[_ Old Earth _] Evolution is discredited by Typology

[Asyncritus]

It fit the alleged type and anti-type of that day in those minds as they sought to understand.

It (the alleged types and anti-types mentioned about racism) has never fitted itself to the Word of God. Not in type. Not in truth.

Of course. Typology was scientifically unsupportable, as well as morally indefensible, when typologists like Agassiz (and people who were much, much worse) applied it to humans.

A review of all that you have said so far shows that either

a.you do not or cannot comprehend the OPs

or

b. are deliberately obfuscating the issues and confining your remarks to human types, with a few ad hominems thrown in for good measure since you cannot gainsay the simple fact that types do exist.

Now how about demonstrating that all the chordates listed by CD are not types which cannot be confused with any other types?

Sparrow, I regret that you have dragged in biblical typology into the discussion. That is an entirely different subject and should be in its own separate thread.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Of course. Typology was scientifically unsupportable, as well as morally indefensible, when typologists like Agassiz (and people who were much, much worse) applied it to humans.

A review of all that you have said so far shows that either
a.you do not or cannot comprehend the OPs

I'm a biologist. And a student of the history of science. I understand Agassiz and typology and why it led to the most virulent of racism. Agassiz didn't hate black people, although they gave him the willies when they were near him. He just took his theory of typology to the logical conclusion. If superficial characteristics mark different creations of unrelated creatures, then blacks are a different species.

b. are deliberately obfuscating the issues and confining your remarks to human types, with a few ad hominems thrown in for good measure since you cannot gainsay the simple fact that types do exist.

You've confused the fact that types exist, with the notion that they cannot have a common ancestor. This is the error the typologists made with all living things, including humans.

Now how about demonstrating that all the chordates listed by CD are not types which cannot be confused with any other types?

Could you rephrase that in English? Again, you're confusing types with separately created things. As you learned earlier, different types can be shown to be related to each other (for example) by genetics. And we know that works, because we can do it with organisms of known descent.

If you're denying transitional forms again, this would be a good time for you to pick up the challenge you dodged earlier, and show me two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, which lack a transitional.

You're on.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

I believe that the Lord made limited distinctions that were loosely described as "kinds" or myin in the Bible. Such things would include the various "kinds" (not to be confused with species - a Latin based word) and that the good Lord pronounced the word-phrase, "after its kind" to describe the reproductive limits that have been set. So, what I would be interested in (and would enjoy reading within your treatises here) would include your analysis regarding the observations seen to show that the understanding that I have is false.

I think some evidence that fits perfectly with Evolution and is an argument against "'kinds' that can never evolve out of their 'kind'" is the fact that some similar species of animals haven't been separated long enough to not mate with one another and produce offspring. There are horses and donkeys that give birth to mules, who are sterile. There are lions and tigers who give birth to ligers and tiglons, who are usually sterile. This fits perfectly with a family tree that grows gradual branches when groups of the same species become separated and evolve randomly with their respective new, ever-changing habitats over thousands and thousands of years.

I hope this helps.

Another good one is dogs from wolves. That's artificial selection, as opposed to natural selection, because man caused such a rapid change, like a large wolf with a long snout rapidly(in Evolutionary terms) becoming a small dog with a smashed-in face.

 

[Sparkey]

Regrettably this error continued and is still being supported here and there by creationists. This is not to say all creationists are racists; most aren't. I'm pointing out that the erroneous idea of "typologists" leads to racism for many people, including Agassiz.

Agreed. My read of the Word of God is different than others mentioned and may be similar to yours.

New King James Version (NKJV)
The Tower of Babel

Gen 11:1 Now the whole earth had one language and one speech.
Gen 11:6-9
6 And the Lord said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.

7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.â€
8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.
9 Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.​

​

​

What the Lord did at the Tower of Babel might be thought of as a Lesson about Pride, where mankind was seen as trying to reach up and grab things that belong to God.

