The discussion regarding what the Bible says about "kinds" includes the Hebrew meaning of the word kind. That word means, "to portion out". This concept includes the barriers that have been set between each kind that God describes. It is significant that the phrase “after his kind” occurs ten times in the first chapter of Genesis. Whatever precisely is meant by the term “kind” (Hebrew
mîn or
mîyn), it does indicate the limitations of variation.
By the way, I have not asked how many times the word "kind" was used in the Bible. What I asked (check again, Mr. Sensitive) was how many kinds of organisms are listed in the Bible? The answer to
that question sets up the minimum number of times that the Lord portioned out and placed instruction barriers into the various kinds of organisms.
I drew the above picture many years ago and trust that you've seen it before. If I were to redraw it today I might replace the "All Animals" with "All Living Organisms" to include the 'portionings' that God placed into plants as well as the ones that have been included in animals. The word species would NOT be used because it was substituted for the Hebrew word that means "kind" and its origin is from the Latin: 1545–55; < Latin ( in )
speciē (in) kind. The concept of "fixity of species" persisted in the minds of scientists and laymen for some time, despite the narrower definition of species later adopted. This has added to the confusion that centers on what God has declared and has not helped to clarify things.
One should not insist that "kind" means species. The phylogenetic tree of evolutionary biology certainly isn't mentioned in the Bible. In point of fact, we see that God has placed boundaries between kinds when he said "like shall produce like" and whatnot.
Or am I putting words in your mouth when i repeat what I think you mean above? Please correct me here if so.
cupid dave, no need to ask "please" here, but "please" accept the correction. What you state when you try to "pigeon hole" a reply that is made to the thread (and not to you, specifically) is not what I mean at all. Who mentioned "spontaneous generation," for instance? And what was my response? I asked (and am willing to wait for) another Member to respond.
You've heard his reply before, there is no need to pretend you haven't.
In the absence of the ability to directly observe life in its original form, I see no reason that science in general or anyone should attempt to refute what God has clearly declared. Although an exception could be made for those who place blinders on and declare that if they don't see it, it isn't there, there is no such exemption for the Christian. Well, not in my mind, anyway.
If people who are in the business of classification would like to attempt to "reverse engineer" the process by observing things today and then making up rules that show how one "species" may or may not combine with another to reproduce young, for example, humans can not reproduce with frogs but african human populations may successfully reproduce with European human populations, therefore humans and humans are, but humans and frogs are not? This is NOT in the Bible. It may be true but we need to see what God has said before we go froggy and jump to our foregone conclusion.
What is? Well, let's see, shall we?
"In Scripture, the term kind is used rather than the term species for categories of animals. For example, in Genesis 1:24: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." The phrase "after his kind" signifies that a distinction exists between kinds and that each kind carries the genetic information necessary for the production of descendants."
In an Institute for Creation Research article by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D, *Dr. Vardiman is Director of Research.
Cite this article: Vardiman, L. 2008. Can Divergent Species of Snakes Interbreed? Acts & Facts. 37 (8): 6.
This should serve as a starting point. The bible does list several kinds, but there are relatively few (less than a hundred). Barbarian has already pointed to the fact that an argument might be raised about one "kind," those who have the ability to fly. When God Portioned out, part of what He did was give the ability to fly to various "kinds" and the reference to those kinds includes the instructions about how to fly. This was not given to other "kinds" such as cattle or beasts or fish or those what crawl. It does show though that reproductive information is not necessarily all that God has done. But of course, this is true, now isn't it? It is interesting that God claims to be the direct author of the various means of locution and that each type of animal is portioned out according to their means of travel. But that is not the only criterion that was used. Notice also that God commanded the Earth (or the "eretz") to do it. This is not "spontaneous generation". It is what I like to call the "eretz generation command" or the 'Barbarian response to
ex nihilo', but and again, I don't mind waiting for our resident expert to reply here.
"... A finite number a discrete organisms that diversified..."
That is supported by evolution. I would actually say it isevolution. In fact, it is stated by almostevery "start up" story I ever heard. Whether it be a beaver, turtle, or warrior.
Although I would agree with your statement that evolution supports a finite number of discrete organisms, we would part ways when we consider the actual number. The Bible does not list the boundaries that have been placed between organisms in the same manner that evolution does. Further, there is no allegation that any of "one kind" has ever produced any other kind. In fact, God has declared it to be quite to the contrary. We could continue our game of semantics here and try to further refine what is meant by 'discrete' and 'diversity' but I'm gonna trust the one who has the most to lose to do that.
~Sparrow
"The Bible never claims to be a textbook on history or science, but if God is who He claims to be, then He has all knowledge and power, and never makes mistakes. Therefore, if the Bible is the Word of God, then it must be truthful, even when it touches upon matters of history and science. Otherwise, this Creator God is a liar. The very character of God requires the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be a trustworthy record."
http://www.icr.org/article/4824/
I agree (with the exception that my presumption would be indicated, not that God has or even could lie, for He is Holy, Holy, Holy -->
kadosh, kadosh, kadosh <--- and utterly apart from sin). Therefore I see no reason to change things or twist them. In fact, as we continue to understand what God has declared it will prove very helpful, not only to Christians but also to Science.
