Jump to content


Photo

Definition Of 'kind'

antelope falcon kind ark flood young earth bird genetic

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
32 replies to this topic

#21 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 10 May 2012 - 04:29 PM

There would be no need to flood the places where humans were not living in.

This is no rational argument. An unnecessary flood is not a non-existent flood

There is a plain and obvious meaning to erets in that context, given the whole point of the Flood.In a modern setting, 'erets' could mean 'Earth', because we humans have conquered the world. Yes, erets can refer to the planet, but most times it refers to land, as in 'kol erets'. Clearly used in Genesis! The purpose of the Flood was to do away with PEOPLE that made up the world, not the entire creation.The covenant between God and humans is symbolized by this natural phenomena. The passage states that the rainbow is a promise never to Flood all humanity again (the world). Have any worldwide floods happened since Noah's? No. Rainbows are not restricted to where humans are. It's a universal symbol of the covenant never to flood the world again.Besides, I agree 'erets' can mean the whole creation, but given the whole point of the Flood, I would say given the context it most certainly tells us it encompassed the entire area of land that defined world to the ancients.Nowhere in Psalm 104 does it describe the flood of Noah. It describes creation, in accordance with other verses about creation, but not the flood of Noah, as I have demonstrated.

Begging the question. Nothing you've said is evidence that does not rely entirely upon the assumption of your conclusion.

Only because we as humans have expanded over the entire planet, and now consider 'the planet' as 'the world'. 'The world' could be defined as wherever we live in or know. With the world wide web and aeroplanes and seaships, we have conquered the planet, and have just recently begun to think globally. Humans live on every continent today (Antarctica is the exception), but, say, 50,000-60,000 years ago, we would have all lived in the same areas, and thus the world would be that specific location. Nobody was living outside of 'the world', given its defining term, and thus the floodwaters, which covered all the world under all the heavens, would kill all people outside the ark.As I said before, in the future the definition of 'world' may be different. Just like in the past the definition of 'world' was different to the people living at that time.

Nonsense. Thirteen times "erets" was used to describe the Earth before people were created. The sun providing light to the Earth was one of those uses.

Dodge? Nonsense.

Actually, yeah. It was a dodge. Your response had nothing to do with the point.

Actually, floodwaters do not go over hills today.

Whyever not?

#22 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 10 May 2012 - 05:55 PM

Stripe:

This is no rational argument. An unnecessary flood is not a non-existent flood


Only if you don't know what the whole point of the Flood was.

Begging the question. Nothing you've said is evidence that does not rely entirely upon the assumption of your conclusion.


I think all those verses I put up are sufficient evidence that the Creation Psalm is actually referring to Creation. And the conclusion is not an 'assumption'. It's a conclusion based on the evidence I showed you. The whole point of the evidence was to validate my conclusion.

Nonsense. Thirteen times "erets" was used to describe the Earth before people were created. The sun providing light to the Earth was one of those uses.


I already explained that it doesn't matter, as the context is different. As you might see in the article I posted, 'Tebel' is used extensively to describe Creation, but never the Flood.
Besides, proof that it is in a different context lies in the fact that there were no people during the appearance of the sun. There was no human world back then.

Actually, yeah. It was a dodge. Your response had nothing to do with the point.


What are you talking about? It had everything to do with the point. You said I ought to believe rainbows only occured where there were people, then I told you why I don't think so. Rainbows happen all over the planet. It's a universal symbol of the covenant. They were occuring prior to this symbolism as well.

Whyever not?


Because, as I said, the Genesis Flood was significantly larger than any local floods today. This was massive in comparison to floods that happen in the present day.

#23 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 10 May 2012 - 06:43 PM

Only if you don't know what the whole point of the Flood was.

It's a complete non-sequitur.

Arguing that the flood was not global because it only had to wipe out every person is an argument without any rational value.

#24 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 10 May 2012 - 07:29 PM

Stripe,
You seem not to understand the point of my argument. I was saying that since the point of the Flood was to drown out humans, there would be no need to flood the areas they did not live in. It just so happens humans were living in a relatively low area (either Caspian sea drainage basin or Mesopotamia). Given the evidence I presented to you that it's most likely humans did not spread out over the entire planet (reasons 1 and 2 below), there would be absolutely no need to kill off the penguins and the pandas.