It was only after this that the Shem, Ham and Japath dialog is mentioned in Gen 11:

New King James Version (NKJV)
Shem’s Descendants

10 This is the genealogy of Shem: Shem was one hundred years old, and begot Arphaxad two years after the flood.

We may here clearly see what linguists (who may or may not believe this as a literal account, many don't) speak about when they trace back difference in language and reference to "Semantic" peoples. Not to be confused with racial slurs or antisemitism.

Semantics would necessarily include the field of Linguistics or the study or science of meaning in language. Such may say things like:

My research shows that "Semitic" is an adjective derived from the name Shem, one of the three sons of Noah in the Bible (Genesis 5:32;6:10;10:21), or more precisely from the Greek derivative of that name, namely Σημ (Sēm); the noun form referring to a person is Semite. In Genesis 10:21-31, Shem is described as the father of Aram, Ashur, and Arpachshad: the Biblical ancestors of the Ishmaelites, Aramaeans, Assyrians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Sabaeans, Hebrews and Qedarites, etc., all of whose languages are closely related; the language family containing them was therefore named "Semitic" by linguists.

Some of what "we" think about race is conflated and confused because of co-mingling personal concepts and bias into the meaning of the clear word of God. The true linguistic "scramble" of those eggs happened at the Tower of Babel and that is where the Lord made the change to the linguistic cultures of many peoples. It did not appear during the procreative acts of 'Noah' or His son 'Shem' as far as I can tell. This is not "racial" nor do we have evidence of three (3) races. I believe that particular concept is false.

It is my belief that the Bible is explicitly clear for good reason: Our God is the Ancient of Days and sees the End from the Beginning.

I haven't been able to find the Bible saying, "There are three races," or any actual mention of race. We do see clearly what happened when the Lord acted and explained in a very simple, yet clear manner, about what He did at the Tower of Babel.

The Tower of Babel

Genesis 11:1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.

Then at verse 8 we see what God did.

8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel —because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

From Shem to Abram

10 This is the account of Shem’s family line.

Two years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father[d] of Arphaxad. 11 And after he became the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived 500 years and had other sons and daughters.

That was a lesson taught about Pride. They wanted to reach too far and grab what belongs to God. It was only after that, in verse 10 that we see the "Shem Family" description:

From Shem to Abram

10 This is the account of Shem’s family line.

Two years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father[d] of Arphaxad. 11 And after he became the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived 500 years and had other sons and daughters.

Clearly the concept that we have about "Semitic peoples" and "race" are confused (conflated [1]). God did not create racial divisions. What did He do? He confused the language that everyone spoke - and He scattered the peoples. After that, Shem - and now it was 2 years after the flood, at 100 years old, fathered Arphaxad. There are other genealogies in the Bible that might suggest that this particular reference is "telescoped" but that's entirely beside the point.

Telescoping: Luke 3:35-36 compared to Genesis 10:24, 11:12; 1 Chronicles 1:24
Luke contains the name Cainan between Shelah and Arphaxad that is missing in Genesis 10:24 and 11:12 and 1 Chronicles 1:24 [2]. Since all of the genealogies are true and Luke is the one with more names, then Luke must be more complete and the more rest telescoped.

FOOTNOTE
[1]
^ CONFLATE
To combine (as two readings of a text) into a composite whole. Examples of CONFLATE. <be careful not to conflate gossip with real news>

[2]
^ 'Telescoping'
The name Cainan does appear in all three of these passages in some late copies of the Greek Septuagint. However, it is missing from the most reliable ancient texts: the Hebrew Masoretic text, the earliest copies of the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and all other ancient translations of the Old Testament.

 

[Sparkey]

Now some may want to come and say, 'Now hold on, Sparrow...' then point to the fact that I looked at Genesis chapter 11 specifically then they may wish to direct my gaze to Gen 9 and 10 where the Flood and the descendants of Noah and his sons were further discussed. And I would agree that much care is needed to avoid various types of Eisegesis vs. Exegesis mistakes.

There does appear to be a rather persuasive study that concludes other than what I say.

