Are Biblical "Kinds" actually Biblical?

[chair]

The concept of Biblical "Kinds" has come up in recent decades. The idea being that God did not create individual species, but animals or plants that represented "Kinds" that later turned into species by rapid micro-evolution.

The concept came up as a way of dealing with difficulties in a literal reading of the Bible. The main problem it "solves" is the question of how so many species fit into Noah's Ark. The "Kinds" theory ( or Baraminology") has also been presented as an alternative to the theory of evolution.

I will not discuss the scientific problems with this here, but only the question of whether it makes sense Biblically. I will use this site as a source for the "Biblical Kinds" viewpoint.. A helpful TOL'er referred to this site- I am not sure who.

The basic question is: Does the Hebrew term "Min" refer to this "Kinds" concept, or does it mean something else?

I will number my points.

1. The Genesis text has traditionally been taken to mean that God created all the various types of plants and animals that the Earth is populated with. In fact, the whole point of the creation story is that God created everything. Genesis was read this way for thousands of years. It is the natural way to read the text. You will not find a Lexicon that agrees with the "Kinds theory". The "Kinds" theory has only been around for a few decades, and is not the obvious reading of the text.
It is clear to me that this is not a "show-stopper". One can claim that nobody truly understood the text properly until now. Yet is is a weak point.

2. The Biblical text refers to specific species very early on. Abel keeps sheep. Noah sends out a raven and a dove, and plants a vineyard. One could claim that Abel's sheep were "sheep-kind", the Raven "raven-kind" and the grape vine "vine-kind", but that is a stretch, especially as the same terms are used later on in the Bible and indeed to this day to refer to specific types of animals. A sheep was and is a sheep, not a sheep-kind that turned into goats and whatnot as well.

3. The "Kinds" concept is based on claiming that the Hebrew word for "kind", "Min", refers to these proto-Kinds. A cat kind, a sheep-goat kind etc. Yet the word is used in Leviticus: to mean exactly the opposite. "Kinds" there are species or subspecies. There are many kinds of ravens, hawks and herons.

15 every raven after his kind; 16 and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, 17 and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, 18 and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, 19 and the stork, the heron after her kind​

"Kinds" ("Min") here does not refer to an "proto-raven kind" or the like. This is clear from the context. It refers to specific members of the group called Ravens. This I think is the weakest point, Biblically speaking, of the theory.

 

[Stripe]

Now how about you quote the definition of kind you've been given and show how it contradicts the Bible or is not reasonable. :up:

 

[chair]

Now how about you quote the definition of kind you've been given and show how it contradicts the Bible or is not reasonable. :up:

Stripe, I linked to the creationist site that I am using as a source. Read.

 

[chair]

For those of you who can't follow a link:

What does the word kind mean?

Since two of each kind of land animal (and seven of some) were brought aboard the Ark for the purpose of preserving their offspring upon the earth (Genesis 7:3), it seems clear that a “kind” represents the basic reproductive boundary of an organism. That is, the offspring of an organism is always the same kind as its parents, even though it may display considerable variation.....


Creation researchers have found that “kind” is often at the level of “family” in our modern classification scheme. For example, zebras, horses, and donkeys all belong to the family Equidae and can mate with each other to form hybrid animals such as mules (from a horse and donkey) and zonkeys (from a zebra and donkey). However, there is no reason to assume a one-to-one correspondence between our manmade system and the biblical terminology. So “kind” may be at a higher taxonomic level in some cases, lower in others.

God placed the potential for tremendous variety within the original created kinds. This original variation, altered by genetic mutations and other mechanisms after the Fall (such as natural selection), led to the great diversity of living things we see today.

A modern field of study, called baraminology (from the two Hebrew words bara, meaning “created,” and min, meaning “kind”), attempts to classify fossil and living organisms into their original created kinds (or baramins). This is an active area of creation research. As creation scientists, we are not ashamed to stand on the foundation of God’s Word for our research and understanding of living things....

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, I linked to the creationist site that I am using as a source. Read.

