Kind vs. Species

[angellous_evangellous]

Perhaps, like I have, you should grab a degree in Engineering or geology before discussing the age of the Earth.

A degree in biblical interpretation or theology would also be helpful before talking about those topics as well.

 

[Endless]

For someone who accepts that the earth is 7000 years old, it is absolutely meaningless to talk about "logical assumptions." Logical analysis only applies to conclusions that come from logic.

Yes, and logic would assume that since the Bible gives a chronology with ages of the people going back to the creation of the word from a known date, that logically this must be the date that the Bible says the earth is. Or is that not logical enough for you?

Jerry, your post is meaningless. I said a kind could be defined at the genetic level - i never said it would be. I said it is not yet possible to do this, nor will it ever likely be so -because of the sheer amount of data that would be involved compared to the man power. If your understanding of genetics is anything like your understanding of geology and how radiodating actually works then it's no wonder you see things in this light. Why must it be defined genetically? Because it's quantitative.

 

[Opethian]

Microbiology uses genetics to define species and genuses, using GC percentages and hybridisation techniques.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, and logic would assume that since the Bible gives a chronology with ages of the people going back to the creation of the word from a known date, that logically this must be the date that the Bible says the earth is. Or is that not logical enough for you?

Logic makes no assumptions.

The most appropriate thing to do with the genealogies of the Bible is to compare them to the mythological Babylonian king lists so that we can reasonably interpret them for what they are. So no, it's not logical that the Bible is saying that the earth is a certain age. The chronologies are wholly unrelated to the age of the earth.

 

[Endless]

We assume that our logic is correct - therefore the outcome of the logic train of thought is technically an asumption. Anyway that's just getting picky.

The most appropriate thing to do with the genealogies of the Bible is to compare them to the mythological Babylonian king lists so that we can reasonably interpret them for what they are. So no, it's not logical that the Bible is saying that the earth is a certain age. The chronologies are wholly unrelated to the age of the earth.

Sorry, that's not logical - why would you use another mythological writing to interpret what the Bible means by its chronologies? No, the chronologies trace back to Adam therefore you can calculate the date of the time of Adam, which according to the Bible is the age of the earth. This is the logical train of thought - and people have followed it and given an age for the earth according to the Bible. It is highly illogical to use another unrelated mythological writing to try and make the Bible mean something that it doesn't say.
Tell me this, if you only had access to the Bible and had not learnt anything about evolution or the age of the earth, what would your logical line of thought be in order to find the age of the earth using the Bible? This is the logic.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

We assume that our logic is correct - therefore the outcome of the logic train of thought is technically an asumption. Anyway that's just getting picky.

If we don't know what logic is, how can we use it?

Sorry, that's not logical - why would you use another mythological writing to interpret what the Bible means by its chronologies? No, the chronologies trace back to Adam therefore you can calculate the date of the time of Adam, which according to the Bible is the age of the earth. This is the logical train of thought - and people have followed it and given an age for the earth according to the Bible. It is highly illogical to use another unrelated mythological writing to try and make the Bible mean something that it doesn't say.

It most certainly is logical. The reason why we use other mythological writings to help us interpret the Bible is because it is more responsible to compare it with like writings than to dissimilar writings (like a modern geology book, for example). We actually have almost identical Babylonian king lists from the same time period, and it is the epitome of foolish incompentence to interpret the genealogies of Genesis without considering the like writings from the same time period. They aren't unrelated! They are almost identical!

Tell me this, if you only had access to the Bible and had not learnt anything about evolution or the age of the earth, what would your logical line of thought be in order to find the age of the earth using the Bible? This is the logic.

The thing is, neither us nor the early readers/writers had access only to the Bible. It is evident that they had access to the Babylonian king lists or their source. I'll try to find the lists online for you as you have obviously failed to do any research whatsoever on both the nature of logic and the topic at hand.

To use logic, you must insert proper data into the logical apparatus. You have perversely failed to do so. Your logic has failed.

EDIT: The king lists are directly related to the Genesis geneaologies because they have the same names in the same order, in relation to a flood, and the kings lived a very long time. The relationship is quite obvious.

 

[Endless]

Like they say, 'Garbage in, Garbage out'.

Tell me this - which was copied from which? How about we now study the Gilgamesh account of the flood as well - perhaps we should interpret the biblical account according to that? Maybe we should interpret kinds by that too.
The thing you have to do is find out which came first - whether they did indeed have access or whether it was 2 separate accounts. I'm not about to get into a debate off topic about history. Save to say that if you are going to try and interpret the Biblical definition of kinds, it helps to try and understand it within the context of the Bible. So the Bible according to the chronologies would make the earth out to be ~7000yrs old. This is what the people reading the chronologies would have been lead to believe - therefore either way, we understand kind within this context.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Like they say, 'Garbage in, Garbage out'.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Tell me this - which was copied from which? How about we now study the Gilgamesh account of the flood as well - perhaps we should interpret the biblical account according to that? Maybe we should interpret kinds by that too. The thing you have to do is find out which came first - whether they did indeed have access or whether it was 2 separate accounts

The Babylonian tablets are dated before any Hebrew texts, so it is fairly certain that they came first. That is, there is no evidence that indicates that the biblical story pre-dates the Babylonian myth. This means that either the Hebrews copied the Babylonian creation story, king lists, and flood myth directly into their story or took the stories from a common source.