There does appear to be a 'Bible Theory' going around that starts with the premise of three major races of human beings:

• The Black race - Negro
• The White race - Caucasian
• The Yellow race - Oriental

and these three races came from the three sons of Noah:

1. Ham
2. Japheth
3. Shem

Specifically, according to this theory:

• Blacks came from Ham
• Whites came from Japheth
• Yellows came from Shem

This is not an endorsement but rather a citation because the above quote came from AFTB (Answers From The Book) website. More may be found here ----> http://answersfromthebook.com/cgi-bin/aftb/articles?main_action=about

But to this, one may reply, "It seems plausible. A factor that supports this theory is the numerical match between races and the sons of Noah: both are three in number. Further, since the Bible plainly says that all human life today comes from three distinct individuals -- Ham, Shem, and Japheth -- the progression into three distinct races -- Blacks, Whites, and Yellows -- makes a lot of sense. Strong proponents of this theory can also provide analyses of the descendants of Ham, Shem, and Japheth in Genesis chapter 10, to support migration of Blacks toward Africa, Whites toward Europe, and Yellows toward Asia.

But ultimately the thoughtful and exegetical student would reject the theory. Here's why:

The theory above is a good example of eisegesis, or reading a specific agenda into the biblical text. The hidden agenda in this case is racism, probably with the intent of advancing racial supremacy, an idea completely foreign to the Bible. Racism, that is, judging people on the basis of skin color and other superficial features, is rampant in today's society but forbidden by the Bible."

"The opposite of eisegesis is exegesis, or letting the Bible speak for itself. For the remainder of this response, we will attempt some exegesis on the subject of race and racism.

The Bible groups people in many different ways. It freely speaks of groups of people that are separate and distinct from other groups. Dividing people into similar and contrasting groups is very natural and normal for human beings, and it is sanctioned by God by its appearance in scripture. Few people would argue the fact that mankind has strong tribal tendencies. However, the overarching principle in the Bible is that all men are created equal, as stated in America's Declaration of Independence, and as preached by the Apostle Paul in Acts:
​

And (God) hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth
- Acts 17:26 [KJV]

It is as our others have said,

The blood in our veins has no other value then our earthly life....I don't care who our GGGGreatgandparents were...
Rom_10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.


Gal_3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Col_3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
- Deuteronomy 10:17 [KJV]

In conclusion let us leave discussion regarding RACE and RACISM to another thread and return to the discussion about Typology and how it may or may not Discredit the BIBLE with our regard focused upon the Theory of Evolution and Christianity.

****************
Accredations:
Portions of this post may be found at AFTB website previously mentioned. Again, no endorsement is made regarding subject matter currently posted there.

 

[Barbarian]

The point was only to show that the idea of typology is contrary to the Bible, and poor science, to boot. It was popular for a while, because it reinforced European ideas of the time.

However, we see that a great number of intermediate forms between "types" makes the hypothesis untenable.

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]

Barbarian observes:
Of course. Typology was scientifically unsupportable, as well as morally indefensible, when typologists like Agassiz (and people who were much, much worse) applied it to humans.

What utter nonsense.

Linnaeus's classification system is entirely based on the concept that living things are types derived from their archetypes - and which could not transgress those boundaries.

Therefore, he could correctly classify them right down to fixed species - which are a subdivision of the archetype.

His system has persisted down to this day - everything has a specific and generic name.

Why is that, do you suppose? Why do species exist, if they are in a state of evoultionary flux? Why don't we see any flux today, in the numbers required to generate a few million species?

Simple. Evolution is nonsense, and I believe that you know it, but can't abandon your entrenched position.

Why can you not deny the typological method, but are forced to confine your remarks to the human types?

Explain to us how any one of the great groups of chordates can be transformed into any other group - without compromising your conscience, I mean.

Explain to us why there ARE species - classified as such by highly competent and well-trained taxonomists.

A review of all that you have said so far shows that either
a.you do not or cannot comprehend the OPs

I'm a biologist. And a student of the history of science. I understand Agassiz and typology and why it led to the most virulent of racism. Agassiz didn't hate black people, although they gave him the willies when they were near him. He just took his theory of typology to the logical conclusion. If superficial characteristics mark different creations of unrelated creatures, then blacks are a different species.

