Help with the word "Days"

[Assyrian]

A lot of that is addressing a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, I get it. I am ware of the prevalent view of Genesis 1 here. I am saying that even if you disregard a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, Genesis 2 is a historic account of Adam and his wife -- and there are two ways to read verses 8 and 19. One way agrees with Genesis 1 and the other does not.

Here is every single occurrence of the phrase "these are the generations of"... Genesis 2 is one of these eleven occurrences. Each time this phrase is used it denotes a historic account.

Genesis 2
4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 6:9
These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Genesis 10:1
Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.

Genesis 11:10
These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:

Genesis 11:27
Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.

Genesis 25:12
Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bare unto Abraham:

Genesis 25:19
And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son: Abraham begat Isaac:

Genesis 36:1
Now these are the generations of Esau, who is Edom.

Genesis 36:9
And these are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in mount Seir:

Genesis 37:2
These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren; and the lad was with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father's wives: and Joseph brought unto his father their evil report.

Ruth 4:18
Now these are the generations of Pharez: Pharez begat Hezron,

Interesting word generations, toledoth, it means a genealogy, a list of who begat whom. The question is, how is the Genesis creation account a genealogy?

Genesis 2
4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
​

It is either not a literal genealogy, or it is, well, describing evolution.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Interesting word generations, toledoth, it means a genealogy, a list of who begat whom. The question is, how is the Genesis creation account a genealogy?

Genesis 2
4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
​

It is either not a literal genealogy, or it is, well, describing evolution.

תולדות tôledôt "generations, products, developments." That which comes from any source, as the child from the parent, the record of which is history.

If you accept this:

1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Luke 3:38
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

That Adam was the first man, then Genesis 2 must surely be factual and not mythical, for it tells of Adam's beginnings.

1 Corinthians 15:39
All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

Creatures and humans alike only yield after their own kind. Adam was the first of his kind. If another creature begat him he would be that creature's kind, and we are not the same kind of any creature.

 

[Assyrian]

תולדות tôledôt "generations, products, developments." That which comes from any source, as the child from the parent, the record of which is history.

Do you know anywhere else in the bible toledoth is supposed to have the meaning product or development? The word comes from the Hebrew yalad to beget or bear young and toledoth is used throughout the bible for a literal generation or genealogy. That is the meaning of the word, if Genesis 2:4 uses it differently it is because it is speaking metaphorically.

If you accept this:

1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

As I pointed out in the other thread, Paul goes on to describe Jesus as the second man. Jesus was not literally the second man, there were many, umm, generations in the OT before Jesus. Keep in mind, Paul tells us in Romans 5:14 that he saw Adam as a figurative picture of Christ. you need to watch out for this when Paul talks about Adam and Christ.

Luke 3:38
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Was Adam the son of God the same way Enos was the son of Seth and all the other 'son of's in the genealogy? Or can we not take that part of the genealogy quite literally? If this isn't quite literal, that Adam wasn't God's biological son, why can't Adam refer to Man, Mankind, the human race God created and Seth be a 'son of man' because he is a human being? It doesn't matter because Luke didn't not think this was really Jesus' genealogy Luke 3:23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli...

That Adam was the first man, then Genesis 2 must surely be factual and not mythical, for it tells of Adam's beginnings.

Even if Adam was a real individual, the story of his creation and fall could be told in metaphor, but again, you can't show Genesis is literal by taking a highly figurative treatment of Adam and Christ from Paul.

1 Corinthians 15:39
All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

Science will tell you the same thing. Though where it does contradict Paul is two verses later.
1Cor 15:40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
Science tells us the sun is a star. But of course science doesn't really contradict Paul here, because Paul is not teaching astronomy, or biology. He is teaching about the resurrection and these are simply analogies.

Creatures and humans alike only yield after their own kind. Adam was the first of his kind. If another creature begat him he would be that creature's kind, and we are not the same kind of any creature.

