, when languages were suddenly
produced because of an intervention by the Lord.
Each person began speaking what was to each ear,
a strange and foreign language, when only a few
minutes before they could understand each other.
So, the stammering or babbling was the result to
the hearer's ears. That is why "bara" means
stammering, but it also means strange and foreign
because that's the kind of sound that was produced
to the hearers of all the stammering lips. Therefore,
you will see Barbara in many name books as meaning
"stranger," or "foreigner." You did very well with what you have
shown, but you needed to go a little deeper.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> "On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:09:34 -0700 (PDT), in article
singularity affects whether a verb is singular or plural.
If I say things grow, "things" is plural, while the verb
"grow" is singular. If I say "a thing grows," it's the other way
around. I know miyn is not a verb. You had said that the word "miyn"
is not pluralized in the Bible. What
I was trying to tell you is that it may be the same word singular as
it is plural just as in English sheep is plural as well as sheep being
singular. But when you translate
the word "miyn" into English, it is necessary to make
it with a plural spelling. So if you look at it in English,
"kind" has to be written as "kinds" as in the verse in Ezekiel. In
other words, miyn, in Hebrew may be plural
but spelled the same way in Hebrew, just as sheep in
English is spelled the same way whether it is plural or
singular.
>
Yes, I know some Hebrew. No, I don't know if miyn takes a plural form
in Hebrew, because it is not
pluralized in the Ezekiel verse that is pluralized in
English.
>
> Even in this English translation, the word "kinds" is not the
> subject of a verb, it does not call for the plural form of any
> verb.
>
> And I am being generous in trying to dig some kind of sense out of
> the gobbledygook that you write.
>
I am saying, "which version of the Old Testament?"
The Hebrew version in Hebrew, or the English version of the Hebrew?
Miyn is pluralized in this verse in the English translation:
Ezekiel 47:10:
"And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from
Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets;
sea, exceeding many."
>
In English, "kind" is plural and is written as "kinds" in this one
verse.
>
Not all languages use the plural in the same way that we do in
English, where the subect and verb have to agree. When translating,
one can't always go by the subject-verb agreement, because not all
languages
use plurals as we do in English. The translators believe that a plural
"miyn" is meant in this sentence. That's why they translated it as
"kinds."
>
By the way, there are irregular verbs in Hebrew.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/community/forums/viewthread/2265
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
I'm sorry, Mitchell, I thought I had answered this.
The term species when Linnaeus started using it,
he got from the Latin Vulgate Bible. A form of it is
there translating the word "kind" as well as the
the presence of the word "genus." So all was
well with the word "kind" in his day, and almost
to present day, but not quite. Then scientists
learned more and found that what they thought
were sub-species they turned into species.
Science also discovered that the blanket word
for species now no longer covered all organisms,
because some of them needed a different and
new definition other than the blanket word for
species that was supposed to cover all. It's not
that scientists were trying to pull a fast one, as
some suggest, it just sort of happened that way,
I believe. Now, what science calls a species is
not always what kind means. It's more like the
word "family" now by the new arrangement. So,
it seemed to me that the biblical word "kind" now
means something more towards "family" than
"species," by the newer defining of the word
species. The English translation of the Bible in
Latin, which shows "species" for the original
Hebrew "kind," no longer means exactly the
same thing as it once did. Therefore, people
that are on the creation side of science will
tend to use the term "kind" when speaking with someone about species.
Now there is some
confusion with the defintion of terms and both
sides don't seem to recognize this, though
some do.
>
Here's another thing. Creationists have usually
always believed that there are variations within
a species. But that variation is now called
microevolution. So in order for a scientist that
is a creationist to converse with an evolutionist
about variation, he has to say "microevolution."
That sounds like he partially believes in evolution,
when he doesn't.
>
OK...now when one talks about "macroevolution,"
that means "big change," and in order for a new
species to form, it has to have gone macro, which
is to say above the species level. But, considering
that now the definition of species doesn't cover all
organisms, that makes it confusing. If some
sub-species have now been named species that
blurs the meaning of "above the species level,"
and puts the change merely within the kind category
of variation from the original point of view of what
a species used to be, which meant kind.
>
I hope that you understand what I am saying and I
want you to know that I have said this in an unbiased
fashion as someone on the sidelines looking at the
debate from a neutral point of view, even neutral to
my own view of the creationist point of view. I can
see people mad at each other and not noticing the
change that has happened where each side now has
a different set of defintions for some of the key words
in the argument. I can see what the problem is, but I
don't know how to solve it, other than telling people
what I am saying now.
>
The real casualty is the Bible, because when the
definition for species changed, that made it look like
the Bible didn't know what it was talking about with
the word "kind" since people would now look at it
and say it didn't fit what they see in science. It was
not that the Bible was now archaic, it is that science
moved away from what was originally meant by the
word species, which was the same as the word
kind when Linnaeus began using the words in the
first place.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
I will call you a liar on that one. Certainly no on-line source gives
"stranger" as an option.
> or "foreigner." You did very well with what you have
>shown, but you needed to go a little deeper.
Yes - YOU do.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Totally harpic.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Greek, Latin, Hispanic = foreign, strange, exotic, mysterious
http://www.babynameworld.com/meaning.php?name=Barbara
No reference to Hebrew nor "stranger".
Greek = foreign
http://www.meaning-of-baby-girl-names.org.uk/first-name-meanings-b/meaning-of-barbara.htm
Still no reference to Hebrew or "stranger".
Greek = foreign
http://babynamesworld.parentsconnect.com/meaning_of_Barbara.html
Again, no reference to Hebrew or "stranger", things are not looking
good for Suzanne's claim.
Well, I could go on, there are many more sites out there - and they
all agree. Not one gives a reference to Hebrew and none gives
"stranger" as a possible meaning.
As you so rightly said, Suzanne is, as usual, taking from the smelly
end.
--
Bob.
