Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Ken Ham on "kinds"!

Expand Messages
  • Robert
    ... http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/meaning-min The Meaning of Mîn by David Fouts November 12, 2008 Reposted June 1, 2011 Genesis 1 reveals
    Message 1 of 58 , Jun 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      ----------------Forwarded Article------------------

      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/meaning-min

      The Meaning of Mîn
      by David Fouts

      November 12, 2008
      Reposted June 1, 2011

      Genesis 1 reveals a marvelous insight into biology—God originally created all plants and animals according to their "kinds" (mîn in Hebrew).

      But what does this word mean?

      The context points to the answer.

      God wrote on the tablets of the Ten Commandments that His creation—including all it contains—was completed within just six 24-hour days:

      > "For in six days the Lord made the
      > heavens and the earth, the sea, and
      > all that is in them" (Exodus 20:11).

      According to Genesis 1, creation included various plants and animals that God made

      > "after their kind."

      These facts raise important questions for modern scientists. If God finished creating on Day Six, why did so many varieties of animals and plants appear after Creation Week (even new species today)?

      In every important question of life, including science questions, the key is to go back to God's Word and learn what it really says. Genesis 1 says that God created plants, trees, fish, fowl, creeping things, and cattle

      > "after their kind."1

      But what exactly does "kind" mean (Hebrew mîn, pronounced "mean")?

      Since the meaning of words can vary depending on context, an important principle of Bible study (hermeneutics) is to investigate how the word is used.

      Some Hebrew words, such as those for day and kind, can have several different meanings, like their English counterparts.

      To interpret each word correctly, we must look at its usage.

      Instead of imposing modern scientific interpretations on the text, we should first let the divinely inspired and authoritative text speak for itself.

      The narrative of Genesis 1 follows a specific pattern of command and fulfillment. The phrase "and it was so" (wayehî kēn) indicates a state of completion at the end of most of the commands (see Judges 6:38; 2 Kings 15:12). Furthermore, God's assessment that a given day's work was "good" (ṭôb) can mean "wholeness" or "completeness" and never includes disease or death.2 Since each "good" assessment is soon followed by a new day, each created kind must have appeared without disease or dying and continued that way to the next day.

      Given the context above, we can now examine the usage of mîn in Genesis 1.

      Look at Day Three, where God creates plants and trees after their kind (1:11–12).

      These appear to fall within three larger groups:

      > "vegetation" (deše', thought to be inedible by humans),
      > edible vegetation (`eseb), and
      > trees (`ēṣîm).3

      On Day Five, God creates the fish and fowl after their kind (1:21).

      The text is clear.

      They did not evolve from a lower species; they were each fully formed, separate kinds capable of surviving and reproducing within the same kind.

      On Day Six, God makes the land animals

      > "according to their kind."

      These animals include

      > cattle (which may include sheep, goats, etc.),

      > creeping things (which may refer to insects
      > and spiders and, possibly,

      > reptiles and rodents;

      see Leviticus 11:29–30), and the beasts of the earth (every other type of beast based on dry land).

      The term kind appears again in the Flood narrative. In Genesis 6:20, God instructs Noah to take on the Ark with him birds, animals, and creeping things, each "after its kind." In Moses' later dietary laws, the term mîn comes up again a number of times (Leviticus 11:14–29; Deuteronomy 14:12–19). Unlike the earlier passages, however, the use of mîn in the dietary laws strongly implies reference to varieties within individual species, perhaps subspecies and breeds. Besides referring to "ravens after their kind" (Leviticus 11:15), the laws associate kind with some very specific Hebrew names, many of which are found only once in Scripture (hapax legomena). These rarely used words may refer to well-known variations within familiar species.

      In each of the cases we have examined, we determine the precise meaning of the Hebrew term mîn based on the context.

      In other words, its meaning depends on the specificity of the terms to which it refers.

      When mîn refers to general classifications, as in "beasts" and "birds" in Genesis 1 and Genesis 6–7, kind appears to be a more general biological category, such as the next biological level or two down in the Hebrew classification scheme.

      In contrast, in passages like Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, where it references very specific organisms, such as ravens and barn owls, kind appears to refer to more narrow groups, such as subspecies or breeds.

      More studies need to be done, but sound hermeneutics has shown us many things.

      For example, contrary to any evolutionary view, Genesis 1 makes it clear that no death occurred when God created all the original kinds.

      Also, we know that God finished creating in only six days, including the original kinds.

      Now it is up to modern scientists and biblical scholars, working together, to better understand the wonderful designs that the Creator placed within His original created creatures to enable their descendants to fill the earth so quickly—with such colorful variety—in the centuries following creation, and later after the Flood.

      --------------------

      Dr. David Fouts holds a ThM in Old Testament Literature and Exegesis and a ThD in Old Testament Studies from Dallas Theological Seminary. He taught for over 20 years at Yellowstone Baptist College, Dallas Seminary, and Bryan College.

      --------------------
      --------------------
    • Charles Weston
      Why is it that Jerry can understand that blood of the new covenant is not literal, but not that dust of the earth is also not literal? Charles ... From:
      Message 58 of 58 , Jun 7, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Why is it that Jerry can understand that "blood of the new covenant" is not literal, but not that "dust of the earth" is also not literal?