The bible doesn't say creatures nly yield after their own kind. Genesis says God command the earth to produce living creatures after their kind, in other words he commanded the earth to produce different varieties of living creature, not that living creatures yield after their own kind. You are different from you parents. Not because you have a mix of their genes, but because you have between 120 and 180 changes in your genome your mother and father did not have. They had a similar difference to their parents. Certainly not enough to say you have a 'different kind of flesh' to your grandparents, or any other human being alive. But over hundreds of millions of years? That would make a difference between fish birds and humans.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

The bible doesn't say creatures nly yield after their own kind. Genesis says God command the earth to produce living creatures after their kind, in other words he commanded the earth to produce different varieties of living creature, not that living creatures yield after their own kind. You are different from you parents. Not because you have a mix of their genes, but because you have between 120 and 180 changes in your genome your mother and father did not have. They had a similar difference to their parents. Certainly not enough to say you have a 'different kind of flesh' to your grandparents, or any other human being alive. But over hundreds of millions of years? That would make a difference between fish birds and humans.

I'd have to say you'd be defeating the purpose for which this word "kind" is used. It implies a "closeness" or "likeness" in the nautre of these created creatures. In no context can you equate fish birds and humans as a "kind" by inferring the passage of time. The reason why we can read this word being used so frequently would attest to how living creatures would not became entirely new creatures, but rather are identified according to their "kind", meaning fish birds stay fish birds and humans stay humans. Variation does not imply one came from the other, it simply means variation period.

 

[Assyrian]

I'd have to say you'd be defeating the purpose for which this word "kind" is used. It implies a "closeness" or "likeness" in the nautre of these created creatures. In no context can you equate fish birds and humans as a "kind" by inferring the passage of time. The reason why we can read this word being used so frequently would attest to how living creatures would not became entirely new creatures, but rather are identified according to their "kind", meaning fish birds stay fish birds and humans stay humans. Variation does not imply one came from the other, it simply means variation period.

Don't living creatures share one very important attribute that sets them apart from everything else on earth, the fact they are alive? In Genesis the likeness in nature among humans, land animals, fish and birds is such that the bible gives them all the same name chai nephesh, living creatures. We find when we study their biology that a lot more is shared, the same four nucleic acid DNA, even very similar code, you can take the gene for cytochrome c in humans and use it to replace the cytochrome-c gene in yeast and it will do the same job. Of course variations do not imply one creature came from another, it is the similarities that imply that, the family resemblances. Kind is not used that often 31 times in 5 passages in the bible, even if it was used more often, it would say nothing about kinds being fixed. What you need to remember, even if canine kind divides into dogs foxes jackals and wolfs, these new kinds are still canine.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Don't living creatures share one very important attribute that sets them apart from everything else on earth, the fact they are alive? In Genesis the likeness in nature among humans, land animals, fish and birds is such that the bible gives them all the same name chai nephesh, living creatures.

Yes, but this is simply a category that all biological life falls under, case and point. This doesn't add any weight to the discussion at hand.

We find when we study their biology that a lot more is shared, the same four nucleic acid DNA, even very similar code, you can take the gene for cytochrome c in humans and use it to replace the cytochrome-c gene in yeast and it will do the same job.

Common design method among creation, that's all it is.

Of course variations do not imply one creature came from another, it is the similarities that imply that, the family resemblances. Kind is not used that often 31 times in 5 passages in the bible, even if it was used more often, it would say nothing about kinds being fixed.

Every time the word "kind" is mentioned in relation to the inception of either a living creature or plant, a decree always follows --> that reproduction shall take place "according to its kind". It says everything about kinds being fixed.

What you need to remember, even if canine kind divides into dogs foxes jackals and wolfs, these new kinds are still canine.

Yes, they are still canines, which is exactly my point. A "kind" would simply represent an umbrella whereby different species are related with a common overall morphological, structural, and anatomical identity = no universal common descent.

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, but this is simply a category that all biological life falls under, case and point. This doesn't add any weight to the discussion at hand.

Sure it does, it it is a category that all biological life falls under, then it qualifies your definition of kind as implying a closeness and likeness.

Common design method among creation, that's all it is.

Common design may be the way Creationists try to explain the similarities, but it is the similarities themselves that are the key here. It is similarities that mean we can tell what is poodle and what is a Great Dane, similarities mean we can tell they are dogs rather than wolves, and similarities mean we can say dogs wolves foxes and jackals are all canines. Similarities mean we can say canines felines ungulates and primates are all mammals. These similarities extend all he way to the shared similarities of all living creatures.

Every time the word "kind" is mentioned in relation to the inception of either a living creature or plant, a decree always follows --> that reproduction shall take place "according to its kind". It says everything about kinds being fixed.

You should check the references, according to its kind is not about reproduction, but simply describing different types of animals.