You're back to the irrelevancies again. You have nothing to say about the main argument I have raised. Why not just admit it?

Your point about Agassiz and the black race does in no way affect the scientific basis for his typology. It is, effectively, an ad hom directed at Agassiz, which has nothing to do with the facts.

b. are deliberately obfuscating the issues and confining your remarks to human types, with a few ad hominems thrown in for good measure since you cannot gainsay the simple fact that types do exist.

You've confused the fact that types exist, with the notion that they cannot have a common ancestor. This is the error the typologists made with all living things, including humans.

There is no confusion in my mind. There is NO SUCH THING as a common ancestor of anything. If so, name it and its descendants. Show us a picture, or a drawing of it. Best of all, find us a fossil of it, and then perhaps you will be worth listening to.

Till then, why not just admit that it doesn't exist - after 200 or more years of digging up the fossils? It will be less disgraceful.

Now how about demonstrating that all the chordates listed by CD are not types which cannot be confused with any other types?

Could you rephrase that in English? Again, you're confusing types with separately created things. As you learned earlier, different types can be shown to be related to each other (for example) by genetics. And we know that works, because we can do it with organisms of known descent.

Typo.

Re-write: Now how about demonstrating that all the chordates listed by CD are not types which can be confused with any other types?

If you're denying transitional forms again, this would be a good time for you to pick up the challenge you dodged earlier, and show me two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, which lack a transitional.

I stopped replying to you earlier on, because I proved on 2 occasions that you were lying. It is only out of the goodness of my heart that I have resumed a conversation. So don't bring that up again.

Choose any 2 groups of the chordates, and produce a transitional. Like reptiles and amphibia will do for a start.

Here's Denton on the point. Pay close attention to the diagram:[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

Back when I can get the scanner to work.

 

[cupid dave]

but doubt that there is any disagreement about the mistakes that have been made when bible scholars consider "race" and try to force their ideas into the Shem, Ham and Japeth dialog.

There is no mistake about the three racial stock theory, merely social problems that make such science Politically Incorrect at this time.

The three racial stocks which today have been differentiated into the seven distinct racial groups now walking the earth support what Genesis tells about "the 22 now extinct humans" that ended with our own "flood" out-of-Africa:

Edwards saw theargument against such (racial) identities as being based mostly in a political stance that denies the existencebiological difference in order to argue for social equality. [4]

Edwards argued that, even if theprobability of misclassifying an individual based on a single genetic marker isas high as 30% , the misclassification probability becomes close to zero ifenough genetic markers are studied simultaneously.

Edwards saw the argument against suchidentities as being based mostly in apolitical stance that denies the existence biological difference in order toargue for social equality. [4]



Richard Dawkins (2005) agreed withEdwards' view, summarizing the argument against Lewontin as being, "However small theracial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristicsas there are, highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are bydefinition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."[27]

 

[cupid dave]

The point was only to show that the idea of typology is contrary to the Bible, and poor science, to boot. It was popular for a while, because it reinforced European ideas of the time.

However, we see that a great number of intermediate forms between "types" makes the hypothesis untenable.

Worse here is that the Bible supports the Three Racial Stock Theory with the specific claim that all other types of mankind disappeared in the extinction referred to as a flood.
That those who support a Spontaneous Generation of each "kind," the sheer number of individual procreations is mind boggling to the point of ridicule of a god who would otherwise use evolution on a more micro-level.

 

[Sparkey]

There is no mistake about the three racial stock theory [in my mind].

With the added qualifier I'm sure that all would agree.

 

[Sparkey]

The point was only to show that the idea of typology

Really? The very idea of typology? My, oh my. So, then when we see analogy we can not consider types? Could a shepherd like David be a type and Jesus the anti-type? And if that is too much of a stretch, then what about the King/Priest that typified Jesus also? I've helped write a book about it, graduate level and published books - mind you mine was a very small contribution, but still. None of them referred to racism and none defied science (as far as I know). But here we have the flat out statement that even the "idea of typology" is "contrary". If it is, I've not noticed. Contrary to what? To a view that doesn't like types? I wonder.