If a Susanne post claims the sky is blue you can bet it is only in
text she has quoted from someone else.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Good, we don't want you passing out :)
Thank you very much, you will notice I've nominated this as a post of
the month as I think this detailed explanation should be preserved.
Can I have a seconder please?
--
Bob.
TomS
<201020092030475016%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
A couple of interesting additions to this.
As far as the Latin. The Vulgate version (Latin translation) of
Genesis uses both the words "genus" and "species" where the Hebrew
has "min". I don't know whether there is any reason for using one
or the other of those words, but a superficial look at the Vulgate
gives the impression that there is no difference, perhaps that it
is just a matter of style not to overuse the same word. I just
happened across this yesterday, so I recognize that this may just
be a blunder on my part, so I'll see if I can find out anything
one way or the other.
As far as the Hebrew:
I recognize that one will almost always find that Hebrew scholars
say that the word "min" is a noun meaning some sort of collective
for living things - "kind" or "species". But in the Hebrew Bible
the word "min" is very odd. There is no indication at all that it
is used as a referent to a collective. It is never the subject of
a verb, it doesn't have a plural or any other inflection. It is
only used in a very restricted context, in the context conventionally
translated as "according to his/her/their kind". One Hebrew scholar
suggested that "min" is not a noun, not even an independent word in
Biblical Hebrew, but arises by a false analysis of that phrase. (The
way that, in English, the verb "burgle" was constructed from the noun
"burglar"; or that the noun "pea" was constructed as if the older
word "pease" were a plural. Remember the old nursery rhyme, "Pease
porridge hot"?)
VoiceOfReason
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:30:47 +0200, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
Seconded.
John Wilkins
<TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Similar inversions can be found in Theophrastus for eidos and genos too.
Ye Old One
Thank you.
--
Bob.
TomS
<211020090810081048%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>
>In article <266123809.000...@drn.newsguy.com>, TomS
><TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> "On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:30:47 +0200, in article
>> <201020092030475016%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>> >Okay, allow me... "species" is a vernacular term of Latin that, yes,
>> >has an etymology from appearance, but actually the etymology is
>> >irrelevant to its use, especially in classical and medieval Latin. It
>> >basically, as Locke pointed out, means "kind" and has no particular
>> >technical meaning in ordinary language. Likewise, "miyn" in Hebrew
>> >means "kind" and has no particular technical meaning in ordinary usage;
>> >the same is true of *all* languages that have a term that is cognate to
>> >"kind", according to anthropological studies of the term.
>> [...snip...]
>>
>> A couple of interesting additions to this.
>>
>> As far as the Latin. The Vulgate version (Latin translation) of
>> Genesis uses both the words "genus" and "species" where the Hebrew
>> has "min". I don't know whether there is any reason for using one
>> or the other of those words, but a superficial look at the Vulgate
>> gives the impression that there is no difference, perhaps that it
>> is just a matter of style not to overuse the same word. I just
>> happened across this yesterday, so I recognize that this may just
>> be a blunder on my part, so I'll see if I can find out anything
>> one way or the other.
>
>Similar inversions can be found in Theophrastus for eidos and genos too.
I've been checking other early translations.
The Vetus Latina (called the "Old Latin", even though it is not, of
course, written in the language called Old Latin) generally says
"secundum genus", but also "secundum suum similitudinem" ("according
to its likeness"). That may be influenced by the Septuagint which
has one instance of "kath' homoiotete:s" ("according to its
similarity") among several "kata genos".
Mike Lyle
don't try to go professional, I don't suppose much harm can ensue.
--
Mike.
Suzanne
Sanskrit. You can find name books that
say it's origin is Greek, as you have said. But it goes
deeper still.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:22:27 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 20, 1:07 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >> Suzanne wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> > This latter is a stretch. Bara means that which is unkown, strange.
> >> > Barbara means "stranger." Abraham's name is "A-bara-m/ham" [...]
>
> >> You mean "Barbara" is a Hebrew word? We certainly learn something new
> >> every day round here.
>
> >Suzanne is, as usual, talking out of her ass. "Barbara" is a *Greek*
> >name, not a Hebrew one. (Although I wouldn't put it past Suzanne to
> >confuse Greek and Hebrew as being the same, or closely related,
> >languages.)
>
> >http://www.parents.com/baby-names/barbara/
>
> >Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> >skyeyes nine at cox dot net
>
>
> No reference to Hebrew nor "stranger".
>
>
> Still no reference to Hebrew or "stranger".
>
>
> Again, no reference to Hebrew or "stranger", things are not looking
> good for Suzanne's claim.
>
> Well, I could go on, there are many more sites out there - and they
> all agree. Not one gives a reference to Hebrew and none gives
> "stranger" as a possible meaning.
>
> As you so rightly said, Suzanne is, as usual, taking from the smelly
> end.
>
> --
> Bob.
>
> If a Susanne post claims the sky is blue you can bet it is only in
> text she has quoted from someone else.
>
> --
>
"Origin and Meaning of Barbara - Baby Girl Name Barbara
The name origin and meaning of Barbara. The Latin Baby Girl Name
Barbara means - stranger, foreigner"
www.babynamescountry.com/meanings/Barbara.html
"The Barbara Page
"all the baby name books I ever read said that the name 'Barbara'
means 'stranger' or 'foreigner' and even 'barbarian!' "
www.geocities.com/soakbear/barbara.htm
"Famous Women Named "Barbara" Quiz - Famous Women
The name Barbara means foreigner or stranger."
www.funtrivia.com/quizdetails.cfm?id=160791
"What is in the Name? Where names come from
Some names have come to be considered masculine or feminine. ... Susan
means lily'; Barbara means a foreign stranger';"
factoidz.com/what-is-in-the-name
"BARBARA,from the Greek means STRANGE, STRANGER, FOREIGN (Kolatch,
Alfred J. 1994. The New Name Dictionary – Modern English and Hebrew
Names. Middle Village: Jonthan David. 140).