:AMR:

I did.

How about you quote the definition of kind you've been given and show how it contradicts scripture or is unreasonable.

 

[chair]

:AMR:

I did.

How about you quote the definition of kind you've been given and show how it contradicts scripture or is unreasonable.

Stripe, I was given a link to the site I referred to, and I used it.
I will not play your games here.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, I was given a link to the site I referred to, and I used it.

:AMR:

There is no problem with your link.

I will not play your games here.

What game?

You've been provided with a rambling definition of kind. You've heard the concise definite I give that sums up the link. Show us how that definition is unreasonable or how it contradicts the Bible.

 

[Bradley D]

Archeology has discovered there was a major flood in that area where Noah was. Whether it was world wide I believe is questionable. I would believe that that flood probably covered the writer's known world. As for the creationist trying to explain the wide variety of animals. They can not even explain the creation of a single cell which has been found to be quite a complex organism in itself. What they put out is theory not backed up with much fact.

 

[6days]

The concept of Biblical "Kinds" has come up in recent decades. The idea being that God did not create individual species, but animals or plants that represented "Kinds" that later turned into species by rapid micro-evolution.

Actually, variation within created kinds was observed with Adam and Eve's first child. The concept of species and evolution is what has come up in recent decades.

The concept came up as a way of dealing with difficulties in a literal reading of the Bible. The main problem it "solves" is the question of how so many species fit into Noah's Ark. The "Kinds" theory ( or Baraminology") has also been presented as an alternative to the theory of evolution.

Yes, Biblical creation is an "alternative" to common ancestry beliefs. Contrary to your statement though, there are no "difficulties" in the plain reading of God's Word. Also, there is no problem understanding how the animals fit on the ark. The 'problem' is only in the minds of evolutionists who wish to insert the word 'species' into scripture.

I will not discuss the scientific problems with this here...

The evidence supports the Biblical creation and flood model. There is a TOL thread on rapid adaptation.

1. The Genesis text has traditionally been taken to mean that God created all the various types of plants and animals that the Earth is populated with. In fact, the whole point of the creation story is that God created everything. Genesis was read this way for thousands of years. It is the natural way to read the text. You will not find a Lexicon that agrees with the "Kinds theory". The "Kinds" theory has only been around for a few decades, and is not the obvious reading of the text.
It is clear to me that this is not a "show-stopper". One can claim that nobody truly understood the text properly until now. Yet is is a weak point.

I agree that your argument is weak. Variation within kinds was observed from the beginning.

2. The Biblical text refers to specific species very early on.

No...the Bible refers to 'kinds'. The word species is a modern...and a maleable term.

Abel keeps sheep. Noah sends out a raven and a dove, and plants a vineyard. One could claim that Abel's sheep were "sheep-kind", the Raven "raven-kind" and the grape vine "vine-kind", but that is a stretch, especially as the same terms are used later on in the Bible and indeed to this day to refer to specific types of animals. A sheep was and is a sheep, not a sheep-kind that turned into goats and whatnot as well.

Very good, although your last sentence is wrong and contradicts your other statements.

3. The "Kinds" concept is based on claiming that the Hebrew word for "kind", "Min", refers to these proto-Kinds. A cat kind, a sheep-goat kind etc. Yet the word is used in Leviticus: to mean exactly the opposite. "Kinds" there are species or subspecies. There are many kinds of ravens, hawks and herons.

15 every raven after his kind; 16 and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, 17 and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, 18 and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, 19 and the stork, the heron after her kind

"Kinds" ("Min") here does not refer to an "proto-raven kind" or the like. This is clear from the context. It refers to specific members of the group called Ravens. This I think is the weakest point, Biblically speaking, of the theory.

Chair...the only problem I see here is that you are trying to find fault in scripture where none exists.

Genesis tells us God created animals to reproduce after their kinds. Variation was observed and expected.

But, you jump to Levitcus now...thousands of years later. If Moses had said 'Don't eat any kind of sheep, or any kind of goat'.... the people would have understood. Likewise, we can understand.