May we really say that there are zero elements found in the Old Testament that may be seen to prefigure ones found in the New Testament? Because that's my 'working definition' for types. What's yours, please?

10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.

 

[cupid dave]

There is no mistake about the three racial stock theory [in my mind].



With the added qualifier I'm sure that all would agree.

But even you agree that every person today is directly related to either Shem, Ham, or Japheth.

Correct?
That IS a Bible supported direct statement of three stocks from which modern men have been derived.

 

[Sparkey]

But even you...

You may refer back to Post #24 and #25 for recent statements. I don't mind questioning things. It's part of my nature. It does bother me though when somebody tries to put words in my mouth and we've discussed this before, you and I. If you truly would like to understand what I mean, all one needs to do is recall the primary statement, "I was not there."

It's okay to me to accept God's word on it and it's also okay for me to admit that there are questions that I have that are unresolved. Would you care to go to one-on-one debate where my premise is, "I'm unsure" and/or "I don't know for certain," and you may try to give counter-point to emphatically show that I am certain or that I was there? It might be fun, but later, not today.

This discussion is about Typology and Evolution. The OP has not complained about the various side-tracks we travel down, but I'm not going there in this thread.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Explain to us why there ARE species - classified as such by highly competent and well-trained taxonomists.

The names that people have given to different species within lineages are just markers. People like to reference certain points of lineages.

It's like how we tell time.

Somebody decided to divide a day into twelve hours. Sometimes, the naming of hours alone just doesn't do the trick, so we need minutes. If that isn't specific enough for our needs, we need seconds.





We could, for this explanation, call hours of the day "species of time".


The "12" in "12:00pm" is what we chose to call that species.

We chose to call the time that is an hour later "1:00pm"

Just because we call them "12:00pm" and "1:00pm" does not change the gradual movement from one hour to the next.

For instance, 12:00pm is more contemporary to 11:59am than it is to 12:59pm within the "Family Tree of Time".

Sure, 11:59am is part of the "11 species" in the "AM genus" and not of the "12 species" in the "PM genus", but that's only because 12:00pm is where we decided to place our marker(name) for reference.



Like that explanation?

I thought of it myself.

 

[Sparkey]

Like that explanation?

I do.

There may be boundaries that we are yet unaware of, that don't apply to the analogy, but that's okay. Every analogy, almost by definition, will align to some things and yet not others. I do like your well made point about how much we do love to classify. Almost as if having a verbal handle on it allows us to grasp it in some nebulous almost god-like manner, yes? The problem comes when we try to do this with the Creator and not the creation. There is no shadow of turning in Him.

No matter how we try, there is nothing to grab onto so that we may turn, not so much as a shadow. Imagine trying to wrestle somebody to the ground by touching their shadow only. There is no shadow of turning in Him. That's unfathomable to me but true enough. God doesn't budge. Not one inch. He is compassionate and understanding and kind and loving and all those things and many more but He don't budge an inch.

~Sparrow

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Like that explanation?

I do.

There may be boundaries that we are yet unaware of, that don't apply to the analogy, but that's okay. Every analogy, almost by definition, will align to some things and yet not others. I do like your well made point about how much we do love to classify. Almost as if having a verbal handle on it allows us to grasp it in some nebulous almost god-like manner, yes? The problem comes when we try to do this with the Creator and not the creation. There is no shadow of turning in Him.

No matter how we try, there is nothing to grab onto so that we may turn, not so much as a shadow. Imagine trying to wrestle somebody to the ground by touching their shadow only. There is no shadow of turning in Him. That's unfathomable to me but true enough. God doesn't budge. Not one inch. He is compassionate and understanding and kind and loving and all those things and many more but He don't budge an inch.

~Sparrow

Thank you. I was so proud of myself when I hit "Submit Reply", and . . . I admit . . . I was looking for a pat on the back.

2(Me, trying to pat myself on the back to no avail.)