Yes, we should interpret "kinds" as part of a myth, which is why this little discussion is on topic.

Save to say that if you are going to try and interpret the Biblical definition of kinds, it helps to try and understand it within the context of the Bible.

If we can identify mythology that pre-dates or is contemporary with the Genesis accounts, then it does provide context for the reading of the text and helps us to classify it. It means that it is the hieght of irresponsibility to interpret the myths of Genesis as we would a modern science book.

So the Bible according to the chronologies would make the earth out to be ~7000yrs old. This is what the people reading the chronologies would have been lead to believe - therefore either way, we understand kind within this context.

The western mind is the only one that I know of that has engaged in such foolishness.

 

[Endless]

Garbage in, Garbage out is a phrase used in Computing. If you put the wrong stuff in, then although the logic is correct you are most certainly going to get the wrong answer.

The Babylonian tablets are dated before any Hebrew texts, so it is fairly certain that they came first.

That's an interpretation of the facts. We have found an older copy of the Sumerian tablets compared to the oldest copy of the Biblical text. That is not to say that the Biblical text was not around first - we just don't have the copy in existance today. From the accounts it is fairly obvious to me that the Biblical account is far superior historically. The Gilgamesh account writes like a myth or story from the time, and seems like a distortion of the original biblical account. I would say it was maybe oral tradition amoung those people and hence had got distorted to fit in with their Gods etc. But of course i'm working for the view point that the Bible is correct and the flood actually happened.
You believe what you will, but you take a step of faith when you regard the tablets being older than the origin of the Genesis account - i see the superiority of the Genesis accounts, why would they have borrowed a Babylonian myth...makes no sense. Genesis account gives matter of fact accounts of direction to places that now no longer exist. The ages of the kings are more realistic than the 1000s of years in the Sumerian king list...average of about 30,000yrs for a reign That is pushing it.

There is good reason to believe that the scribe copied from an early tablet and made an error by mistaking the ages to be in a sexagesimal system (there were two systems - an earlier and then a later one). If the earlier one is followed then it is pretty much equivalent to the Biblical account.
Being the case this supports the fact that the Biblical account of Genesis was in existance at the time. The chances of a later historical guess at more realistic ages of Kings are zero that they would correspond with the ages given using the earlier counting system.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Garbage in, Garbage out is a phrase used in Computing. If you put the wrong stuff in, then although the logic is correct you are most certainly going to get the wrong answer.

Ok. We're on the same page then.

That's an interpretation of the facts.

Of course it's an intepretation of the facts. It is a reasonable and logical interpretation of the facts, which is not what we see below.

We have found an older copy of the Sumerian tablets compared to the oldest copy of the Biblical text. That is not to say that the Biblical text was not around first - we just don't have the copy in existance today. From the accounts it is fairly obvious to me that the Biblical account is far superior historically.

Yes, you are right, the facts do not mean that the Biblical text was not around first, but it does mean that they were certainly around later. This means that your following conclusions are not related to the evidence.

We do have copies of both texts around today. One is older by thousands of years than the other. On what basis do you conclude that the much younger text is superior to the much older text when they address the same topics?

The Gilgamesh account writes like a myth or story from the time, and seems like a distortion of the original biblical account.

In what way?

I would say it was maybe oral tradition amoung those people and hence had got distorted to fit in with their Gods etc. But of course i'm working for the view point that the Bible is correct and the flood actually happened.

I didn't say that a flood didn't happen. It is reasonable, IMHO, to believe that an ancient flood happened in the ancient world, and a group of people had myths about it. However, it is not necessary for a flood to have happened for several groups to have a story about it. BTW, there is archeological evidence for a localized flood in the region, but not for other areas that have flood myths. So it can go either way...

You believe what you will, but you take a step of faith when you regard the tablets being older than the origin of the Genesis account - i see the superiority of the Genesis accounts, why would they have borrowed a Babylonian myth...makes no sense. Genesis account gives matter of fact accounts of direction to places that now no longer exist.

You're right. Your conclusions do not come from logic, so they do not make sense. Your conclusions come from a dogmatic misinterpretation of the text and not logic, so a logical evaluation of your opinion is non-sensical. Well put.

The ages of the kings are more realistic than the 1000s of years in the Sumerian king list...average of about 30,000yrs for a reign That is pushing it.

You're right. Like Genesis, the kings lived a freaking long time. That's why we don't interpret them literally but like the myths that we know that they are.

There is good reason to believe that the scribe copied from an early tablet and made an error by mistaking the ages to be in a sexagesimal system (there were two systems - an earlier and then a later one). If the earlier one is followed then it is pretty much equivalent to the Biblical account.
Being the case this supports the fact that the Biblical account of Genesis was in existance at the time. The chances of a later historical guess at more realistic ages of Kings are zero that they would correspond with the ages given using the earlier counting system.

