"After their kind" (Isaiah, genesis, myth, Revelations)

[OzzyRules]

Does this term from Genesis 1 destroy both the theory of evolution and the idea of racism?

[Na'vi]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

Does this term from Genesis 1 destroy both the theory of evolution and the idea of racism?

Long answer..........NO

[TRANSPONDER]

Genesis 1.11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. ” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds...0 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

This has nothing to do with race, which if the Bible has anything to say about it, pops up with Noah's sons.

This reference does no more that to see that various kinds of animals look different. This does not say anything about evolution, in fact it rather enhances it because it is just too simple. I mean, are Whales, Orac and porpoises - even SEALS -the same kind or different? Are dolphins and porpoises even one kind because they look the same or different 'kinds' because they are different species? Are Sperm whales the same kind as Blue and Wright whales or are the different -perhaps classed with Orcas, because they are toothed?

It is seen that the 'kinds' idea is just primitive and over simple - an easy device employed by the Bible -writers who adapted the Mesopotamian creation myth and were not concerned about scientific exactness.

That was left to Leviticus, but they didn't make a very good job of that, either.

[Fred314X]

I imagine this will come as kind of a shock, so make sure you're holding onto something solid when you read this:

Genesis is not meant to be taken literally.

[OzzyRules]

Originally Posted by Fred314X

I imagine this will come as kind of a shock, so make sure you're holding onto something solid when you read this:

Genesis is not meant to be taken literally.

Does that include the accounts of Abraham and Joseph?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

Does that include the accounts of Abraham and Joseph?

Well done! I ought to rep you.

I was going to say, no just up to Abraham, but it's true that it is hard to say what was intended literally and what was not.

Let us say, that I take it ALL as intended to be believed literally apart from possibly Job, which does read like an OT parable.

What we could say is that the creation and Flood cannot now credibly be held up as something to be read literally, I now add to that the exodus, which I think has crashed and burned, The invasion of Canaan under Joshua... much of Ezekiel, the prophecies or Babylon, Tyre and Daniel, the resurection, Lot, Abraham, Acts, Joseph, probably,... Leviticus and Deut. (as backdated ritual), Gideon, Jonah, The Nativity, Samson, Goliath,.the Tomb - guard...Jesus sent to Antipas...the parables in Luke... .Psalms, proverbs and Isaiah inclusive, being poetry rather than history,..The gadarene swine... Revelations, Jesus on the sabbath and clean food...and most of the rest of the book...

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

Does this term from Genesis 1 destroy both the theory of evolution and the idea of racism?

No. The Theory of Evolution claims the same thing in fact. Every single creature ever born has been of the same species as their parents. Evolution has never claimed otherwise. So the Scientific Facts are pretty much the same as the Fairy Tale book in this one regard.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

Does this term from Genesis 1 destroy both the theory of evolution and the idea of racism?

No, no more than the term elves or hobbits from Tolkien's works do.

[dtango]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

What we could say is that the creation and Flood cannot now credibly be held up as something to be read literally, I now add to that the exodus, which I think has crashed and burned, The invasion of Canaan under Joshua... much of Ezekiel, the prophecies or Babylon, Tyre and Daniel, the resurection, Lot, Abraham, Acts, Joseph, probably,... Leviticus and Deut. (as backdated ritual), Gideon, Jonah, The Nativity, Samson, Goliath,.the Tomb - guard...Jesus sent to Antipas...the parables in Luke... .Psalms, proverbs and Isaiah inclusive, being poetry rather than history,..The gadarene swine... Revelations, Jesus on the sabbath and clean food...and most of the rest of the book...

Revelation apart, Old and New Testaments do not mix.

You are a very wise modern man mocking ancient texts. I am only wondering what your ancestors, whoever they are, were writing 2900 years ago that gives you the right to mock the writings of the others.

[Na'vi]

Originally Posted by dtango

Revelation apart, Old and New Testaments do not mix.

You are a very wise modern man mocking ancient texts. I am only wondering what your ancestors, whoever they are, were writing 2900 years ago that gives you the right to mock the writings of the others.

It's not a matter of mocking, it revolves around understanding that the authors were trying to explain stories they had heard attempting to explain what these ancient men saw around them and relating what they saw to what they believed or hoped was a reason for all of this wonder and suffering and joy and death and life. It was them thinking, with their very limited knowledge of all of that, of the best explanation they could come up with.