Yes, they are still canines, which is exactly my point. A "kind" would simply represent an umbrella whereby different species are related with a common overall morphological, structural, and anatomical identity = no universal common descent.

If you can have dog kind and fox kind and wolf kind all within canine kind, then kinds can diverge. It does not mean universal common descent, the evidence for that is in biology not scripture, it just means the biblical description of kind is compatible with common descent, new kinds diverging from earlier ones and no reason you cannot trace it all the way back to the earliest single celled organism

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

You should check the references, according to its kind is not about reproduction, but simply describing different types of animals.

I know the references. Every time something is created, it is always mentioned as belonging to a certain distinction of species in and of itself. Checking the references is what refutes any notions of universal common descent.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Common design may be the way Creationists try to explain the similarities,

It's only logical that all things are made using the same genetic code. God would not have used the genetic code to make humans and then the rest out of magical pixie dust. The similarities are truly only limited to common design, and that is it.

 

[Papias]

Happy wrote:

The similarities are truly only limited to common design, and that is it.

Someone seems not to have heard of, nor understood, endogenous retrovirii, chromosome 2, nor the Gulop Gene. That's in addition to the many poor designs, which are invariably ancestral similarities.

Papias

 

[Willtor]

It's only logical that all things are made using the same genetic code. God would not have used the genetic code to make humans and then the rest out of magical pixie dust. The similarities are truly only limited to common design, and that is it.

May I ask, what do you make of nested hierarchies? Surely those aren't a forgone conclusion in design?

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Happy wrote:




Someone seems not to have heard of, nor understood, endogenous retrovirii, chromosome 2, nor the Gulop Gene. That's in addition to the many poor designs, which are invariably ancestral similarities.

Papias

Ancestral similarities do not demand evolution to the extent of universal common descent. Anyways, I am not interested in a science debate. Universal common descent clearly does not fit in with what scripture reveals about the inception of biological life, it in fact contradicts. But I forget, when it comes to theistic evolution, the science supersedes everything else. Pointless

 

[Assyrian]

I know the references. Every time something is created, it is always mentioned as belonging to a certain distinction of species in and of itself. Checking the references is what refutes any notions of universal common descent.

Ah you have looked them up I see, and you have dropped the claim they come with a decree that reproduction is according to its kind. I certainly agree, each kind has its own distinctions, evolution says the same thing.

It's only logical that all things are made using the same genetic code. God would not have used the genetic code to make humans and then the rest out of magical pixie dust. The similarities are truly only limited to common design, and that is it.

Magical pixie dust is one possibility I suppose, he is God, he could create the universe whatever way he liked. But there are other options too.
DNA is made up of four nucleic acids, adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine, but there are plenty of other nucleic acids available, why stick to those four for the whole of creation? Why not use a different set of four for kangaroos? Or sticklebacks? Why stick to DNA at all? It is simply a code showing the cell what protein to make, if you are a designer you could make up a completely different code for armadillos or cabbage. And why use the same metabolism for humans and yeast? If you are making human being completely separately form the rest of creation there is no reason to give them a cytochrome-c gene that can function in a yeast cell. If you are specially creating humans why use 98% of the DNA code you used for chimps? If we look at the vast array of different forms of life on the planet, then if we are talking about a designer, he clearly show great originality and creativity, so where is that creativity and originality when we look at the DNA? This shows all the signs of evolution form a common ancestor, not separate design. God did create everything of course, he just used evolution to do it.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Ah you have looked them up I see, and you have dropped the claim they come with a decree that reproduction is according to its kind. I certainly agree, each kind has its own distinctions, evolution says the same thing.

"So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”

I have not dropped any claim, each creation event entails living creatures being created according to their own kind, and a decree follows that they shall be fruitful and multiply. The inception is coupled with a decree to reproduce, and each specific living creature is created as distinct entities in and of themselves, and it is in this direction that they reproduce. I evaluate the topic in light of scripture, I fail to see how relevant your opinion would be as it is already colored with a pre-disposition to accept and believe the full implications of uiniversal common descent regardless.

Like I said, if you check the original hebrew, there is no room whatsoever for universal common descent.

 

[shernren]

I have not dropped any claim, each creation event entails living creatures being created according to their own kind, and a decree follows that they shall be fruitful and multiply. The inception is coupled with a decree to reproduce, and each specific living creature is created as distinct entities in and of themselves, and it is in this direction that they reproduce. I evaluate the topic in light of scripture, I fail to see how relevant your opinion would be as it is already colored with a pre-disposition to accept and believe the full implications of uiniversal common descent regardless.

