As noted in "Floods, Science and Religion, Kinds, Evening and Morning, – Sustained" I am thankful anytime ignorance and uncertainty concerning God’s revelation is removed. And especially thankful when I am the one so corrected. For the definition of "kind" I referenced Strong’s min (4480). As has been noted by King, this is incorrect. The correct reference should be miyn (4327), which defines kind simply as to portion out, to sort. A cross-reference is also given in Strong’s at 4327 to 4480 which is the word min translated as a part of, from or out of in various forms. These two words are very close in spelling and apparently, from the cross reference, also in derivative meaning. See the two definitions as given below.

4327 miyn (meen);

from an unused root meaning to portion out; a sort, i.e. species: KJV-- kind. Compare 4480.

4480 min (min);

or minniy (min-nee'); or minney (constructive plural) (min-nay'); (Isaiah 30:11); for 4482; properly, a part of; hence (prepositionally), from or out of in many senses (as follows):

KJV-- above, after, among, at, because of, by (reason of), from (among), in, X neither, X nor, (out) of, over, since, X then, through, X whether, with.

As already noted in my referenced article, it would be very hard to get the modern idea of species from that.

It is a reasonable question to ask how such a mistake can be made. Since I am not a scholar of Hebrew, I rely on basic references, as I suspect many others must do. Usually I use electronic versions of these references. I use PCStudyBible and PowerBibleCD software, both of which have interlinear versions with various dictionaries, including Strong’s. It is interesting to note that these electronic libraries also include the Brown-Driver-Briggs definition for miyn which seems to very nicely put forward the caution I hoped to convey concerning the word kind being too closely connected with the modern biological idea of species. That cautionary definition follows.

miyn-
kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals) Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind". Brown-Driver-Briggs

Hopefully, this will correct any misunderstanding on mine or others part concerning these words. I have added a link to this correction in my posting of the referenced article as well.

Sincerely,

Hill Roberts