BARBARA, from the Hebrew BARA, means TO CHOOSE."
www.hebrewbabynames.com/item.cfm?itemid=2330
Suzanne
Suzanne
> In article <nu5rd5hum113f16h5gq6gb1m6vp8gd5...@4ax.com>, Ye Old One
had to do with his choice of words when he formed
the taxonomy system that he is known for. That
did not mean that he was the first person to ever
use the term. This refers to his being known today
as the Father of Modern Taxonomy.
>
> That was Conrad Gesner or Kaspar Bauhin in the 16th century. He is not
> the man who defined it for natural history (in fact he never defined
> the term) - that is John Ray at the end of the 17th century. Moreover,
> Linnaeus did not think species were fixed towards the end of his
> career.
>
> In any case how the term was translated for the Bible is
meaningless.
> It was just a vernacular term. It didn't have a technical meaning,
> either in the Vulgate or in the English version.
>
like Linnaeus did have a specific technical
reason for using the term "species," since he was
creating a taxonomy system, in which he used that word
as a particular grouping of organisms.
Webster:
"species:"
"2. applied to a plant or animal in the common native speech as
distinguished from the Latin nomenclature of scientific classification
<the vernacular name"
He was using it for scientific classification. The Bible
also seems to be using it in that capacity as well, when it says that
something is created after his/her kind.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
Wonder how long it took you to dig those rare sites up? I put "meaning
of girls names" into Yahoo and went to all the sites on the first two
pages. NOT ONE site gave "stranger" as an option for the meaning of
Barbara. In addition, NOT A SINGLE site gave and reference to Hebrew,
mainly I suppose because Barbara does not have a Hebrew root.
I've also now checked three books, none list "stranger" and none refer
to Hebrew.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
No it doesn't.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
Mike Lyle
I'm not going to get involved, as these threads always become extremely
silly; but a Sanskrit origin for _barbaros_ is questionable, and the
nearest Skt seems to have meant "curled". I know of no suggestion of a
Hebrew connection. Translating the Gk adjective as "strange" does not in
itself permit extension to our sense of "stranger" for the noun. The
claimed derivations in most self-styled "dictionaries of names" are not
to be trusted.
--
Mike.
Suzanne
a hobby of mine, and that one in particular is really ancient in it's
origins. But for you, I pulled up those websites in just a few
minutes, but I don't remember what I typed in. Probably something
like (without quotes) "baby girl name Barbara." That will go straight
to a list of name books. I just typed in Bob and got these, for
example:
"The meaning of the name Robert is Bright Fame
The origin of the name Robert is English"
www.babynames.com/name/ROBERT
Here's one from the same browser draw that goes more
deeply into the name Robert:
"Robert is used predominantly in the English, French, German,
Scandinavian, and Scottish languages, and its origin is Germanic. The
name is of the meaning bright famous one; famously famous. Two-element
name from the elements 'hruod' meaning fame ; 'berht' meaning bright,
famous. The name is derived via Norman French from Hrodeberht
(Germanic), replacing the Anglo-Saxon Hreodbeorht (Old English). The
name was popular in medieval Northern France, and it was introduced to
England, notably by Robert the Magnificent (1000 - 1035), the father
of William the Conqueror; he was often identified as the legendary
Robert the Devil. The name appeared in the Domesday Book, and remained
in regular use throughout the Middles Ages. It was borne by three
kings of Scotland, notably Robert the Bruce (1274-1329), the King of
the Scots who achieved independence from England for Scotland; the
name has thus been popular in Scotland. Common medieval forms of the
name such as the short forms Dob, Hob and Nob, are no longer in use.
The name Roberta (English, German, and Italian) is the female version
of Robert."
www.babynamespedia.com/meaning/Robert
Don't be put off by the "Robert the Devil." That's just some
history they threw in. I've read in some name books that it
means "bright, shining one," which some say means one
that was a knight in shining armor. An angel can also be a
bright, shining one. I wonder if the mention here of Robert
the Devil, the father of William the Conqueror, refers to one
of those shiny metal hats with horns on it that the Vikings
wore?
Here's another Robert:
"There have been various saints named Robert. St Robert of Molesme was
one of the founders of the Cistercian monastic order. St Robert
Bellarmine was a Catholic Cardinal, and is one of the Doctors of the
Church.
There were three kings of Scotland named Robert. The first was Robert
the Bruce, who expelled the English led by Edward II from Scotland,
concluding the war of independence with the Battle of Bannockburn."
babynamesworld.parentsconnect.com/meaning_of_Robert.html
More Robert:
"Famous Brilliance"
Meaning behind the name Robert:
"Germanic name Hrodebert meaning 'bright fame', derived from the
Germanic elements hrod 'fame' and beraht 'bright'. The Normans
introduced this name to Britain, where it replaced the Old English
cognate Hreodbeorht. It has been a very common English name since that
time."
www.behindthename.com/name/robert
Here's more on the meaning of Barbara as
meaning foreign, strange:
Bara, - pet form of Czech Barbora, meaning "foreign, strange."
Bara - Hebrew name meaning "to choose."
Barabal - Scottish form of Greek Barbara, meaning "foreign,
strange."
Barb - English short form of Greek Barbara, meaning "foreign,
strange."
Barbara - Portuguese form of Greek Barbara, meaning "foreign,
strange."
BarBARa - Icelandic form of Gk. Barbara, meaning "foreign; strange."
Barbara (in Gk. script): Greek name derived from the femine form of
the
word barbaros, once used to refer to the unintelligible chatter of
foreigners
which sound like "bar-bar" to the Greeks, hence "foreign; strange."
(This goes back to the event at Babel where the languages were
confounded, and the speech suddenly became strange and foreign
sounding. Hence, "barbar" and "stammering (lips, speech)")
Barbary - Medieval English form of Gk. Barbara, meaning "foreign,
strange."