Reasons I believe the Flood to be local.
1) humans migrated in ONE DIRECTION after the Fall.
2) humans would have stayed together before the Flood, relatively close to each other.
3) there would have been too many animals to put on the ark.
4) Psalm 104 eliminates the possibility of the Flood being global.
5) 2 Peter 3 says the world AT THAT TIME was flooded, implying the world had a different range. There was, for example, no Rome, Greece, or Persia.
6) There is no evidence for massive post-Flood migrations of fauna to Australia, Madagascar, or South America. The fauna here appear to have been in isolation for millions of years.
7) it does not explain geologic succession. Certain ammonite/nautilus shell designs appear in the fossil record, individual to certain layers. The flood wouldn't have sorted animals by the patterns on their shells. This and other examples of faunal succession.
8) God has told us to look at nature (if you'll read my signature) and from it we will learn. Things are clearly seen. Scientists have determined the universe is old due to things like dedochronology, continental drift, fossil record, meteor impacts, linguistics, genetics, astronomy, ancient artifacts, craters, temperature fluctuations, expansion of the universe, star formation, protoplanetary disks, protogalaxies, white dwarfs, speed of light, radiometric dating, red shift, distribution of fauna over the continents, coprolites, dinosaur eggs, the grand canyon, chalk layers, etc.

Young earth creation 'science' came about as to explain away how all these clearly seen things are wrong (like the RATE project, which took six years to 'prove' radiometric dating was invalid, even though the methods they used were flawed), as it starts with a particular conclusion and tries fitting in evidence for it, rather than finding the evidence that would determine their conclusion. A friend I debated said no matter what evidence I presented, it would not change their mind because the Bible said the universe was created in six literal days and was about six thousand years old. No matter what Biblical or scientific evidence I would present would not change their minds, because they started with the preconcieved notion the Bible supported a young earth due to a poor misinterpretation.
I'm not saying you're like that. I hope you're more open to what I have to say. However, I'm making the point that starting with the interpretation without evidence, then trying to find evidence to support the conclusion, is just bad reasoning.

#25 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 11 May 2012 - 12:32 AM

since the point of the Flood was to drown out humans, there would be no need to flood the areas they did not live in.

This is a complete non-sequitur.

Arguing that the flood was not global because it only had to wipe out every person is an argument without any rational value.

1) humans migrated in ONE DIRECTION after the Fall.

Speculation.

2) humans would have stayed together before the Flood, relatively close to each other.

Speculation.

4) Psalm 104 eliminates the possibility of the Flood being global.

Or it directly corroborates the promise given at the end of the flood.


starting with the interpretation without evidence, then trying to find evidence to support the conclusion, is just bad reasoning.

I don't think you're in any position to talk about reasoning.

#26 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 11 May 2012 - 12:35 AM

They didn't spread out after the Flood. They clung together right up until Babel.


Who cares what they did after the flood???

They could have jumped up on top of each other in a big pile on a football field after the flood, but this concerns whether or not they were spread out before the flood, or am it missing something?

The entire environment would have been completely changed after the flood. If the original environment was less hostile than the post flood environment had become then I would think that 1,500 years is an incredible stretch of time for people to be huddled together.

#27 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 11 May 2012 - 11:09 AM

Who cares what they did after the flood???

They could have jumped up on top of each other in a big pile on a football field after the flood, but this concerns whether or not they were spread out before the flood, or am it missing something?


Let me quote your previous statement:

No it's not doubtless. What I doubt is that they would cling together when they were told not to:


In Genesis 9, God commands Noah to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth. What happens in the narrative right after the Flood? Babel. They DID cling together when told not to. Which leads me to think that the command was fulfilled later. Adam (humanity) has now spread out across the planet, thus fulfilling God's command.

The entire environment would have been completely changed after the flood. If the original environment was less hostile than the post flood environment had become then I would think that 1,500 years is an incredible stretch of time for people to be huddled together.