Where did you come up with this?

 

[JerryL]

Yes, and logic would assume that

logic doesn't assume.

Jerry, your post is meaningless. I said a kind could be defined at the genetic level

No, you said "The only way a 'kind' could be defined would be at the genetic level"

Can you not remember your own quotes or are you just lying?

I said it is not yet possible to do this, nor will it ever likely be so

Actually, you put that it was impossible to define kind *before* you brought up genetics. You then proceeded to define kind. Your post is self-contrary.

If your understanding of genetics is anything like your understanding of geology and how radiodating actually works then it's no wonder you see things in this light. Why must it be defined genetically? Because it's quantitative.

So is defining "kind" by color. Tell me how we know it's not "by color"...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

logic doesn't assume

That's what I said!:biglaugh:

Logic makes no assumptions.

To which I got this:

We assume that our logic is correct - therefore the outcome of the logic train of thought is technically an asumption. Anyway that's just getting picky.

 

[JerryL]

Tell me this - which was copied from which?

Noah was copied from Giglgamesh. In addition to the fact that the writings themselves are more consistant (and that the story of Gilgamesh is more consistant with Babylonian mythology than Noah with prophetic Judaism, there's the matter of local.

Around 5500BCE, with rising sea levels in the Med, the Bosphorous portal flooded and the indegenious people fled. One of those groups fled into what became Babylon. The story they tell (particualrly the dating by line of kings) and the fact that they are decended from the Black Sea groups (there's a sudden change in styles in the area after the flood) strongly indicates that the story of the flood of Gilgamesh is the fictionalization of the flooding of the Black Sea.

The Babylonians, and the the Persians, conqured the Isrealits (likely descendants of the Hittites). When they did, the Isrealites began to incorporate Babylonian and then Persian beliefs into their own (it's no coincidence that Shatan (he who opposes) shows up in Hebrew writings after the arrivial of the dualistic Zoroastrians, and takes the form of the snake, the symbol of Babylon)

How about we now study the Gilgamesh account of the flood as well - perhaps we should interpret the biblical account according to that? Maybe we should interpret kinds by that too.

According to the story, the Gods became jealous of men, and upset with their ways. They tried plagues and fire and all sorts of stuff but mankind was resistant. So the Gods decided to flood the world. One of the gods, who liked man, decided to save mankind; so she taught Gilgamesh how to build an ark and protect his family. He took animals with him, particualarly sacrifical animals (Gods like sacrifices) and the Gods flooded the world. Only then the Gods missed the sacrifices and man. The Goddess said that she could restore man but only if the gods promised to never again try to wipe all the men out. They agreed and the flood eneded. Gilgamesh sacrificed animals to the Gods who were again happy, and the goddess took off her jeweled necklace and threw it in the air (the first rainbow) as a sign, when it rains or floods, that the Gods remember their promise not to killl everyone.

The thing you have to do is find out which came first - whether they did indeed have access or whether it was 2 separate accounts. I'm not about to get into a debate off topic about history. Save to say that if you are going to try and interpret the Biblical definition of kinds, it helps to try and understand it within the context of the Bible. So the Bible according to the chronologies would make the earth out to be ~7000yrs old. This is what the people reading the chronologies would have been lead to believe - therefore either way, we understand kind within this context.

Unless it's a metaphore... or just wrong.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Babylonians, and the the Persians, conqured the Isrealits (likely descendants of the Hittites). When they did, the Isrealites began to incorporate Babylonian and then Persian beliefs into their own (it's no coincidence that Shatan (he who opposes) shows up in Hebrew writings after the arrivial of the dualistic Zoroastrians, and takes the form of the snake, the symbol of Babylon)

Wasn't the Gilgamesh story Sumerian (compare to the Akkaidians and Ugarit) and already available in the Palestine area before the Babylonian captivity?

 

[Endless]

I'd be careful of deviating too much from the discussion on 'kinds' - i don't think a debate in history (although it would be interesting) has its place in Evolution v Creation.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'd be careful of deviating too much from the discussion on 'kinds' - i don't think a debate in history (although it would be interesting) has its place in Evolution v Creation.

It most certainly does, because the history of the document dictates what kind of document we are reading. History tells us that Genesis is a myth and must be interpreted as a myth, which has direct impact on how we interpret the word translated "kind" and how we determine what relationship, if any, the myth has with science.

 

[Endless]

Ok assuming it is all a myth - is there any reason to try and find out what kind means now?

 

[JerryL]

Wasn't the Gilgamesh story Sumerian (compare to the Akkaidians and Ugarit) and already available in the Palestine area before the Babylonian captivity?

Variotions on the story appear in many cultures from the region; but I believe you are correct in your statement here.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Accordiing to the biblical story of the tower of Babel, you would expect to find differing stories of a flood around the world which you do.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

 

[JerryL]

Accordiing to the biblical story of the tower of Babel, you would expect to find differing stories of a flood around the world which you do.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

Or it could have something to do with the fact that floods happen most everywhere.