In name books you can find modern meanings, older meanings,
ancient meanings and far distantly ancient meanings of names,
plus connections with history.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
wrote:
Mike:
barbarian:
"from L. barbaria 'foreign country,' from Gk. barbaros 'foreign,
strange,,,,' from PIE base *barbar- echoic of unintelligible speech of
foreigners cf. Skt. barbara- 'stammering,' "
There is a connection with the words "strange, stranger;
foreign, foreigner; and stammering as in stammering speech -
"barbar."
Suzanne
Suzanne
and foreign is the way that
speech is spoken. Curled, stammering, strange
and foreign link up at Babylon where people
babbeled when God confounded the language.
Suzanne
Suzanne
comes from this thread from...
Alextangent who said:
"Barabara is from barbarian, a foreigner, root barbar (from the
Sanskrit for stammering),"
>
Suzanne
Burkhard
one of my Sanskrit dictionaries has barbara as stammer(er)
Ye Old One
Oh dear.
> and that one in particular is really ancient in it's
>origins.
Yes, Latin from Greek root. Nothing Hebrew about it.
[snip harpic nonsense.]
>
>Here's more on the meaning of Barbara as
>meaning foreign, strange:
So no "stranger" there.
>Bara, - pet form of Czech Barbora, meaning "foreign, strange."
So no "stranger" there.
>Bara - Hebrew name meaning "to choose."
So nothing to do with Barbara.
>Barabal - Scottish form of Greek Barbara, meaning "foreign,
>strange."
So no "stranger" there.
>Barb - English short form of Greek Barbara, meaning "foreign,
>strange."
So no "stranger" there.
>Barbara - Portuguese form of Greek Barbara, meaning "foreign,
>strange."
So no "stranger" there.
>BarBARa - Icelandic form of Gk. Barbara, meaning "foreign; strange."
So no "stranger" there.
>Barbara (in Gk. script): Greek name derived from the femine form of
>the
>word barbaros, once used to refer to the unintelligible chatter of
>foreigners
>which sound like "bar-bar" to the Greeks, hence "foreign; strange."
So no "stranger" there.
>(This goes back to the event at Babel where the languages were
>confounded, and the speech suddenly became strange and foreign
>sounding. Hence, "barbar" and "stammering (lips, speech)")
That is just a fairy story - nothing more. Stop looking like an idiot
by bringing it up in serious discussion.
>Barbary - Medieval English form of Gk. Barbara, meaning "foreign,
>strange."
So no "stranger" there.
>In name books you can find modern meanings, older meanings,
>ancient meanings and far distantly ancient meanings of names,
>plus connections with history.
But nothing that back you up - how surprising (not).
>>
>Suzanne
Ye Old One
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> enriched this group when s/he
wrote:
Wise man :)
>as these threads always become extremely
>silly; but a Sanskrit origin for _barbaros_ is questionable, and the
>nearest Skt seems to have meant "curled". I know of no suggestion of a
>Hebrew connection. Translating the Gk adjective as "strange" does not in
>itself permit extension to our sense of "stranger" for the noun. The
>claimed derivations in most self-styled "dictionaries of names" are not
>to be trusted.
Thanks. I totally agree.
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:34:35 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
You and you stupid fairy stories.
--
Bob.
The truth is like ice water, it shocks you when it hits you, but no
one's ever died from it. Do yourself a favour and try it sometime.
Ye Old One
I face up to reality - if only you could.
Start by dealing with the challenge.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
Ye Old One
Barbara comes from Greek, via Latin.
Now do shut up you stupid woman.
Suzanne
> On Sep 4, 1:43 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 08:35:32 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > <c0fbf3cd-892e-4e9a-ab8b-2cade4357...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, Mitchell
> > Coffey stated..."
>
> > >On Sep 3, 11:19=A0pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Sep 1, 8:15=A0am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Aug 31, 7:15=A0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > Some have argued that when God created _mi^n_, he thereby fixed the
> > >> > > "species." This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between the
> > >> > > word _mi^n_ with the biologist's descriptive term species cannot be
> > >> > > substantiated, and because there are as many definitions of species
> > >> > > as there are biologists.
>
> > >> > > entry #1191a, mi^n
> > >> > > volume 1, page 503
> > >> > > R. Laird Harris et al. editors
> > >> > > Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
> > >> > > Chicago: Moody Press, 1980
>
> > >> > That's a quote from the book?
>
> > >> > If mi^n are fixed, which is implied by the bible saying that God
> > >> > created the "kinds" in the beginning that are still around just the
> > >> > same "today" (i.e. when that part of Genesis was written, which is now
> > >> > a long time ago by everyday standards), then that implies something
> > >> > about "species" studied by biologists. =A0Now, it isn't hard to select
> > >> > two fossil or live or dead animal or plant or other specimens and then
> > >> > find two or more biologists who will argue about whether they are the
> > >> > same species or not. =A0But what "species" in general means, is
> > >> > generally agreed, I think.
>
> > >> > Accordingly, I think the biblical implication that living things exist
> > >> > as the mi^n that God originally created is refuted by the existence of
> > >> > many fossils from ancient times that look very different from
> > >> > everything that's alive today, and no fossils from older periods that
> > >> > do look like modern species.
>
> > >> > I say that the bible at face value says that mi^n are fixed, and it
> > >> > would be easier for creationists if it didn't say that, because they
> > >> > aren't fixed. =A0I think
> > >> > _Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament_ maybe isn't denying that
> > >> > that's what the bible does say, but is denying that it should be taken
> > >> > seriously, or that this should be considered a problem.
>
> > >> > Incidentally, do you know if I can program my computer to sigh every
> > >> > time I look up Genesis in _The NET Bible_ on their web site? =A0To save
> > >> > the effort of sighing myself.
>
> > >> > > Fnord
>
> > >> The word "species" is a smaller category than the
> > >> word "kinds." Kinds is more like Genus, or Family,
> > >> or other.
>
> > >> Suzanne
>
>
> > >Mitchell Coffey
>
> > The plural of the word "min"/"kind" does not occur in the Bible.
