Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
danielost

cattle after their kind.

18 posts in this topic

I have been wondering what that statement in Genesis means.

Another phrase used is no animal can change what it is except humans.

In the first one it means a cow cannot produce a dinosaur.

In the does it mean a carnivore cannot be a herbivore.

What do you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another phrase used is no animal can change what it is except humans.

Like to see what phrase you interpret no animal can change what it is except humans

During the fifth phase of the procreation process in which earth is made a living planet, the gravitational forces which occurred during the fourth phase which produced the rotation of the earth allowed life to emerge within the waters.

Genesis 1:21-23

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his 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 fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

While one might question why birds are included as being a creature that moveth in the waters, then one might consider that the atmosphere originated from the waters that originally covered the surface of the earth [yeah like a flood] that covered the earth.

However, in Genesis 1:24-25

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

So I apologize if I don't see the principle that you are trying to impose upon the Scriptures.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I confused you. The phrase I stated isn't in the bible, but it is used none the less. Thus is why so many christians fight micro evolution. I disagree with that view point, as much as I disagree with macro evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It means no amount of education can fix wilful ignorance.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the wrong education can lead to willful ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry I confused you. The phrase I stated isn't in the bible, but it is used none the less.

No need to apologize, I been confused since the day I was born, probably the Demerol.

Thus is why so many christians fight micro evolution. I disagree with that view point, as much as I disagree with macro evolution.

From my understanding of biological evolution, it is defined as the lineage with modification to explain the history of life, not the origin of life itself.

However,astrophysics not evolution attempts to explain the beginning the Universe with it's Big Bang theory, whereby holding that the observed Universe originated into existence by the rapid expanse of space, mass, energy and time from a compressed state.

Yet, what is the difference between Science holding it's theory as absolute and irrefutable when Religion itself holds any prophesy of scripture as heresy to even consider that Creation originated in the beginning the Gods created the heaven and the earth.

When the scriptures themselves which define God, [John 4:24] hold that these Gods, [James 1:17] which are defined by the Scriptures as being finite forms of massless energy. [Rev 4:5]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the beginning Marduk slain Tiamat the Goddess of chaotic waters.Then formed the land, and heavens with her divided body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiamat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the beginning Marduk slain Tiamat the Goddess of chaotic waters.Then formed the land, and heavens with her divided body.

LOL, so how could the waters be chaotic if space is so cold that it destroys all living organisms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all life, single celled life can survive in space, by going to sleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, so how could the waters be chaotic if space is so cold that it destroys all living organisms?

LOL!

Do you not recognise a snippet of where your beliefs evolved from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL!

Do you not recognise a snippet of where your beliefs evolved from?

Principles do not evolve, neither can they be created.

Science does not discover them, and Theology can not decree them.

So to answer your question, No.

Edited by 029b10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Principles do not evolve, neither can they be created.

Science does not discover them, and Theology can not decree them.

So to answer your question, No.

Of course principles evolve. Or change or develop, call it what you will, to meet changing circumstances. Stone Age man. Space age man.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been wondering what that statement in Genesis means.

Another phrase used is no animal can change what it is except humans.

In the first one it means a cow cannot produce a dinosaur.

In the does it mean a carnivore cannot be a herbivore.

What do you think.

This is what "Answers in Genesis" thinks.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/meaning-min

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"After his kind----" means new species cannot be created by cross breeding of one kind with another kind.

In other words, breed a horse with a donkey and the offspring is a mule. The mule is sterile. It cannot reproduce into a species called mule. That disapproved the theory of evolution. A horse and a zebra are not the same species. If they were, it would be quite common for people to have domesticated zebras to ride.

Another example: Take a small apple tree sapling. Graft a branch from an apple tree that produces desirable fruit on to the trunk of the small sapling that has never produced fruit so it's fruit is unknown. The sapling will grow into a tree and produce the desired fruit. But true to the scriptures, "the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind WHOSE SEED IS IN ITSELF---"

The seed from the desirable fruit that was grafted on to the sapling ALWAYS goes back to its root. Plant that seed and it will not become a tree of the desirable fruit. Whatever the root was the seed will be like the tree of the root.

