Missing sea creatures

Just because he said "fish" doesn't mean that men will just rule over fish and no other sea creatures. The bible quite frequently refers to "men" when talking about people in general. This happens througout the bible, and even in modern society.

Genesis (and church) would be way too long if it listed off many thousands of creatures and different life forms in it.

Thor, Hebrew is a different language. In other langauges, words can mean more than one thing. Same as here. There are English terms that mean more than one thing, and there are terms in other languages which have no precise translation.Take our word "love." Love can be charitas, agape, phileo, etc,...but we just say "love" for liking something, sex, physical desire, parental and brotherly love, the whole works.To say, well, the Bible says "fish" is totally absurd. The Bible does not say "fish." "Fish" wasn't even a word back then. The Bible says a Hebrew word translated as fish, which is a good approximation.Same with bird and bat. The same term refers to both.Moreover, it's pretty clear that God intended and did grant man dominion over all life on earth. The fact every single life form is not mentioned is irrevalent.

Yeah, gotta side with Randman on this one.Translation is hard enough even without words with multiple meanings. Our idea of what a fish is is not the same as the ancient Roman idea of fish which is not the same as a "biblical" fish.I have a similiar problem with the Plagues - is "locusts" locusts or some other insect, "frogs" frogs or maybe toads, etc.Now, having said all that, the obvious counterpoint is that the literallists believe that the current translation of the Bible is accurate enough to be used to actually date the moment of creation - ambiguity about definitions kinda flies in the face of that.

quote:

---

Heaven no. The only shrimp that are carnivoruos are shrimp that eat plankton. And if I'm right, Shrimp eat phytoplankton which are infected with pollutants and infested with tinier marine animals and worms.

---

Sorry Specter,
Religious views aside, your knowledge of shrimp is woefully incorrect. The vast majority of shrimp are very much carnivorous or herbivorous (the latter probably more common). There are actually very few shrimp which are planktivorous at all, at least in the adult stages. The commercially important shrimps are mainly carnivores which hunt smaller crustaceans like amphipods (herbivores) and other shrimp. Like all carnivores, including fish, shrimp are attracted to carrion as a 'free meal' which is why bait works. But to call any of them scavengers is not correct. I do not know of a single shrimp species worldwide that feeds on carrion preferentially. And planktivorous shrimp species are rare at best (at least in taxonomic diversity). If you count as a scavenger those species which feed on plant material (e.g. phytoplankton from your post) then you must also include all herbivores in that as all primary production is driven from nutrients that ultimately are derived from decomposed organic matter (read carrion).I am completing my dissertation work on shrimp trophic ecology.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

Well, interesting that someone decided to re-ignite this thread. I started it some time ago and have learned much since then and I think perhaps I was being a tad pedantic. However, there is one point that I take from this whole thing which remains. Yes it is, and the original Bible was written in it, which I think we all agree on. Assume for a moment that God does exist and inspired the writing of this original Hebrew Bible. Fine and dandy, this would be the inerrant word of God.What about the subsequent translations? Did god inspire or guide those? Exactly, and in the English language today "fish" means "fish". Yes it does. That original quotation I used was taken from a modern English language Bible. The same one that many millions of people base their entire lives on, and believe that everyone else should base their lives on. I doubt that most Christians in the world have a copy of the original hebrew bible on their bookshelf. No, they use the English one, and People fight, kill and die for the things written in it and it's rival writings. I think it's fair to say it is a significant book. If God had anything to do with the translating of the original bible, why would it be translated for an audience of modern English speakers to show the word fish, when it has a specific meaning in our language? Yes, the original hebrew term may refer to fish, crustaceans, sea-snails, plankton, whales (and randman, PLEASE let this be the last mention of whales in this thread!), deep-sea worms, octopii, squid and everything else besides. So, when the original bible was translated into different languages, did God not keep an eye on things to make sure his original and correct words and meanings were faithfully translated? If he didn't it would be a little difficult for other people besides ancient Hebrew speakers to be able to live by his word.I say again, in our language 'fish' has a specific meaning. So when the translator was doing his job, God should have (metaphorically) tapped him/her on the shoulder and said "Don't use the word fish. I'm referring to everything in the ocean so write 'all ocean creatures' or something like that". It still says fish, therefore the bible that millions of people live by today in the English speaking world, is not inerrant. It is subject to the abilities of human translators. It doesn't make me feel good when I think of all the people who have died as a result of "a good approximation".Of course, if you're like me and don't believe there is a God to begin with, this whole argument is rather pointless.On that note, I'm going to go and have a cold beer.

I think most inerrancists accept that to get a true appreciation of the Holy Bible, one has to look at a concordance from time to time. I don't think anyone considers a translation as inerrant, though some consider certain translations as more accurate than others.Genesis talks of 'dagah', which is commonly translated as 'fish'. In Jonah, he was swallowed by a dag (great fish), which Matthew translates as 'sea monster' (ketos), which gets translated into English as 'whale'.Just a FYI

quote:

---

A fish is a fish, whereas whales, prawns, squid, sea snails, dolphins, or crabs for example, are NOT fish. Was it Gods intention that we were only meant to specifically rule over the fish, and not these other forms of life?

---

Wasn't it stated in the Holy Book of Armaments

quote:

---

And the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths, and carp and anchovies, and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit-bats and large chu...

---

For those unfamiliar, this is from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, I realized after the fact that I might be perceived as mocking the Bible when I was not. So this entire paragraph is my edit.This message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 01-21-2006 03:46 AM

I do believe you're right. I think it's time for Brother Maynard to bring out the Holy Hand-Grenade."and though shall count to three..."

---

"Thank you Slartibartfast, that will be all."

Thank you very much for correcting me. My apologies on the length of time it took for me to return your messages. Please forgive me, and do not hold a grudge. Now, I see you you have done your research well. Let me reiterate what I was trying to say, OK? There has been some confusion as to what I have been trying ot state when I began to talk about shrimp. Some say I was talking after the flood completely. If that was so, then we have no evidence forthwith. THe fossilized remnants of ancient shrimp in sediment attest to this. However, I am no longer confining my definition to scavenging the dead. I must also include that many animals and fungi are scavenging the earth. I ahve a website based on it. Those who wish to examine the site must PM me.