>
> > There is a discussion of the possibilities for the meaning of
> > "min"/"kind" in the Wikipedia article "Baraminology" under the
> > heading "Interpretations of Biblical kinds". If you can read
> > Polish, it is put a little more forcefully in the Polish
> > Wikipedia article "Baramin" under the heading "Etymologica i
> > odniesienia biblijne". (I don't read Polish, but the meaning
> > comes through in a Babelfish translation.) I especially like the
> > concluding sentence which notes that, ironically, "bara min"
> > literally means that evolution, rather than God, created.
>
> > As long as the concept of "fixed species" dates only from some
> > 2000 years after the composition of Genesis, it is clearly a
> > gross anachronism to find it there. Yes, I know that Moses could
> > be prophetically informed of this, but somehow or other he didn't
> > manage to inform his audience very well. If he had the supernatural
> > gift of prophecy, then he didn't have the natural gift of making
> > himself clear.
>
> > And the speculative meaning that "min"/"kind" means a vague
> > something-or-other bigger than "species", that doesn't seem to
> > have been "discovered" until the 19th century.
>
> Thank you. What's going on here is some sad and sinister waste of
> brain power. It appears classic crank science. I'm particularly
> disturbed by their tossing out evidence that conflicts with their pre-
> conclusions.
>
What's going on is a lot of miscommunication.
I am neither a creation scientist nor an evoution scientist. I'm just
someone on the sidelines that
can view both of the sides, and by observation
figure out some of the problem. I do not have the solution, but I
believe I can see into the central problem of the matter. The fact
that I believe that
God is the creator does not mean that I can't sympathize with the non-
believers' frustration from his point of view, when it comes to the
two sides communications with one another. The two sides should get
together and work out the communication problem, and each realize that
the other exists in the world, also.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
too. I didn't get this idea from any article, etc., it was something
that I just figured out, I suppose. Part of how that came about was
that when I went to see just exactly what people meant "currently" by
by the term "species," I found that scientists were not all in
agreement on the definition. Some creation scientists tried to
explain, while other creation scientists did not care. Some
evoutionists tried to explain, and some evolutionists didn't care. The
"didn't cares" didn't seem to understand that there was a problem in
communication and definition. So I could see a split among the people
involved. Remember that tag on pillows that says that it is against
the law to remove the label? We've all laughed and said that the
pillow police will get you if you remove the label after you have
bought the pillow. Of course, the tag is for the manufacturers. No
police will check your pillow that you sleep on in the middle of the
night and then haul you off to jail. Well, the species problem simply
does not have a "pillow police patrol" to keep all the terms meaning
one thing. If there were some sort of regulation as to the definitions
of terms in science, that would be nice, because then someone could
say "they mean this by that, and this other thing by their other
label," and then communication would be possible. But again, there are
no species "pillow police."
When the modern taxonomy was introduced, things were not yet known
about the species and
the terms species and kinds probably meant the same thing. But as
scientific information rolled in, the term species kept changing,
mostly because it sort of had to, in order to accomodate the newer
information. Rather than make new words for the sub-categories, the
word "species" just kept being moved. Something would have a sub-
species, and then the sub-species would have a sub-species, and so on.
You can't keep adding a "sub" to all the new discoveries, but it
didn't naturally evolve to make a new word for each subdivided
category. Neither did man solve the problem.
There is a Bible verse that says a vulture is a created being "after
his kind." The verse does not indicate whether the kind is referring
to "of that individual vulture," or if it is referring to the whole
grouping of vultures. A non-Bible believing fellow
will say "the Bible is archaic and the writer didn't have the
intelligence to know what we know now."
But a Bible believing fellow will say, "the creator knew ahead of time
that there are other types of vultures and since he wrote the Bible
through man as he impressed man to write, he meant something greater
than what we now are calling a 'species.' But you asked me a question
and now I have answered it, as to why I think that the biblical
category called "kinds" is probably a greater category than what we
"today" call a species.
Here is an article about the "species problem:"
http://research.amnh.org/vz/ornithology/crossbills/species.html
(article entitled "What is a 'species' ?")
>
Suzanne
TomS
<efa5c668-b521-474c...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, Suzanne
stated..."
>
>On Sep 4, 12:43=A0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 08:35:32 -0700 (PDT), in article
>hell
>> Coffey stated..."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 3, 11:19=3DA0pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sep 1, 8:15=3DA0am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote=
>:
>>
>> >> > On Aug 31, 7:15=3DA0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Some have argued that when God created _mi^n_, he thereby fixed th=
>e
>> >> > > "species." This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between =
>the
>> >> > > word _mi^n_ with the biologist's descriptive term species cannot b=
>e
>> >> > > substantiated, and because there are as many definitions of specie=
>s
>> >> > > as there are biologists.
>>
>> >> > > entry #1191a, mi^n
>> >> > > volume 1, page 503
>> >> > > R. Laird Harris et al. editors
>> >> > > Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
>> >> > > Chicago: Moody Press, 1980
>>
>> >> > That's a quote from the book?
>>
>> >> > If mi^n are fixed, which is implied by the bible saying that God
>> >> > created the "kinds" in the beginning that are still around just the
>ow
>> >> > a long time ago by everyday standards), then that implies something
>lect
>> >> > two fossil or live or dead animal or plant or other specimens and th=
>en
>> >> > find two or more biologists who will argue about whether they are th=
>e
>> >> > same species or not. =3DA0But what "species" in general means, is
>> >> > generally agreed, I think.
>>
>> >> > Accordingly, I think the biblical implication that living things exi=
>st
>> >> > as the mi^n that God originally created is refuted by the existence =
>of
>> >> > many fossils from ancient times that look very different from
>t
>> >> > do look like modern species.
>>
>> >> > I say that the bible at face value says that mi^n are fixed, and it
>> >> > would be easier for creationists if it didn't say that, because they
>> >> > _Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament_ maybe isn't denying that
>en
>> >> > seriously, or that this should be considered a problem.