If you had read my previous thread (post flood migration) you would need to have rather habitable conditions almost immediately after the Flood in order to have the animals migrate to their current positions at all. Therefore, animals would all stick together in the face of such post-Flood conditions and wouldn't migrate until the people at Babel were able to. It's a horrible inconsistency. Besides, there's a lot of factors involved in migration, not just environment. Environment alone wouldn't pressure people to move across the planet so rapidly.

If you'll read Genesis about Babel, you'll see that the people were constructing a huge city. I find it unlikely that people would have had the time to worry about building a city, given the harsh post-Flood conditions in the global flood model. They did not cling together because they were faced with cataclysmic conditions, they clung together because they were afraid of being scattered.

Genesis 11:
Then they said to each other, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

The city was not a means of defense against earthquakes or ice ages. The purpose was so that they could make a name for themselves and so they could stay in a single spot. They did not want to be scattered over the face of the Earth.

This is a complete non-sequitur.

Arguing that the flood was not global because it only had to wipe out every person is an argument without any rational value.


My point was that people would have most likely inhabited a certain region. The point of the Flood was to drown out all people. The interpretation that 'erets' means 'human world' applies here.

In response to my claim that people would have migrated in one direction:

Speculation.


It's not speculation. It's supported by the following:

Genesis 3:24
After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
Genesis 4:16
So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

So Adam and Eve went east from the garden. Cain also went east of the garden (although in a slightly different location) in the land of Nod. Nowhere does it mention worldwide migrations of several million/billion people to fill up the planet within 1,500 years. People moved eastward. If Eden was in Tabriz, and if people migrated eastward, it would just so happen that they would end up in the Caspian sea drainage basin. (in fact, the garden of Eden was destroyed by the Flood, so even if they stayed in the garden the flood would have destroyed them). If humans spread all over the planet in all directions from Eden, it would be unlikely God would position the cherubim facing eastward only.

As you can see, my claims are not based on speculation.

In response to my statement about Psalm 104:

Or it directly corroborates the promise given at the end of the flood.


It better fits in the context of creation. In fact, the verses immediately before describe God laying down the foundations of the Earth. The context is obvous here. The floodwaters would not have been global, and it goes perfectly with the other verses describing creation.
The simple and obvious interpretation is that God marked the boundaries that the waters could not cross during creation, then when humans came along he wanted to be done with them and their sin (except for Noah). He caused a huge regional flood that covered the entire human world, the entire extent of their range, and only Noah was saved. Then God promised he would never flood the human world again. To this day, no flood that killed all humans has occured. In our present day, the 'world' would mean the globe, as we humans have conquered the globe, but in the past, the 'world' would carry a different meaning. It really is simple.
Unless people lived all over the planet, there would be no point to killing off all the wildlife that inhabited other continents. Humans tend to congregate in places like valleys and basins. This would have been an easy place to flood.
Besides, the Bible says God sent a wind to cause the waters to recede. This would work well with a local flood (to disperse the waters and cause them to lower) but not a worldwide flood, as the water would have no place to go.

#28 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 11 May 2012 - 12:01 PM

In Genesis 9, God commands Noah to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth. What happens in the narrative right after the Flood? Babel. They DID cling together when told not to. Which leads me to think that the command was fulfilled later. Adam (humanity) has now spread out across the planet, thus fulfilling God's command.


Well, I think you better quote my previous statement AGAIN, because you don't seem to realize that what I commented on has nothing to do with what happened after the flood, but rather before the flood:

"God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Genesis 1:28!

My comment in this thread had nothing to do with what happened after the flood.

I just find it totally absurd that anyone would think that Genesis 6 describes a local flood in a gigantic basin with mountains in it.

If God wanted to preserve the animals living in that region by sending them to Noah, then why didn't he just send them out of the region?

Why didn't he send Noah and his family out of the region?

Why would God make a point of describing how high the waters rose above mountains that were so low that they would be situated in a basin and covered by a local flood?

This is obviously just another attempt to rewrite the Bible to suit contemporary ideas about what mankind thinks happened in the past.