        Charles

        --- On Tue, 6/7/11, Jerry McDonald <jerry@...> wrote:

        From: Jerry McDonald <jerry@...>
        Subject: [M & B] Re: Ken Ham on "kinds"!
        To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2011, 4:18 PM







         









        This is Todd, the Cowardly Dog, still pretending that humans three thousand years ago didn't understand the movement of the earth, and that they didn't know anything about figures of speech. I guess when Jesus said "this is my blood of the new Covenant" he was arguing that the fruit of the vine was actually his blood of the new covenant. What a maroone :O

        jdm

        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:

        >

        > This is Jerry McDonald (still) making ridiculously silly remarks based on pretending that humans thousands of years thought the earth was in orbit around the sun, rather than the other way around.

        >

        > Chuckling,

        > Todd Greene

        >

        >

        > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry McDonald" <jerry@> wrote:

        > >

        > > Prove that it wasn't a figure of speech three thousand years ago.

        > > jdm

        > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@> wrote:

        > > >

        > > > TODAY it's a figure of speech. It wasn't a figure of speech three thousand years ago.

        > > >

        > > > This is Jerry (falsely) pretending that the Bible teaches the "scientific foreknowledge of a god" that the earth orbits the sun, pretending that we learned about the basic scientific fact that the earth orbits the sun from the Bible, pretending that "the Bible is God's Word" promoters never fought against the scientific (called "natural philosophy" at the time) realization/discovery that the earth orbited the sun when it happened.

        > > >

        > > > Young earth creationists deliberately ignore historical facts, just like they deliberately ignore scientific facts, whenever they feel like it. This is The Young Earth Creationist Way, which is, of course, merely a manifestation of how fundamentalist Christians have been operating for a very long time.

        > > >

        > > > - Todd Greene

        > > >

        > > > P.S.: Notice how the point about the Hebrew word "adam" has gone completely over Jerry's head!

        > > >

        > > >

        > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry McDonald" <jerry@> wrote:

        > > > >

        > > > > The "sun going down" is a legitimate figure of speech called "apparent motion" (here's a clue, our meteorologists use it all the time). So, now what you need to do is to show what figure of speech was used in Genesis when it spoke of God creating man from the dust of the ground. What figure was that? Not that I ever expect to get an answer!

        > > > > jdm

        > > > >

        > > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@> wrote:

        > > > > >

        > > > > > Of course, Jerry doesn't believe what the Bible says about the sun going around the earth either.

        > > > > >

        > > > > > Incidentally, Revelation mentions that liars are going into the lake of fire. (Hint: Jerry, better take plenty of hot dogs with you.)

        > > > > >

        > > > > > Chuckling,

        > > > > > Todd Greene

        > > > > >

        > > > > >

        > > > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry McDonald" <jerry@> wrote:

        > > > > > >

        > > > > > > So you don't believe what the Bible says about God creating Adam. I don't want to be near you on the judgment day.

        > > > > > > jdm

        > > > > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Charles Weston <sanantonioriverman@> wrote:

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > So Jerry's body, which does actually exist, I assume, came into being through the action of his parents rather than God.

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > Charles

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/6/11, Jerry McDonald <jerry@> wrote:

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > From: Jerry McDonald <jerry@>

        > > > > > > > Subject: [M & B] Re: Ken Ham on "kinds"!

        > > > > > > > To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

        > > > > > > > Date: Monday, June 6, 2011, 9:56 AM

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >  

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > Jerry McDonald's body came into existence by way of his father and his mother, (natural reproduction). Jerry McDonald's soul was given to him by God. However, Adam was much different. He didn't have a mother or father. He was created from the dust of the ground. But according to Todd, the Cowardly Dog, there is no God to create, so he evolved right along with the rest of the monkeys. So the Cowardly Dog calls the Bible a lie.

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > jdm

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Charles Weston <sanantonioriverman@> wrote:

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > And I was just wondering how Jerry McDonald came into existence....

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > Charles Weston

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 6/5/11, Jerry McDonald <jerry@> wrote:

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > From: Jerry McDonald <jerry@>

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > Subject: [M & B] Re: Ken Ham on "kinds"!

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > Date: Sunday, June 5, 2011, 5:03 PM

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >  

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > Yeah well, it only sounds that way to someone like you.

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > jdm

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <rlbaty@> wrote:

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry McDonald" <jerry@> wrote:

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > > And Robert, if you honestly think that

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > > OEC is what I was talking about you are

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > > a bigger moron that Greene.

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > My comment was intended to express an opinion regarding what you were sounding like; independent of what you were trying to talk about.

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > Robert Baty

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <rlbaty@> wrote:

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry McDonald" <jerry@> wrote, in

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > part:

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > > God spoke everything into existence.

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > > Whether it instantaneously came into

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > > existence or (not)...

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > > God still is the cause of it, and

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > > creator.

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > > He created the earth out of the substance

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > > that would allow the earth to bring forth

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > > vegetation.

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > Spoken like an "old-earther"; or so it seems to me!

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > > Robert Baty

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        > > > > > > >

        > > > > > >

        > > > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > >

        >






















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.