>>
>> >> > Incidentally, do you know if I can program my computer to sigh every
And there is no reason at all to believe that "kind" is referring to
any such thing as a biological collective. Maybe it just means "the
way it looks" - its color, size, weight, age, health. There's nothing
stupid about referring to a vulture without giving its scientific
name.
>But a Bible believing fellow will say, "the creator knew ahead of time
>that there are other types of vultures and since he wrote the Bible
>through man as he impressed man to write, he meant something greater
>than what we now are calling a 'species.' But you asked me a question
>and now I have answered it, as to why I think that the biblical
>category called "kinds" is probably a greater category than what we
>"today" call a species.
And you're just making stuff up and imposing that on the Bible.
For two thousand years, nobody who read the Bible had any idea
that the Bible said anything like that. (I'm being conservative,
counting people reading the Bible from the discovery of the Law
in the Temple.)
>
>Here is an article about the "species problem:"
>http://research.amnh.org/vz/ornithology/crossbills/species.html
>(article entitled "What is a 'species' ?")
>>
>Suzanne
>
TomS
<efa5c668-b521-474c...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, Suzanne
stated..."
>
>> "On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 08:35:32 -0700 (PDT), in article
>hell
>> Coffey stated..."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 3, 11:19=3DA0pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sep 1, 8:15=3DA0am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote=
>:
>>
>>
>> >> > > Some have argued that when God created _mi^n_, he thereby fixed th=
>e
>> >> > > "species." This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between =
>the
>> >> > > word _mi^n_ with the biologist's descriptive term species cannot b=
>e
>> >> > > substantiated, and because there are as many definitions of specie=
>s
>> >> > > as there are biologists.
>>
>> >> > > entry #1191a, mi^n
>> >> > > volume 1, page 503
>> >> > > R. Laird Harris et al. editors
>> >> > > Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
>> >> > > Chicago: Moody Press, 1980
>>
>> >> > That's a quote from the book?
>>
>> >> > If mi^n are fixed, which is implied by the bible saying that God
>> >> > created the "kinds" in the beginning that are still around just the
>ow
>> >> > a long time ago by everyday standards), then that implies something
>lect
>> >> > two fossil or live or dead animal or plant or other specimens and th=
>en
>> >> > find two or more biologists who will argue about whether they are th=
>e
>> >> > generally agreed, I think.
>>
>> >> > Accordingly, I think the biblical implication that living things exi=
>st
>> >> > as the mi^n that God originally created is refuted by the existence =
>of
>> >> > many fossils from ancient times that look very different from
>t
>> >> > do look like modern species.
>>
>> >> > I say that the bible at face value says that mi^n are fixed, and it
>> >> > would be easier for creationists if it didn't say that, because they
>> >> > _Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament_ maybe isn't denying that
>en
>> >> > seriously, or that this should be considered a problem.
>>
>> >> > Incidentally, do you know if I can program my computer to sigh every
And there is no reason at all to believe that "kind" is referring to
any such thing as a biological collective. Maybe it just means "the
way it looks" - its color, size, weight, age, health. There's nothing
stupid about referring to a vulture without giving its scientific
name.
>But a Bible believing fellow will say, "the creator knew ahead of time
>that there are other types of vultures and since he wrote the Bible
>through man as he impressed man to write, he meant something greater
>than what we now are calling a 'species.' But you asked me a question
>and now I have answered it, as to why I think that the biblical
>category called "kinds" is probably a greater category than what we
>"today" call a species.
And you're just making stuff up and imposing that on the Bible.
For two thousand years, nobody who read the Bible had any idea
that the Bible said anything like that. (I'm being conservative,
counting people reading the Bible from the discovery of the Law
in the Temple.)
>
>Here is an article about the "species problem:"
>http://research.amnh.org/vz/ornithology/crossbills/species.html
>(article entitled "What is a 'species' ?")
>>
>Suzanne
>
Suzanne
> On Oct 19, 6:17 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > If you applied evolution to "bara miyn," is your concept of evolution
> > by natural selection, or by strange and unkown selection? It seems to
> > me that evolutionists would want evolution to be known as a natural
> > process, rather than a supernatural process. However, you could look
> > at it a different way from your point of view, and that is that how
> > life got started is one thing, but how it continued is the natural
> > way. In other words, evolution could not start your way until after
> > something had been created. To me, "bara miyn" would mean a species
> > came about from a means that is in the unkown, or in the beyond. To me
> > that is the Lord, from a biblical perspective. As a matter of fact,
> > even from the evolutionist point of view, how life got started is
> > equally mysterious. It's just that the Bible tells who is behind that
> > which is beyond.
>
> you use 'mysterious' in a way designed to cause confusion.
>
No, I didn't create the definition of "Barbara." It means strange/
stranger, foreign/foreigner. By saying "mysterious," I am obviously
saying that something is strange to the person observing it. Something
is foreign to what the observer believes or perceives of, and
mysterious means the same in this case.
>
> any
> supernatural perspective is useless.
>
If you don't believe that there is anything supernatural, that does
not prevent others from believing that there is something
supernatural. It's realistic to realize both kinds of people exist
everywhere.
>
> how life got started, from a
> scientific perspective is, in principle open to research.
>
Science is not owned by those that don't believe in what comes
supernaturally, though. It is composed of scientists who do believe
that, as well as those that do not believe that.
>
> for
> religion it's guesswork and usless supposition based on whatever god
> your parents happened to tell you was true.
> and that's a useless way of looking at reality
>
What you don't understand is that something exists that you do not
know about. You are assuming, as you say above, that religion is
guesswork and supposition. Maybe some religions are that. But true
Christianity is something that happens only when an individual has
decided to put their trust in the Lord, and has nothing to do with
what their parents decisions about the same are. Many have become
Christians who were not raised in Christian homes. But even if you
don't believe what I am telling you, you still live among those that
do believe this.