Like I said, if you check the original hebrew, there is no room whatsoever for universal common descent.

And the principal said, "It is assembly time. Let the first graders sit in the front, and let the second graders sit in the middle, and let the third graders sit at the back of the hall, according to their grade." So the first graders came in and sat in the front, and the second graders sat in the middle, and the third graders sat at the back.

The principal was pleased by their orderly behavior; when the assembly had finished, he dismissed them and said, "Go forth and play in the playground!"
​

Now are they segregated in the playground? Certainly not. The first and second and third graders are entirely free to commingle in the playground, even though they were introduced into the hall at different times. Their grades have no relevance to the blessing of play in the playground.

In the same way, the text itself does not connect the category of "created kind" to the benediction of going forth and multiplying. The exegetical test for that is: what would happen if we replace the verbs "be fruitful and multiply" with something else? After all, if it is "in this direction" of created kinds that they are fruitful and multiply, then that limitation is placed on the verbs by the rest of the sentence, and any other verb in the same slot will have the same limitation.

Yet if God had said "Go forth and eat your fill", we would not immediately associate that with the created kinds. Birds and reptiles and mammals are free to fight over the same kind of food, different "created kind" though they may be. So the command to eat, if placed at that point in the sentence, would have no referent to created kinds. Why therefore does the command to reproduce, which is indeed placed at that point in the sentence, have an ironclad "in the original Hebrew" referent to created kinds?

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

And the principal said, "It is assembly time. Let the first graders sit in the front, and let the second graders sit in the middle, and let the third graders sit at the back of the hall, according to their grade." So the first graders came in and sat in the front, and the second graders sat in the middle, and the third graders sat at the back.

The principal was pleased by their orderly behavior; when the assembly had finished, he dismissed them and said, "Go forth and play in the playground!"
​

Now are they segregated in the playground? Certainly not. The first and second and third graders are entirely free to commingle in the playground, even though they were introduced into the hall at different times. Their grades have no relevance to the blessing of play in the playground.

In the same way, the text itself does not connect the category of "created kind" to the benediction of going forth and multiplying. The exegetical test for that is: what would happen if we replace the verbs "be fruitful and multiply" with something else? After all, if it is "in this direction" of created kinds that they are fruitful and multiply, then that limitation is placed on the verbs by the rest of the sentence, and any other verb in the same slot will have the same limitation.

Yet if God had said "Go forth and eat your fill", we would not immediately associate that with the created kinds. Birds and reptiles and mammals are free to fight over the same kind of food, different "created kind" though they may be. So the command to eat, if placed at that point in the sentence, would have no referent to created kinds. Why therefore does the command to reproduce, which is indeed placed at that point in the sentence, have an ironclad "in the original Hebrew" referent to created kinds?

Fancy words and largely just ring around the rosy. Scripture reveals what it reveals, nothing you say will be able to change a thing.

Every creature that is created is created according to its own kind, after its own kind, in the original Hebrew interlinear --> "to-the-species-of-them (him/her)". They reproduce according to the fashion in which God created them, "be fruitful and multiply". It is very simple, no need for mental gymnastics, and no UCD.

 

[Papias]

Happy wrote:

Ancestral similarities

Well, I'm glad we agree the similarities show ancestry (common descent). Yes, the genetic evidenced mentioned doesn't say anything about Universal CD, it only supports primate common descent (humans from monkey-like ancestors).

What I haven't heard you agree with is that these items (ervs, chrom 2, and Gulop) all don't fit with the idea of "design similarities". The Ervs are from viral infections, the vestigial telomeres in chrom 2 are not a design feature, and a broken gulop gene clearly isn't a design feature (well, it is a broken one, but not a functional one). Any one of them shows undeniable primate common descent.

Universal common descent clearly does not fit in with what scripture reveals about the inception of biological life, it in fact contradicts. But I forget, when it comes to theistic evolution, the science supersedes everything else.