#29 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 12 May 2012 - 11:25 AM

Well, I think you better quote my previous statement AGAIN, because you don't seem to realize that what I commented on has nothing to do with what happened after the flood, but rather before the flood:


You didn't get my point.
You yourself said that you doubted they would do something they were told not to do.
You pointed out Genesis 1:28, which basically says the exact same thing as Genesis 9. My point was as God's command was practically an echo of the one given to Adam, I thought that this would mean the command was to be fulfilled later. God merely wanted humans to spread throughout the world, and we have. It doesn't matter if humanity's populations were relatively small prior to the Flood, as the command was fulfilled anyway!

"God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

I just find it totally absurd that anyone would think that Genesis 6 describes a local flood in a gigantic basin with mountains in it.


You're entitled to your own opinion, but the Caspian sea drainage basin does have mountains in it, or at least high hills that would be considered mountains. Even without flooding, the Caspian sea is large enough so that if you were in the middle you wouldn't see land for miles around. Imagine if it flooded. In fact, it has flooded before. That's why it's called a drainage basin.
Back then, it wouldn't have been local. Flooding of this proportion would qualify as universal, or worldwide.

If God wanted to preserve the animals living in that region by sending them to Noah, then why didn't he just send them out of the region?


It would take hundreds of years for the wildlife to fill the region again. Besides, Noah would have a problem with no food on the ark, and nothing to hunt after the flood.

Why didn't he send Noah and his family out of the region?


Because the people would simply follow. The ark was Noah's platform to preach to the people and in the hope that they would be saved.

Why would God make a point of describing how high the waters rose above mountains that were so low that they would be situated in a basin and covered by a local flood?


The flood was HUGE. Do you know how vast the Caspian sea drainage basin is?
The waters DID rise twenty feet above all the high hills/mountains. The Caspian sea is the perfect place to have a flood.

This is obviously just another attempt to rewrite the Bible to suit contemporary ideas about what mankind thinks happened in the past.


We're not rewriting the Bible. If you really want to go literal, modern-day terms, you'll have to believe the Earth is flat and the sun goes around the earth. Yes, 'chuwg', which means 'circle', in Hebrew, can also mean 'sphere', just as 'Yom' can have different meanings. Organizations like Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International parade about the young earth idea like it's the infallible Word of God. The truth is, it's just their interpretation.

#30 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 13 May 2012 - 01:51 AM

You yourself said that you doubted they would do something they were told not to do.


No, I did not say that at all. My original post was in response to your assertion that people "undoubtedly" clung together. I maintain that there actually is an element of doubt based on the fact that there happened to be a commandment to do the exact opposite of clinging together. Whether or not they did obey that command is open to speculation, but it cannot be ignored.

You pointed out Genesis 1:28, which basically says the exact same thing as Genesis 9


Yes, the verses say the same thing. So what? The pre- and post-flood environments were not the same, so you cannot draw any conclusions about what the pre-flood population would do, based on what the post-flood population did. If the post-flood environment was dramatically more hostile than the pre-flood environment, then clinging together may have provided survival benefits that were not necessary before the flood.

I thought that this would mean the command was to be fulfilled later. God merely wanted humans to spread throughout the world, and we have. It doesn't matter if humanity's populations were relatively small prior to the Flood, as the command was fulfilled anyway


The fulfillment of the command has very little to do with whether or not the pre-flood population would "undoubtedly" be huddled in a floodable region for a period of 1,500 years. I have never claimed that the commandment was fulfilled pre-flood. We don't know whether or not it was simply because that entire population (minus 8) was destroyed. We also don't know what kind of topography existed during that time, or what the "map of the world" looked like back then - i.e. whether it was separated into different continents as we see today. In the creation account the waters were gathered "in one place", and so the idea that God would unnecessarily be flooding remote, unpopulated regions may not have been an issue back then.

It would take hundreds of years for the wildlife to fill the region again.


I don't get your point. How does putting them together on an ark solve that problem? If God supernaturally gathered the animals then he could have supernaturally dispersed them. If anything, singling out pairs of animals to preserve each species would take much longer than just dispersing whole flocks out of the region.

Besides, Noah would have a problem with no food on the ark, and nothing to hunt after the flood.


Surely that would hardly be an insurmountable problem compared to all the technical problems of maintaining life on the ark and so on, especially if Noah just left the region.

