Genetics Question

[lucaspa]

it is convenient though isn't it

what does 'genesis' mean and where does it come from?

From Merriam-Webster online:
"Etymology: Latin, from Greek, from gignesthai to be born : the origin or coming into being of something

likewise, what does 'gene' mean and where does it come from?

Again from M-W online:
"Etymology: German Gen, short for Pangen, from pan- + -gen"

So, Genesis and gene don't come from the same words. One is from Greek and the other frmo German.

 

[DatingSmarts]

while you're at it, find out what word is used to describe 'dust' in hebrew/aramaic and greek.

thanks!

 

[lucaspa]

Here, do your own research here: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/

 

[DatingSmarts]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genesis

i looked these words up on dictionary.com

both gene and genesis are latin from the greek 'gen'
[Latin, from Greek. See gen- in Indo-European Roots

at the end of the link there is an interesting explanation of how the name of genesis was given to the book of genesis

it is really called in the beginning in hebrew

 

[lucaspa]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genesis

i looked these words up on dictionary.com

both gene and genesis are latin from the greek 'gen'
[Latin, from Greek. See gen- in Indo-European Roots

at the end of the link there is an interesting explanation of how the name of genesis was given to the book of genesis

it is really called in the beginning in hebrew

But in Hebrew the word is not Genesis. It is "Bereshith, i.e., "in the beginning","

So your original attempt to get "gene" out of "genesis" fails.

Your statement about genes and genesis both coming from "gen" doesn't match what the site says:
"n.
A hereditary unit consisting of a sequence of DNA that occupies a specific location on a chromosome and determines a particular characteristic in an organism. Genes undergo mutation when their DNA sequence changes.

[German Gen, from gen-, begetting, in Greek words (such as genos, race, offspring). See gen

- in Indo-European Roots.]"\
Yes, both go back to an Indo-European root "gen", but genesis comes by way of Greek and gene by way of German. Two different languages with different ways of treating and changing the root.

 

[DatingSmarts]

gene ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jn)
n.
A hereditary unit consisting of a sequence of DNA that occupies a specific location on a chromosome and determines a particular characteristic in an organism. Genes undergo mutation when their DNA sequence changes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[German Gen, from gen-, begetting, in Greek words (such as genos, race, offspring). See gen- in Indo-European Roots.]

 

[DatingSmarts]

-genesis
suff.
Origin; production: abiogenesis.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin, from Greek, birth, origin. See gen- in Indo-European Roots.]


gen·e·sis ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jn-ss)
n. pl. gen·e·ses (-sz)
The coming into being of something; the origin. See Synonyms at beginning.
Genesis Abbr. Gen. or Gn See table at Bible.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin, from Greek. See gen- in Indo-European Roots.]



genesis

\Gen"e*sis\, n. [L., from Gr. ge`nesis, fr. the root of gi`gnesqai to beget, be born; akin to L. genus birth, race. See Gender.] 1. The act of producing, or giving birth or origin to anything; the process or mode of originating; production; formation; origination.

The origin and genesis of poor Sterling's club. --Carlyle.

2. The first book of the Old Testament; -- so called by the Greek translators, from its containing the history of the creation of the world and of the human race.

3. (Geom.) Same as Generation.

 

[DatingSmarts]

But in Hebrew the word is not Genesis. It is "Bereshith, i.e., "in the beginning","

So your original attempt to get "gene" out of "genesis" fails.

Your statement about genes and genesis both coming from "gen" doesn't match what the site says:
"n.
A hereditary unit consisting of a sequence of DNA that occupies a specific location on a chromosome and determines a particular characteristic in an organism. Genes undergo mutation when their DNA sequence changes.