>
> > I'm not sure what you are speaking of, but the modern talk about what
> > a species is, would bring out people clarifying (right or wrong) what
> > is in the Bible. Before this, people didn't have reason to be talking
> > about
> > species in evolution vs. kinds in the Bible, don't you think?
>
> boy you'd think that, if all this stuff is in the bible, the bible
> believers would know it instead of discovering it ex post facto after
> science finds it.
>
If a man loves his wife more after 40 years, does that mean that the
definition of love has changed and is now archaic? Finding the depth
of something does not mean that the thing you are exploring ceased to
be what it is. Science is merely exploring what the depth of a species
is.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> "On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:30:47 +0200, in article
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <nu5rd5hum113f16h5gq6gb1m6vp8gd5...@4ax.com>, Ye Old One
> ><use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> >> On Sep 3, 11:19 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > word "kinds." Kinds is more like Genus, or Family,
> >> >> > or other.
>
> >> >> > Suzanne
>
>
> >> >> The Biblical writers observed and described individual animals. Every
> >> >> individual animal you see is a member of a species.
>
> >> >> Where are you going to find a kind to look at?
>
> >> >> How do you know a kind even exists? If it's merely a conceptual
> >> >> grouping and you can't see one?
>
> >> >Well........Linnaeus is the one who used the word
> >> >species as well as genus, because in the Latin version of the Bible
> >> >which he seems to have been using, the word "kind" is translated as
> >> >"species" in the English translation of the Latin Bible. So he was
> >> >speaking of
> >> >a "kind" as being a species.
>
> >> The word "species" in Latin, literally means appearance or form,
> >> though it can also have a meaning associated with beauty. It comes
> >> from the Latin root "specere" 'to look'.
>
> >[Draws breath]
>
> >Okay, allow me... "species" is a vernacular term of Latin that, yes,
> >has an etymology from appearance, but actually the etymology is
> >irrelevant to its use, especially in classical and medieval Latin. It
> >basically, as Locke pointed out, means "kind" and has no particular
> >technical meaning in ordinary language. Likewise, "miyn" in Hebrew
> >means "kind" and has no particular technical meaning in ordinary usage;
> >the same is true of *all* languages that have a term that is cognate to
> >"kind", according to anthropological studies of the term.
>
>
> A couple of interesting additions to this.
>
> As far as the Latin. The Vulgate version (Latin translation) of
> Genesis uses both the words "genus" and "species" where the Hebrew
> has "min". I don't know whether there is any reason for using one
> or the other of those words, but a superficial look at the Vulgate
> gives the impression that there is no difference, perhaps that it
> is just a matter of style not to overuse the same word. I just
> happened across this yesterday, so I recognize that this may just
> be a blunder on my part, so I'll see if I can find out anything
> one way or the other.
>
to avoid the over-use of a word.
That's a good fact to consider.
>
> As far as the Hebrew:
>
> I recognize that one will almost always find that Hebrew scholars
> say that the word "min" is a noun meaning some sort of collective
> for living things - "kind" or "species". But in the Hebrew Bible
> the word "min" is very odd.
>
Yes it can look odd from a certain viewpoint. It is applied to a
category as well as to an individual
non-human being. In this respect it can appear to be ambiguous in some
verses.
>
There is no indication at all that it
> is used as a referent to a collective.
>
When it talks about the vulture it says that he is created after his
"kind." But since we know there are more than one species of vulture,
the kind there can refer to a collective group, I think.
>
> It is never the subject of
> a verb, it doesn't have a plural or any other inflection. It is
> only used in a very restricted context, in the context conventionally
> translated as "according to his/her/their kind".
>
I wonder why it assigns gender to certain ones. Is this a carry-over
from Hebrew, like when in Spanish or German, something has a gender?
Or could that be a clue that we don't understand yet?
>
> One Hebrew scholar
> suggested that "min" is not a noun, not even an independent word in
> Biblical Hebrew, but arises by a false analysis of that phrase. (The
> way that, in English, the verb "burgle" was constructed from the noun
> "burglar"; or that the noun "pea" was constructed as if the older
> word "pease" were a plural. Remember the old nursery rhyme, "Pease
> porridge hot"?)
>
Great analysis, Tom and great post.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> "On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:10:08 -0400, in article
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <266123809.00006617.095.0...@drn.newsguy.com>, TomS> >> <201020092030475016%j...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>
Tom, you may already know this, but you know some of the ancient
Hebrew is lost. The Greek Septuagint was translated by the earlier
Jews, at least about 300 years before Christ was born, and the
Septuagint is a key to understanding what is meant in the ancient
Hebrew, which helps in understanding a modern translation, and in what
the original writing was intending. I guess you know that, since you
looked in the Septuagint. Did you know the Samaritan Pentateuch is
also not a translation, but an original? Some will also consult that.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
You are right. That most defintely is one of the meanings. I think
they are all connected and refer to the event at Babel when the
languages were confounded.
I believe that occurred. If you don't believe that, at least you can
see the connection with the people that did believe that happened, in
the history of the name.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> "On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:07:03 -0700 (PDT), in article
>
> There's nothing
> stupid about referring to a vulture without giving its scientific
> name.
>
>
> >But a Bible believing fellow will say, "the creator knew ahead of time
> >that there are other types of vultures and since he wrote the Bible
> >through man as he impressed man to write, he meant something greater
> >than what we now are calling a 'species.' But you asked me a question
> >and now I have answered it, as to why I think that the biblical
> >category called "kinds" is probably a greater category than what we
> >"today" call a species.
>
> And you're just making stuff up and imposing that on the Bible.
>
>
> For two thousand years, nobody who read the Bible had any idea
> that the Bible said anything like that. (I'm being conservative,
> counting people reading the Bible from the discovery of the Law
> in the Temple.)
>
not put a magnifying glass on what constitutes a species, Tom, nor did
they blur or change the meaning of species when they found more about
species in depth.
>
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
So we should just allow ignorance to continue?
