FISH, n. L. piscis. 1. An animal that lives in water. Fish is a general name for a class of animals subsisting in water, which were distributed by Linne into six orders. They breathe by means of gills, swim by the aid of fins, and are oviparous. Some of them have the skeleton bony, and others cartilaginous. Most of the former have the opening of the gills closed by a peculiar covering, called the gill-lid; many of the latter have no gill-lid, and are hence said to breathe through apertures. Cetaceous animals, as the whale and dolphin, are, in popular language, called fishes, and have been so classed by some naturalists; but they breathe by lungs, and are viviparous, like quadrupeds. The term fish has been also extended to other aquatic animals, such as shell-fish, lobsters
" Since you won't believe what is clearly shown by God's creation,(Ps.19), He is under no obligation to reveal anything else to you." We note your retreat.
No retreat, I have the answers to those 'deep' questions.
The first (1933) edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (O.E.D) has the definition on page 872 of vol.1. The first meaning listed, dating back to circa A.D.800, uses bird as a young fowl, such as a 'hen and her birds'. The second meaning listed is the modern 'feathered vertebrate animal'. But after stating that definition, the O.E.D adds the following revealing note: 'Now used generically in place of the older name Fowl which has become specialized for certain kinds of poultry, and by sportsmen for wild ducks and geese' (which is meaning number 3 in the OED)....At the time of the Authorized Bible was translated, fowl had the wider meaning of 'winged creatures' (OED meaning 2 under Fowl). Meaning number 4 adds: 'In various figurative applications, chiefly from sense 2, as a reference to a winged or noiseless flight....In Leviticus 11:19 the word bat appears in the context of fowl (vs 13) and so, since it is a winged creature, there is no problem there beyond an 'archaic' meaning of fowl; but Deuteronomy 14:18 uses bat with bird....note the fourth O.E.D. meaning for bird in the generic term for 'silent, winged flight'
Regarding the hare... The hare chews the cud by passing its food twice. After the first pass, the hare eats and chews its fecal pellets (Book of Bible Problems, Geradius D. Bouw, Ph.D, 1997, pg. 49-50)
Regarding evidence for the Flood,
Nevertheless, the actual facts or geology still favored catastrophism, and flood geology never died completely. Although the uniformitarian philosophers could point to certain difficulties in the Biblical geology of their predecessors, there were still greater difficulties in uniformitarianism. Once uniformitarianism had served its purpose—namely, that of selling the scientific community and the general public on the great age of the earth—then geologists could again use local catastrophic processes whenever required for specific geologic interpretations. Stephen Gould has expressed it this way: "Methodological uniformitarianism was useful only when science was debating the status of the supernatural in its realm." 1 Heylmun goes even further: "The fact is, the doctrine of uniformitarianism is no more ‘proved’ than some of the early ideas of world-wide cataclysms have been disproved."2 http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54
You evolutionists are going to have a time of it explaining to God why you rejected His truth!
You evolutionists are going to have a time of it explaining to God why you rejected His truth!
Were we given brains to not use?
The evidence against a global flood is overwhelming. Do we just ignore that evidence and say, "Can't see it, didn't happen" or some such?
Take a look at this and let me know what you think.
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and the moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to be certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and they hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make confident assertions [quoting 1Ti. 1:7].- St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1:42-43.
[information-free apologia screed snipped to save bandwidth]
Alleged difficulties with standard geological interpretations are not evidence for the flood, which was what was requested. Come on, this event supposedly happened only around 4000 years ago. Where is the physical evidence *for* it.
Regarding the hare... The hare chews the cud by passing its food twice. After the first pass, the hare eats and chews its fecal pellets (Book of Bible Problems, Geradius D. Bouw, Ph.D, 1997, pg. 49-50)