[German Gen, from gen-, begetting, in Greek words (such as genos, race, offspring). See gen

- in Indo-European Roots.]"\
Yes, both go back to an Indo-European root "gen", but genesis comes by way of Greek and gene by way of German. Two different languages with different ways of treating and changing the root.

i have successfully disproved your claims

gene does in fact come from genesis

which both mean in the beginning
which is what bereshith also means---in the beginning

i rest my case

 

[DatingSmarts]

what if it wasn't 'dust' but was really genetic material

hence the name of the book: GENEsis

the genetic material is as small as a speck of dust

i restate my assertion that dust is meant to mean dna as in we were formed from a speck of dust known as dna....aka genetic material

this is scientific truth and it is stated in the bible in the book of genesis in the beginning of the CREATION account

 

[DatingSmarts]

dust ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dst)
n.
Fine, dry particles of matter.
A cloud of fine, dry particles.
Particles of matter regarded as the result of disintegration: fabric that had fallen to dust over the centuries.

Earth, especially when regarded as the substance of the grave: “ashes to ashes, dust to dust” (Book of Common Prayer).
The surface of the ground.
A debased or despised condition.
Something of no worth.
Chiefly British. Rubbish readied for disposal.
Confusion; agitation; commotion: won't go back in until the dust settles.

 

[DatingSmarts]

"So your original attempt to get "gene" out of "genesis" fails."


lol---i couldn't help noticing the humor in your false claim just now

my 'origin'-al attempt to get 'gene' out of 'genesis' is proven true

amen amen amen

origin original
origins gene
orgins genetic

 

[lucaspa]

"So your original attempt to get "gene" out of "genesis" fails."


lol---i couldn't help noticing the humor in your false claim just now

my 'origin'-al attempt to get 'gene' out of 'genesis' is proven true

"Genesis" isn't named "Genesis" in Hebrew. It is named "Bereshith" and there is no Hebrew word for "gene". They use the English word. So, the original could not possibly have meant that "dust" was "gene" because "Genesis" isn't "Genesis", but "Bereshith". So your argument falls apart.

What you have is a coincidence generated because first the early Church chose to speak Greek and thus use "Genesis" as the name for the first book of the Bible and then scientists chose the German word "pangen" as the base of the word they wanted to describe the unit of heredity. There is no connection to anything in Genesis 2.

 

[lucaspa]

i restate my assertion that dust is meant to mean dna as in we were formed from a speck of dust known as dna....aka genetic material

this is scientific truth and it is stated in the bible in the book of genesis in the beginning of the CREATION account

This is not a "scientific truth". It is a man (or, in this case, woman-made) theory based on a coincidence of terms in a language that the Bible wasn't written in. If you took the Spanish or Zulu translation, or even the Greek translation, it wouldn't work.

Scientifically, dust is small particles, but not DNA. Most dust is inorganic compounds that don't even have carbon in them, being ground up rock. The dust -- such as from dried dung -- that is organic is no longer DNA.

On a larger note, it is a dangerous game to try to validate the Bible by science. If you say that being scientifically "accurate" means the Bible is true, then you also have to say that being scientifically inaccurate means the Bible is false. And there is a lot of scientific inaccuracy in the Bible. Simply go to Job and see where the oceans are kept behind "gates" or go to 1 Kings and see that pi = 3.0 instead of 3.14. There are many more. Another example is that bats are classed as birds in the Bible. Yet science knows that bats are mammals, not birds. The list goes on and on. All you are going to do is call the Bible into disrepute. Do you really want that?

Wouldn't it be better to read the Bible the way it was intended, as theology? Genesis 2 states dust so that everyone will know that humans are not made out of the same substance as God. It's not supposed to be an attempt at science, but an explanation of theology.

 

[DatingSmarts]

"Genesis" isn't named "Genesis" in Hebrew. It is named "Bereshith" and there is no Hebrew word for "gene". They use the English word. So, the original could not possibly have meant that "dust" was "gene" because "Genesis" isn't "Genesis", but "Bereshith". So your argument falls apart.