Ye Old One
Again that stupid fairy tale! Are you really THAT stupid? It is
pathetic in the extreme that an adult person in the 21st century still
believes in fairy tales like you do.
>I believe that occurred. If you don't believe that, at least you can
>see the connection with the people that did believe that happened, in
>the history of the name.
Hell you are stupid.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Oct 19, 7:02 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 6:17 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > If you applied evolution to "bara miyn," is your concept of evolution
>> > by natural selection, or by strange and unkown selection? It seems to
>> > me that evolutionists would want evolution to be known as a natural
>> > process, rather than a supernatural process. However, you could look
>> > at it a different way from your point of view, and that is that how
>> > life got started is one thing, but how it continued is the natural
>> > way. In other words, evolution could not start your way until after
>> > something had been created. To me, "bara miyn" would mean a species
>> > came about from a means that is in the unkown, or in the beyond. To me
>> > that is the Lord, from a biblical perspective. As a matter of fact,
>> > even from the evolutionist point of view, how life got started is
>> > equally mysterious. It's just that the Bible tells who is behind that
>> > which is beyond.
>>
>> you use 'mysterious' in a way designed to cause confusion.
>>
>No, I didn't create the definition of "Barbara." It means strange/
>stranger, foreign/foreigner.
Drop the "er"
> By saying "mysterious," I am obviously
>saying that something is strange to the person observing it. Something
>is foreign to what the observer believes or perceives of, and
>mysterious means the same in this case.
>>
>> any
>> supernatural perspective is useless.
>>
>If you don't believe that there is anything supernatural, that does
>not prevent others from believing that there is something
>supernatural. It's realistic to realize both kinds of people exist
>everywhere.
no, it is not realistic.
>>
>> how life got started, from a
>> scientific perspective is, in principle open to research.
>>
>Science is not owned by those that don't believe in what comes
>supernaturally, though. It is composed of scientists who do believe
>that, as well as those that do not believe that.
Science is about reality.
>>
>> for
>> religion it's guesswork and usless supposition based on whatever god
>> your parents happened to tell you was true.
>> and that's a useless way of looking at reality
>>
>What you don't understand is that something exists that you do not
>know about. You are assuming, as you say above, that religion is
>guesswork and supposition.
Of course it is - it is based on fiction not reality.
>Maybe some religions are that. But true
>Christianity is something that happens only when an individual has
>decided to put their trust in the Lord, and has nothing to do with
>what their parents decisions about the same are.
In reality it is almost always to do with the parents.
> Many have become
>Christians who were not raised in Christian homes.
But a very small percentage - far outweighed by the numbers that turn
against religion.
> But even if you
>don't believe what I am telling you, you still live among those that
>do believe this.
>>
>> > I'm not sure what you are speaking of, but the modern talk about what
>> > a species is, would bring out people clarifying (right or wrong) what
>> > is in the Bible. Before this, people didn't have reason to be talking
>> > about
>> > species in evolution vs. kinds in the Bible, don't you think?
>>
>> boy you'd think that, if all this stuff is in the bible, the bible
>> believers would know it instead of discovering it ex post facto after
>> science finds it.
>>
>If a man loves his wife more after 40 years, does that mean that the
>definition of love has changed and is now archaic? Finding the depth
>of something does not mean that the thing you are exploring ceased to
>be what it is. Science is merely exploring what the depth of a species
>is.
Science is about overcoming ignorance like yours.
>>
>Suzanne
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Then you figured wrong.
> Part of how that came about was
>that when I went to see just exactly what people meant "currently" by
>by the term "species," I found that scientists were not all in
>agreement on the definition.
Rubbish.
> Some creation scientists
There is no such thing.
> tried to
>explain, while other creation scientists did not care. Some
>evoutionists tried to explain, and some evolutionists didn't care. The
>"didn't cares" didn't seem to understand that there was a problem in
>communication and definition.
No, there is a problem of understanding - your problem. The problem is
easy to cure - get yourself an education.
[snip more crap.]
Suzanne
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:47:53 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 19, 7:02 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >> On Oct 19, 6:17 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > If you applied evolution to "bara miyn," is your concept of evolution
> >> > by natural selection, or by strange and unkown selection? It seems to
> >> > me that evolutionists would want evolution to be known as a natural
> >> > process, rather than a supernatural process. However, you could look
> >> > at it a different way from your point of view, and that is that how
> >> > life got started is one thing, but how it continued is the natural
> >> > way. In other words, evolution could not start your way until after
> >> > something had been created. To me, "bara miyn" would mean a species
> >> > came about from a means that is in the unkown, or in the beyond. To me
> >> > that is the Lord, from a biblical perspective. As a matter of fact,
> >> > even from the evolutionist point of view, how life got started is
> >> > equally mysterious. It's just that the Bible tells who is behind that
> >> > which is beyond.
>
> >> you use 'mysterious' in a way designed to cause confusion.
>
> >No, I didn't create the definition of "Barbara." It means strange/
> >stranger, foreign/foreigner.
>
> Drop the "er"
>
>
"Barbara means stranger, foreigner"
http://www.babynamescountry.com/meanings/Barbara.html
"The name Barbara means foreigner or stranger"
http://www.funtrivia.com/playquiz.cfm?qid=160791
"Name:Barbara,means stranger"
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/538992/
"Barbara:
Origin: Greek
Meaning: Foreigner, stranger"
http://www.babycenter.com/baby-names-barbara-506.htm
"B girls
Barbara - Latin name meaning stranger, foreigner lady"
http://www.nameandmeaning.com/names/girl-names/6-b-girls
"Barbara. Greek Stranger; Foreigner"
http://www.mybirthcare.com/favorites/pg5/Greek-names.asp
"Barbara = Stranger, foreigner"
http://www.searchforancestors.com/surnames/origin/b/babb.php
"Barbara (Greek) - 'A foreigner ' or 'stranger.' "
http://chestofbooks.com/food/household/Woman-Encyclopaedia-1/2-Girls-Christian-Names.html
Suzanne