Again, it disproves evolution.

Another thing to consider: when Noah's ark was being loaded, clean animals went into the ark as one male and six females of each species. That gives great reproductive variations in each clean species and eliminated the need for five males.

"After his kind--" is still active today.

God bless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the beginning Marduk slain Tiamat the Goddess of chaotic waters.Then formed the land, and heavens with her divided body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiamat

LOL!

Do you not recognise a snippet of where your beliefs evolved from?

Do you not recognise that the Genesis account was in fact written in direct opposition to creation stories such as this! After Marduk split Tiamat in two, he was required to create humans to work, after all, gods were not meant to "work", and Marduk inadvertently created land that needed to be "worked".

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSMarduk.html

Genesis rejects this:

"Genesis is implicitly rejecting other views of the gods and their relationship with the world. Here we have no story of how gods fought, married and bore children; there is but one God, beyond time and sex, who was there in the beginning. He created all things, even the sun, moon and stars, which other people often held to be gods in their own right. He required no magic to do this; his word was sufficient by itself."

~ New Bible Commentary, 21st Century Edition. p59 

God then created humans, not as slaves to work the land, as Marduk did, but to be his special creation, in God's very image.

In a very real sense, the Genesis account is written not as a copy of the story of Marduk and Tiamat, but in direct opposition to it! No battles and disembowelments, simply the power of God's word.

Though what I'm presenting isn't new information, any number of sources could have shown it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you not recognise that the Genesis account was in fact written in direct opposition to creation stories such as this! After Marduk split Tiamat in two, he was required to create humans to work, after all, gods were not meant to "work", and Marduk inadvertently created land that needed to be "worked".

http://www.gly.uga.e...S/CSMarduk.html

Genesis rejects this:

"Genesis is implicitly rejecting other views of the gods and their relationship with the world. Here we have no story of how gods fought, married and bore children; there is but one God, beyond time and sex, who was there in the beginning. He created all things, even the sun, moon and stars, which other people often held to be gods in their own right. He required no magic to do this; his word was sufficient by itself."

~ New Bible Commentary, 21st Century Edition. p59

God then created humans, not as slaves to work the land, as Marduk did, but to be his special creation, in God's very image.

In a very real sense, the Genesis account is written not as a copy of the story of Marduk and Tiamat, but in direct opposition to it! No battles and disembowelments, simply the power of God's word.

Though what I'm presenting isn't new information, any number of sources could have shown it.

Just as your opinion differs here in this thread:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=261450

I will let others judge for themselves with them knowing how stories evolve over time.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=262401&st=60#entry5079717

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"After his kind----" means new species cannot be created by cross breeding of one kind with another kind.

In other words, breed a horse with a donkey and the offspring is a mule. The mule is sterile. It cannot reproduce into a species called mule. That disapproved the theory of evolution. A horse and a zebra are not the same species. If they were, it would be quite common for people to have domesticated zebras to ride.

Another example: Take a small apple tree sapling. Graft a branch from an apple tree that produces desirable fruit on to the trunk of the small sapling that has never produced fruit so it's fruit is unknown. The sapling will grow into a tree and produce the desired fruit. But true to the scriptures, "the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind WHOSE SEED IS IN ITSELF---"

The seed from the desirable fruit that was grafted on to the sapling ALWAYS goes back to its root. Plant that seed and it will not become a tree of the desirable fruit. Whatever the root was the seed will be like the tree of the root.

Again, it disproves evolution.

Another thing to consider: when Noah's ark was being loaded, clean animals went into the ark as one male and six females of each species. That gives great reproductive variations in each clean species and eliminated the need for five males.

"After his kind--" is still active today.

God bless

Amazing. A horse and a donkey breeding a mule disproves the theory of evolution? Wut?

Since when did the theory of evolution concern itself exclusively, or even largely, with cross breeding between species?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been wondering what that statement in Genesis means.

Another phrase used is no animal can change what it is except humans.

In the first one it means a cow cannot produce a dinosaur.

In the does it mean a carnivore cannot be a herbivore.

What do you think.

I think it is referencing strictly reproduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.