What you have is a coincidence generated because first the early Church chose to speak Greek and thus use "Genesis" as the name for the first book of the Bible and then scientists chose the German word "pangen" as the base of the word they wanted to describe the unit of heredity. There is no connection to anything in Genesis 2.

lucas you are being intentionally stubborn, not to mention you are the one who is mistranslating the meaning of words for your own agenda

'bereshith' represents the first words of the first book of the bible which are 'in the beginning....'

greeks divided the torah into 5 books. the first of which was called genesis because of the opening line in the book....this is a similar way in which catholic encyclicals are named...lumen gentium is a perfect example...it is the first words of an encyclical that opens with the words a light to the gentiles

gentiles by the way starts off with root word 'gen', which means peoples of all nations, it means to all the nations, to all the races

the genes of adam are contained in his seed...his sperm
the genes of isis are contained in her seed...the ovum

these seeds have genetic material known as dna which is as small as a speck of dust which God himself said...he made man from the dust of the earth.

when these seeds meet the woman's seed crushes the head of the serpent, which is his sperm, which moves like a serpent.

what i am saying here is scientific fact, and it is backed up by the BIBLE, by God's own law...by his OWN WORD.

he himself says he is the alpha and the omega...the beginning and the end....he is the origin of life...he is the source of life...dna is the source of life..dna is the creation of life....this cannot be denied. it is scientific fact.

the german word for gene was coined by a man who lived in germany where the study of dna first began. however, he chose this word based on the word genesis from GREEK.

It does not change the fact that God formed/created man and isis from dna.

stop using hearth....as it is unbiblical to refer to isis that way.

also, eve is the name of sin. Isis is the name of woman.

hearth means altar as in fireplace or bbq

 

[lucaspa]

lucas you are being intentionally stubborn, not to mention you are the one who is mistranslating the meaning of words for your own agenda

'bereshith' represents the first words of the first book of the bible which are 'in the beginning....'

greeks divided the torah into 5 books. the first of which was called genesis because of the opening line in the book.

Dating, let's remember your original claim: Genesis contains the word "gene" and therefore the dust in Genesis 2 is meant to be DNA. What you are saying now hurts your case even more, because you are admitting that the name of the first book of the Bible is purely arbitrary. It isn't based on "gene" or "dust" but on the first phrase in the book "in the beginning". Thus, not only does Hebrew not give you "gene" in Bereshith, "Genesis" was never chosen based on gene. It's all a coincidence of the word Mendel chose to use to describe the unit of heredity he discovered in 1865! And he picked the word from German because "pangen" was a word describing heredity in his native German!

gentiles by the way starts off with root word 'gen', which means peoples of all nations, it means to all the nations, to all the races[/quo

the genes of adam are contained in his seed...his sperm
the genes of isis are contained in her seed...the ovum

these seeds have genetic material known as dna which is as small as a speck of dust which God himself said...he made man from the dust of the earth.

when these seeds meet the woman's seed crushes the head of the serpent, which is his sperm, which moves like a serpent.

Thank you. Now I know you are playing with us. You can't possibly mean this seriously. Thanks for the humor.

what i am saying here is scientific fact, and it is backed up by the BIBLE, by God's own law...by his OWN WORD.

Oops. You are serious. What you are saying is a mixture of factoids and your interpretation of the Bible. It's neither "scientific fact" nor the Bible, but your imagination at work.

he himself says he is the alpha and the omega...the beginning and the end....he is the origin of life...he is the source of life...dna is the source of life..dna is the creation of life....this cannot be denied. it is scientific fact.

DNA is not the creation or source of life. It is the means of transmitting information from one generation to the next. In today's cells it acts as a blueprint for making proteins. However,
1. Much of what goes on in the cell and makes the cell possible is not under the control of DNA. This is really being studied now with the new discipline of proteonomics.
2. You can have life without DNA. Protocells have no DNA and are alive.
So, I'm afraid your "scientific facts" aren't the facts you think they are.

Now, the theology is something different. The Bible says God is the alpha and omega and the Creator of life. That's fine. The problem comes when you try to tie those theological statements to science. What happens, Dating, is that, when the [your mistaken] science is falsified, you run the risk of the theology also being falsified. Please don't fall into that trap. You can't validate theology with science. They are different truths.