Because the people would simply follow. The ark was Noah's platform to preach to the people and in the hope that they would be saved.


So the people who ignored Noah's pleading would for some obscure reason decide to follow him? Why on earth would they follow him? I would have thought they would be too busy huddling together to follow someone they obviously ignored.

Yes, 'chuwg', which means 'circle', in Hebrew, can also mean 'sphere', just as 'Yom' can have different meanings.


Which is why we need to study the context in order to determine which words to use. Wouldn't you agree? The word 'chuwg' is used in a "poetic" comparison between our perspective, and God's. Genesis is written in the form of an account and there is nothing in the context there that suggests that 'Yom' is anything other than a 24-hour period.

#31 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 14 May 2012 - 09:20 AM

It's not speculation.

It is speculation. The direction in which the first people left the garden brings no limit on how far men might spread from there. Nor does it limit in which direction they might go.

There is no reason, even pretending your set of speculations are accurate, to therefore conclude that the global flood was not what it is clearly presented as being. I.e. global.

In response to my statement about Psalm 104:

After the flood the promise was made that no more would the waters return to destroy all life. That makes the passage in Psalm 104 point directly to the flood. Your insistence that this passage must only refer to the first couple of days of creation is necessitated by your insistence that the flood is only local.

What you need is good reason to reject a global flood, not continued insistence that your opinion trumps the plain teaching of the bible.

Unless people lived all over the planet, there would be no point to killing off all the wildlife that inhabited other continents.

As has been pointed out, this argument is a complete non-sequitur. That a gobal flood might have been unnecessary (by your view) is no evidence that it is fictional.

What you need is a rational argument. So far, you haven't got anything.

#32 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 14 May 2012 - 09:32 AM

Let's compare Genesis 7 with Genesis 1:

Genesis 7:17-19
17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.

Genesis 1:9-10
9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.


Note the underlined phrases. That which God created, He also destroyed.

The arguments for a local flood necessarily rely upon myopic insistence of the value of a few vague concepts and wooden translation of a few key words. Within these arguments lie no compelling reasons to doubt that which is plainly presented.

#33 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 16 May 2012 - 09:57 AM

Nothing in the Deuteronomy chapter fourteen quote defines "kind". There are some stipulations that a particular beast is clean or unclean "after its kind" meaning all of the offspring of any generative path.
But, the phrase "after its kind" shows that other references such as "owl" may not be all owls since "owls after its kind" is not stipulated.

The thing I note as to why a beast is an abominable thing to eat is, not that it is a particular kind (although as I point out already, that if stipulated ,then it is) but, that it is that, what is important is the metaphor of a particular behaviour of a beast is in view, or that, a metaphoric meaning being taught by the very nature of a particular beasts "form and behaviour" is the important issue.

That is, if one is divided in his stance he must also be careful in his consderation of his accepted beliefs, and conclusions. (that being the situation of all men since, we know not all right ways or conclusions)

If one is divided in his stance and can go as needed (no prior bias) and yet, not careful as though a man were thought to be "chewing the cud" (metaphor of meditation upon a word) then, one is lost because he can choose no path to right conclusions.

And, but, if one meditates carefully but is obstinant in his way then his meditation cannot effect change.

Thus we see that spiritual lack of wisdom of either singular kind of error leads to corruption.
And so, the end result must naturally be abominable conclusions.

Admittedly most men don't know what scripture, or nature is saying.but I thought it important here since there was a misuse of the scripture as a definer of kind. Compare to all man kind among which some are abominable and others not.
I didn't mention the obvious reason why the carrion eaters and meat eaters are not appropriate for diet within the construct of spiritual teaching.

Its interesting how certain modern mythological scientific viewpoints exemplify this very abominable trait to be avoided.
For many modern false science adherents are great meditators but, are obstinate in their way and refuse to have no bias (split hoof).
And, many modern false religion adherents are biased as well.
That is, it is an abomination to eat things of the world, the earth, without both, chewing the cud of the matter, and also allowing for truth no matter where it leads.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: antelope, falcon, kind, ark, flood, young earth, bird, genetic

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users