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Ooooohh . . . I just thought of another good example to further elaborate on trying to piece together a gradual direct lineage(branch) within the Evolutionary Tree of Life.

I am on a roll today.




It's like this:


A reel of film has been torn to pieces and scattered all over the place. A man finds one {shred of a frame}[skull] and finds it interesting and tells a friend. The friend is also interested and joins the first person in his search. They sometimes find a {shred}[femur] that seems to belong to the same {frame}[individual] as {another shred}[pelvis]. They tell another friend about it, but their friend isn't interested in searching. But, one day, the uninterested friend accidently finds an {entire frame}[whole skeleton]. The uninterested friend presents his find to the other two, because he knows that it means a lot to them.

Others eventually join in the search and, when put in the proper order, they gradually understand more and more what the film was about, although they will never be able to view every speck of every frame.




Just like my previous example in the other post, it doesn't matter how far off my example is. It's enough to perhaps get someone to grasp the gist of how evolution moves, and why any scientist who is worth his/her salt accepts it.

 

[Barbarian]

Really? The very idea of typology? My, oh my. So, then when we see analogy we can not consider types?

The biological hypothesis of "typology" was based in an error, and had some very pernicious results, including racism. And it was scientifically indefensible. None of Agassiz's students accepted it. One after another, they became Darwinists. Because the evidence just wasn't consistent with it.

"Types" and "typology" are two different, incompatible things, like "Creation" and "creationism."

Could a shepherd like David be a type and Jesus the anti-type? And if that is too much of a stretch, then what about the King/Priest that typified Jesus also? I've helped write a book about it, graduate level and published books - mind you mine was a very small contribution, but still. None of them referred to racism and none defied science (as far as I know). But here we have the flat out statement that even the "idea of typology" is "contrary". If it is, I've not noticed. Contrary to what? To a view that doesn't like types? I wonder.

Types are models we build ideas on. If it's a good model, it's a good thing. If not, bad things happen, sometimes. Agassiz, for all his contributions to biology, came up with a clinker in his idea of biological typology.

May we really say that there are zero elements found in the Old Testament that may be seen to prefigure ones found in the New Testament? Because that's my 'working definition' for types. What's yours, please?

Nothing wrong with types as a model; the notion of Jesus as the New Adam or as a living counter-example, is perfectly valid. God uses valid examples of that, in many, many ways.

Agassiz just picked up something that reinforced his Eurocentric idea of races, and of "types" as a forever locked separation of living things from each other.

 

[Sparkey]

The biological hypothesis of "typology" was based in an error

Ok, thanks. I thought I must have been misunderstanding you because most of the time (all the time?) you do make sense and are consistent. That thing about not understanding what a type was was in part my fault as I did not hear well enough that you were speaking about "biological hypothesis of 'typology'". Fact is, I've never heard of such a thing so pardon my speaking from ignorance, if you please.

"Types" and "typology" are two different, incompatible things, like "Creation" and "creationism."

Perhaps to a Biologist. I can't speak for them. But for a bible student? No. They are the same thing.

Here's some supportive evidence I found while wandering around with my friend, Mr. Google:

The word "type" is derived from a Greek term tupoV (tupos), which occurs 16 times in the New Testament. It is variously translated in the King James Version, e.g. twice "print" (John 20:25); twice "figure" (Acts 7:43; Romans 5:14); twice "pattern" (Titus 2:7; Hebrews 8:5); once "fashion" (Acts 7:44); once "manner" (Acts 23:25); once "form" (Romans 6:17); and seven times "example" (1 Corinthians 10:6,11; Philippians 3:17; 1 Thessalonians 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 3:9; 1 Timothy 4:12; 1 Peter 5:3).

It is clear from these texts that the New Testament writers use the word "type" with some degree of latitude; yet one general idea is common to all, namely, "likeness." A person, event or thing is so fashioned or appointed as to resemble another; the one is made to answer to the other in some essential feature; in some particulars the one matches the other. The two are called type and antitype; and the link which binds them together is the correspondence, the similarity, of the one with the other.

much more at: http://www.bible-researcher.com/type.html