It does not change the fact that God formed/created man and isis from dna.

The way you are saying it, no. God did not zap one man into existence from DNA. Instead, humans evolved from an earlier species -- H. erectus. The evidence God left us in His Creation tells us this. Also, the evidence He left us in the Bible says that He didn't do it the way you said, either. Remember Genesis 1? There is no forming Adam from dust there. Instead, in Genesis 1:26-27 God makes men and wommen (both plural) at the same time by saying "Let us make". No mention of dust. And no making woman from man's rib. So, when the creation stories contradict like that, it's a big hint that they were not meant to be read literally or even perverted to this "dust is DNA" theory.

stop using hearth....as it is unbiblical to refer to isis that way.

also, eve is the name of sin. Isis is the name of woman.

Not according to Strong's Concordance, which is the definitive reference source on the Hebrew in the Bible. I don't know where you got "isis", but it isn't Biblical.

hearth means altar as in fireplace or bbq

Hearth is the cooking area around a fire or fireplace. It is a symbol of domesticity. It does not mean "altar".

 

[DatingSmarts]

i used the link you gave me for hebrew words

so your rendering of woman as hearth is incorrect

the bible was not written in 1950 but your idea of hearth and domesticity is 1950's

i looked up hearth and it means altar and flames

so your rendition of eve as woman=hearth is wrong
which makes me wonder if you are mormon to come up with something like that

or i guess you are admitting that woman is the altar of god aka ark of covenant

which is a title of mary, who is full of grace, which means you are catholic

btw that is what mary's name means---full of grace---as in a highly esteemed LADY

i am not backing down on my original assertion that dust is genetic material. your just mad that you've been outsmarted by an inspired woman

 

[DatingSmarts]

why don't you go back to the link you gave me earlier and put in the word woman

you will find the answer is isis

not hearth

hearth means altar

i plugged it in and saw it myself

theology btw is the study of the philosophy of god as in theophilus

science does in fact support the bible and the bible supports science

they reinforce one another

 

[DatingSmarts]

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/

 

[Macca]

I notice that you have given up discussing the science. You have retreated instead into "you must take Genesis literally". But we don't have to take Genesis literally. Especially when God tells us both in His Creation and in the text that a literal interpretation is the wrong one.

You invoke Genesis 2. But Genesis 1 says God made man by speaking him into existence: "Let us make". Also, in Genesis 1 the Hebrew used for "man" and "woman" is the plural of those terms, so God is making both men and women at the same time. Genesis 2 has one man, then animals and birds, and then one woman.

So, what we have is two "clearly states" that contradict each other. This tells us that neither creation story was ever meant to be read literally.

Now, no one is rejecting these verses. Instead, we are simply not reading them as literal history. We are looking for the theological truths in the passages. There is more than one type of truth. Something can be theologically true but not true as history.

Listen carefully: NO ONE IS REJECTING GENESIS. What we are rejecting is the man-made literal interpretation. And we are not even talking about all of Genesis, but simply Genesis 1-11.

Instead, we are saying that there are very valuable theological truths in each creation story. Truths that Biblical literalists miss because they are too busy trying to force their views on the Bible and on God. These theological truths work just as well in modern science as they do in the Babylonian science in which the OT is set. The science of the OT is wrong, but not the theology.

As to Jesus accepting the "law" of the Bible, all of his ministry was rejecting a literal reading of that Law. I find it ironic that Biblical literalists invoke Jesus when arguing for a literal reading of Genesis 1-11. In Mark 10 and Matthew 19 Jesus specifically says that one of the laws in the OT is out and out wrong!

Please understand that Genesis 2 is an expansion of Genesis 1. gen. 1 is like an overview of creation, then Gen 2 is a fuller description of what God did.
Why? I will ask Him when I get to see Him face to face.
Macca

 

[ThePhoenix]

science does in fact support the bible and the bible supports science

they reinforce one another

If you are stating that the bible is not falsified by science you are correct. If you're stating that the science supports Young Earth Creationism, you are very very wrong.