On Kinds... again.

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

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

If you want to invoke extra-biblical miracles, feel free. But you have already departed from the biblical story, and from any pretence of science.The meaning of the word 'kind' is important because many within the Creation 'Science' movement use it to both avoid accepting that small-scale (adaptive) evolutionary change is evidence for large scale evolution change and fudge the simple fact the Ark descibed in Genesis is far, far too small to hold all the animals it is supposed to.I think it is clear from the passage I quoted that Kind is not the super-generalised thing that Creationists need to bolster these arguments.

Adding to the ark issue: Are you aware that there are an estimated 10 million species on Earth? Some estimates go as high as 100 million, few are ever below 2 million. This is species currently on earth; most species are extinct. Estimates of sauropods range up to about 150 different species of sauropods discovered so far, composing 90 different genera; of these, near complete fossils exist for 5 genera. The smallest sauropod that I'm aware of, Shunusaurus, was still larger than an elephant - 40 feet long, and over 8 tons as an adult.Can you understand why the concept of fitting every land species on the planet onto the ark is laughable? And if you want to get into some of the other problems, join one of the ark forums, there's tons of other problems, from marine life to energy imbalances to corals and more.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

feasable? that sounds ridiculous - i dont even know how they for FOOD for everythig for 100 days....and im lazy too [and dont have time!]- guess we'll never know on the rabbit thing...