Michael,
Are you suggesting, contra Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 that "kind"
indicates an identity rather than the fact that a term like "raven"
covered all sorts of black birds? A reasonable translation is "all sorts
of," which has nothing that can possibly imply descent, either with
differences or without.
Dave
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:51:19 +0100 "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
David
This is a false polarisation and a mis-reading of Genesis. I t tries to
make Genesis describe God's mode of creation and not that he was the
Creator. It allows no accommodation to the thought of the day , assumes
that there is precision to the word "kind", overstates the distinctness
of the creation of man and woman. No wonder some think men have fewer
ribs than women!
To follow this type of interpretation one cannot do science in any form.
Of course it is appealing to evangelicals as it appears more biblical
than the average TE who sees Genesis in broad brush impressionism and not
as a detailed photograph.
Kinds must be seen as a general popular term used 3000years ago and
totally pre-scientific.
This is part of the woeful inheritance of popular evangelicalism which
adopts a default literalistic hermeneutic which results in either YEC or
various unsatisfactory harmonisations
Michael
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 10 14:10:01 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 10 2006 - 14:10:01 EDT