 

[6days]

Archeology has discovered there was a major flood in that area where Noah was. Whether it was world wide I believe is questionable.

Then God is a liar? Did He provide the rainbow as a promise He would never again send a local flood.
Of course it was a world wide flood. Scripture is clear..... Evidence from the world around us is clear.

As for the creationist trying to explain the wide variety of animals. They can not even explain the creation of a single cell which has been found to be quite a complex organism in itself

Read the first 5 words in the Bible.

 

[chair]

:AMR:

There is no problem with your link.


What game?

You've been provided with a rambling definition of kind. You've heard the concise definite I give that sums up the link. Show us how that definition is unreasonable or how it contradicts the Bible.

If you like, I will respond to your definition of kind. But only if you actually post it here. Even if it is a repeat. No games. And you know exactly what I mean.

 

[Stripe]

If you like, I will respond to your definition of kind. But only if you actually post it here. Even if it is a repeat. No games. And you know exactly what I mean.

:AMR:

You're weird.

 

[chair]

:AMR:

You're weird.

Post your definition, and I'll relate to it. Don't pretend that you clearly defined it elsewhere.

 

[Stripe]

Don't pretend that you clearly defined it elsewhere.

Numerous times, in fact.

For example:

Whatever. Go ahead with your non biblical and non scientific beliefs. You just got finished agreeing with my belief about the Bible: Actually, it's pretty clear. God made the kinds to reproduce among themselves and generate more of the same kind. Yes. Exactly God created many types of animals, to reproduce among themselves, and generate more of the same animals. So much "for non-Biblical."

The formal definition is: All the organisms that are descended from a common ancestor population.

 

[chair]

...

The formal definition is: All the organisms that are descended from a common ancestor population.

OK. Let try this in the verses from Leviticus 11:

15 every raven after his kind; 16 and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, 17 and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, 18 and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, 19 and the stork, the heron after her kind​

Now, with your definition. I've changed the wording slightly, to avoid making it look ridiculous:

15 every raven after the ravens that are descended from a common ancestor population.; 16 and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after the hawks that are descended from a common ancestor population., 17 and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, 18 and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, 19 and the stork, the heron after the herons that are descended from a common ancestor population.​

Does this reading make sense?

 

[gcthomas]

The formal definition is: All the organisms that are descended from a common ancestor population.

That seems to beg the question, somewhat, as to how the ancestral commonality is to be determined. You have a definition with no way of determining what is and isn't a kind: you have no functional definition. It has no use or application without a method for working out what is, in fact, a kind. Which is exactly how you like it — there is nothing here to discuss.

For example: there are approx 200 genes common to all living organisms, so there is one kind in this world. Prove this wrong, using your precise rotfl definition.

 

[Stripe]

Does this reading make sense?

Not really.

 

[chair]

Not really.

So perhaps your definition doesn't fit the Biblical term "kind".

 

[Stripe]

That seems to beg the question, somewhat, as to how the ancestral commonality is to be determined.

No, it doesn't.

It's a properly formed definition. It does not assume the truth of any theory.

You have a definition with no way of determining what is and isn't a kind

So?

We have definitions for all sorts of things where individuals cannot easily be classified. A definition is not a classification system.

This is how this discussion always proceeds. The Darwinists cannot cope with a creationist having a simple and easy-to-understand definition, so they insist that the definition also be a classification system.

You have no functional definition.

Darwinists hate reading.

It has no use or application without a method for working out what is, in fact, a kind.

Sure, it does.

It's called a rational conversation. We have ideas. We use words to convey those ideas. Those words have definitions. That we do not have all knowledge is no barrier to a sensible conversation.

There is nothing here to discuss.

And yet you're here, discussing it. :AMR:

For example: there are approx 200 genes common to all living organisms, so there is one kind in this world. Prove this wrong, using your precise definition.

It's your idea, man up and do your own science. :up:

 

[Stripe]

So perhaps your definition doesn't fit the Biblical term "kind".

Perhaps.

Are you going to explain how?