|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: On Kinds... again. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Uh, Mandy, "miracle"?
If you want to believe in miracles that is fine with everyone. However, miracles are not science. Miracles belong in church. If you wish to stay with your beliefs and are content that they belong in church then I sure don't have any arguement with you. There is really nothing to discuss unless you are particularly interested in learning about other ideas. If however you wish to meddle in the teaching of science because you think you have something to say about science then we do have something to discuss. However, miracles are religion not science so you have to leave them at the church door. If you want to use miracles then you don't have to define "kind" or worry about the catch-22 of the ark. God simply magiced it all. There is no need for fundamentalists wasting their time doing "baraminology" or disussin the carrying capacity of the ark. Obvisously, since there are many fundamentalists who do spend a lot of time and ink on these topics most of them disagree with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mendy Inactive Member |
Ok. First and foremost -this passage is not about classifying all living things - No one said there should be taxonomic similarities. Why do you think there should be one here or that it reuiqres one? If you read the chapter, its about [1] Giving kosher/non kosher signs for various animals and fish [2] LISTING non the kosher birds and grasshoppers. SO, why should there be a system of classification based on physicla similarities. There isnt and there shouldnt be. There are similarities in types of animals here in that all kosher animals [in verses preceding cited passage] are non aggresive herbivores, while those non kosher prey on others. There is your classification!. So cows, deer, giraffe are kosher - have split 'hooves' and chew their cud -lions, jaguars, etc dont. Its a 'spiritual' classification if you will - dont ea tthese things that menaces others -eat only peacefull ones -and here are their signs so you'll know which is which. Besides which my previous post was general. i recall reading that the system in biblical usage in general in putting 'kinds' together is based on similar appearances and percieved "life styles" of animals in nature - how they lived, ate, slept. More later -this is off the top of my head...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mendy Inactive Member |
Listen NosyNed,
This forum is discussing a particular topic. Just because you are closeminded to other ideas is not my fault. If you can not even imagine the simple idea of a G-d and the idea of a miracle WHEN TALKING ABOUT A BIBLICAL PASSAGE then you have no understanding of the basic ideas of the story...and we are discussing aspects of A biblical story. As for us discussing science, we are trying to understand a passage in Leviticus, not read a science book. So, yes, i gave you a theory - if you cant handle the G-d idea when talking about bible, read and talk about another book. And be nice. Just because we disagree doesnt mean you have to be nasty. as for being a fundamentalist - if you mean following eye witness testimony of my ancestors - then i am one. Nuff said for now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6011 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
This topic is related to so-called "scientific" creationism's use of the word "kind", which seems to be so flexible and ill-defined as to be meaningless.
For example, "scientific" creationists claim that evolution is possible only within "kind". Well, what does that mean? Read your last post to me. Does your answer make any sense if you want to claim that evolution is limited to "within kind"? Can a cow evolve into a giraffe, for example? You might lack context for understanding why the issue of "kind" is important in the evo. vs. creationism discussions, I hope this at least gives you an idea. [This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-31-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Snails. Sort of. They have a foot, but no legs. [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-31-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Mandy, I guess I am trying to clarify what you view is.
If miracles are part of the explanation then 'kind' isn't an issue and this topic is about the definition of kinds. As I pointed out most fundamentalisits seem to disagree with you and seem to think that defining kind and how they rapidly evolved after the flood is important.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Hmm... I have a question then. Are rabbits kosher? Why or why not?
------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
15: Every raven after his kind; 16: And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind So if a cuckow population evolved into something resembling a raven, would that count as macroevolution, or rather evolution between kinds?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mendy Inactive Member |
Rabbits are not kosher. Some say that this is explicit in the text -modern hebrew calls a rabbit an "arnevet" or a "shafan" [which might be a hare] -this is one of the four examples of non kosher animals brought down. Any which way -rabbits dont chew their cud..so not kosher
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
I don't usually get into these biblical arguements since I certainly am not an expert but:
Leviticus 11:6The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you From the NIV, ( I don't know if that is a "good" bible or not). This agrees with you that the rabbit isn't kosher but because of it's feet not because of it's cud chewing habits. It seems that rabbits do chew their cud!! That is sure a surprise to me (and I would think to the rabbits too )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mendy Inactive Member |
OK - you got me Ned,
when I'm wrong, Im wrong -i just said it from memory and had it backwards- i remembered it wasnt kosher, just forgot which was which. Funny thing i remember an article i once read that said that the hebrew there "arnevet" is not really a rabbit -...that it was a mistranslation..bacause rabbits really dont chew there cuds -they eat their own droppings...[i think that why i got it backwards - i was thinking of that]. either way i can tell you that rabbits today are not considered kosher
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Ok, thanks. I have no idea about the quality of the translations. Perhaps some of those knowledgable in Hebrew can help here? I don't suppose it matters much does it?
The writers of the bible simply didn't understand much rabbit physiology is just as likely as the translations being wrong I would think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mendy Inactive Member |
i speak, read and write fluent hebrew, and have a pretty good aramaic. the verses say "shafan" and "arnevet" translated as hare and rabbit. in modern hebrew, those translations are correct but i think they might be wrong for the biblical ones.
As for their knoweldge of animal physiology - i have to differ -consider that they were an agrarian society AND that they were constantly involved in anmial offerings which were disected. And remember that for offerings any slight blemish rendered it unfit,- i think they were intimately aquainted with physiology. I can say from talmud study that their oral knowledge on animal physiology, passed down from generation to generation, is immense. See Babylonian Talmud - tractate Chulin. So they knew physiology very well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6011 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
Well, actually they DIDN'T have their physiology down, if the passage does indeed say that rabbits chew the cud. Because they don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mendy Inactive Member |
and so we said its a mistranslation -its not a rabbit - we shall leave the original wording-it was an "arnevet" whatever that is which does chew its cud but no slipt hooves. problem solved i think?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024