To have a real religion, it must not be delusional. That means sometimes reading things metaphorically. For instance:

• Jesus not becoming an Ent doesn't fit with what the scripture (read literally) reveals.
• Heliocentrism doesn't fit with what the scripture (read literally) reveals.
• Germ theory doesn't fit with what the scripture (read literally) reveals.
• Gravity doesn't fit with what the scripture (read literally) reveals.
• Beautiful women having eyes that are not birds doesn't fit with what the scripture (read literally) reveals.
• Satan failing to gnaw on Jesus' foot doesn't fit with what the scripture (read literally) reveals.

Do you worship an Ent?

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

"So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”

I have not dropped any claim, each creation event entails living creatures being created according to their own kind, and a decree follows that they shall be fruitful and multiply. The inception is coupled with a decree to reproduce, and each specific living creature is created as distinct entities in and of themselves, and it is in this direction that they reproduce.

Yet you have two very different things here. You have the different types of animals being created, and you have God blessing them and telling them to be fruitful and multiple. Being created according to their kind simply means there are different sorts of creature created, if it meant reproduce according to their kind, why would God have had brought that up in the next verse? Just because the animals created according to the kind are then told to reproduce, it does not mean the term 'according to the kind' refers to reproduction.

Have you looked at all the other references to 'according to their kind' in the bible? The phrase come up nine times in Leviticus and four times in Deuteronomy, it is all about the different sorts of of creature you could and couldn't eat.
Lev 11:13 "And these you shall have in abomination among the birds, they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey,
14 the kite, the falcon according to its kind,
15 every raven according to its kind,
16 the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk according to its kind...

Deut 14:11 "You may eat all clean birds.
12 But these are the ones which you shall not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey,
13 the buzzard, the kite, after their kinds;
14 every raven after its kind;
15 the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk, after their kinds...

After its kind, or according to its kind, is not about how they reproduce, it is simply talking about the different sorts of animals

I evaluate the topic in light of scripture, I fail to see how relevant your opinion would be as it is already colored with a pre-disposition to accept and believe the full implications of uiniversal common descent regardless.

It is up to you, you can dismiss what I say with an ad hom about me accepting evolution, or you can evaluate what I say in the light of scripture. You should evaluate what you have been told about kinds in the light of scripture too though. There are plenty of creationist preachers and websites with their own agenda and arguments that don't necessarily stand up in the light of scripture.

Like I said, if you check the original hebrew, there is no room whatsoever for universal common descent.

I have looked at the Hebrew, though I only dabble, but if you think there is something relevant there you should bring it up.

 

[Assyrian]

Ah I see, is this the original Hebrew you were talking about?

Fancy words and largely just ring around the rosy. Scripture reveals what it reveals, nothing you say will be able to change a thing.

Every creature that is created is created according to its own kind, after its own kind, in the original Hebrew interlinear --> "to-the-species-of-them (him/her)". They reproduce according to the fashion in which God created them, "be fruitful and multiply". It is very simple, no need for mental gymnastics, and no UCD.

So where does the Hebrew 'to-species-of-him' say 'reproduce'? God does not even command them reproduce according to the fashion he created them. He just tells them to be fruitful and multiple. Could I ask, did you come up with this yourself or get it from some creationist source? The problem is, it is conflating two separate verses to try to make 'kind' mean something it simple doesn't. I know creationist website try to read a lot in the meaning of 'kind' but we need to stick to what the Hebrew says not what they try to read into it.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Ah I see, is this the original Hebrew you were talking about?

So where does the Hebrew 'to-species-of-him' say 'reproduce'? God does not even command them reproduce according to the fashion he created them. He just tells them to be fruitful and multiple. Could I ask, did you come up with this yourself or get it from some creationist source? The problem is, it is conflating two separate verses to try to make 'kind' mean something it simple doesn't. I know creationist website try to read a lot in the meaning of 'kind' but we need to stick to what the Hebrew says not what they try to read into it.

I don't touch any creationist sources. Ironically, what I am doing is sticking to what the Hebrew says. The only reason you are not doing the same is because you need to justify evolution, plain and simple.

The conclusion of what you are "trying to read into" really does not make sense. As God clearly created the various species distinct --> in and of themselves, and yet you are claiming that they can somehow reproduce outside of the bounds in which God created them. The benediction to be fruitful and multiply follows individually every unique species that He created. You are redefining the context of the passages in order to justify evolution and make room for UCD.

The Hebrew clearly tells us that every species was created unique and was fashioned "according" to themselves = according to their kind. You really cannot see this is a clear refutation of UCD, can you?