38
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: + + + + +
Talk:Genesis 1-8 (Translated) (view source)
Revision as of 18:40, November 21, 2009
, 18:40, November 21, 2009→baramin
Not to worry. I left a link to [[Baraminology]] and a full explanation of where that name comes from. "Kind" is correct; it is the word that [[God]] actually used, or at least how it translated. But everyone will know what we mean by that, especially after we write the commentary.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 18:30, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
Not to worry. I left a link to [[Baraminology]] and a full explanation of where that name comes from. "Kind" is correct; it is the word that [[God]] actually used, or at least how it translated. But everyone will know what we mean by that, especially after we write the commentary.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 18:30, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
I just read a lot of the discussion concerning "baraminology" on Conservapedia. What it comes down to is just how much of a scientific work is the Bible? And is the use of the term "baraminology" justified? While in its defense, its said that baraminology is a new system of classification, it does seem kind of confused. The "holobaramin" of dogs is said to include all canids, which were descended from the "two individuals taken aboard the Ark". Since canids include foxes, wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs, dholes, cape hunting dogs, etc., then it would appear that baraminology accepts the idea of speciation - which another article in Conservapedia confirms. So the holobaramin of canids includes all species of canids which speciated or evolved from the Noachian two. Or did some of them speciate from species that speciated from the original two? From the holobaramin, we go "up", to the apobaramin, which are groups of holobaramins. The article on baraminology states that the holobaramins of wolves and humans are grouped in one apobaramin. Since the holobaramin involves species which speciated from the original two or from those which speciated from the original two, is such a biological relationship implied for the groups in a apobaramin? What exactly determines membership in a holobaramin, or a apobaramin? And why bother coming up with "baraminology", when the classification system of kingdom, phylum, class, order, etc., works perfectly well? If the answer is that this implies evolutionary relationships, then so does baraminology when you get down to it.
Getting back to the first question, how scientific is the Bible, I examined that with my discussions of the expanse and of the tannin. But researching baraminology led me to "classification system" on Conservapedia, where it stated that the Biblical reference to bats as birds was based on the Bible "using a different classification system", the "flying creatures" level of baramin. The verse where bats are "classified" with birds is Leviticus 11:19 (and Deuteronomy 14:18). This verse is in the section of Leviticus forbidding the eating of unclean birds. Another verse in this section, 16, lists "the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk" (KJV) The JPS translates verse 16 as "the ostrich, the night hawk, the sea gull and hawks of every kind". The discrepancy is obvious: Owls and ostriches may both be birds - of course, according to the statement in Conservapedia, the ostrich wouldn't be a bird, since it is not a "flying creature" - but they are very different. Looking at the Hebrew, we see that ostrich is yaen, while owl is yaanah, which is the feminine form of yaen. The Hebrew for hawk is tachmas, which comes from chamas, to be violent, and, Strong's Concordance says, can mean either owl or hawk. But the Hebrew for hawk can also be nets, from natsats, to glare or be brightly colored. What's interesting, is that nets can also mean flower; and in Job 15:33, the term nitsah - the feminine of nets - is used for flower. The Hebrew for cuckoo or gull is shachaph, to peel or be emaciated. From this we can see that the words for these animals is based not on scientific rigor, but is rather more descriptive of these animals. Both owls and hawks are violent in their attack, and both merit the word tachmas, which has nothing to do with their biological relationship. An owl is also termed a yaanah, the feminine of yaen - again, perhaps descriptive - an owl is a feminine ostrich - but of course it is not biologically correct. And then we get to the word nets used for both hawk and flower, which may be highly descriptive of both as colorful, but hardly signifies a close relationship in any classification system. - Danielitld
== 3:14 ==
== 3:14 ==