• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Bible And Science: Bats And Birds

sooda

Veteran Member
You do realize that what we are attempting to discuss is the Biblical and the archaic don't you.

Any way you slice it, the Bible was wrong. Even the transliteration doesn't explain insects and bats being "fowl". Its just an error like many others.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Many Bible critics will often make the incorrect assumption that the Bible confuses bats with being birds, and this is not the case. The reasoning behind this incorrect assumption is due to a misunderstanding of Leviticus 11:13-20. We are talking about the implication that science minded atheists, rational thinking people, make regarding the claim that the Bible can not distinguish between birds or fowl, and bats and insects.
Doesn't make any difference what a word's shades of meaning may have been in some ancient manuscript. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS what today's Bibles say. What they're telling those of today who are using the Bible to guide their faith. And what almost all of them are they're telling the faithful is that bats are birds.
Thing is, those scholars who constructed the Bibles of today used the words they did so as to best convey what they concluded were intended meaning of their sources. Want to second guess them and put your needs ahead of their scholarship, go ahead, but it's hardly a principled and commendable thing to do

Interestingly enough, of the 51 Bibles I checked ALL their scholars agreed the word "bat" in Leviticus 11:19 best conveyed the meaning of the term appearing in their ancient sources. A word whose common definition we're obligated to accept---what those scholars wanted us to believe the Bible was referring to.

bat
noun (2)
Definition of bat (Entry 3 of 5)
: any of a widely distributed order (Chiroptera) of nocturnal usually frugivorous or insectivorous flying mammals that have wings formed from four elongated digits of the forelimb covered by a cutaneous membrane and that have adequate visual capabilities but often rely on echolocation
Now the question is, what were these bats? In the 51 Bibles I checked all but four (4) said bats were either fowls or birds in Leviticus 11:13. And in case there's any doubt, here's the dictionary definition of "fowl."

Definition of fowl
(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : a bird of any kind
Of the four exceptions, three said they were "creatures of the air." The fourth said nothing at all about their nature. So, as it turns out, in 92% of the Bibles I checked, the scholars who wrote them agreed that the Bible should say bats are birds. And despite the need of some people to reject the claim, I'll go along with majority: The Bible says Bats are birds. Is this true? No. Ergo, the Bible is wrong.
huge-smile-smiley-emoticon.gif

.
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No . . . I found it. I'm just not going to waste my time with it. You can look it up. You're so smart and capable.
I very much doubt you did. At least from a Jewish source.

But you can concede with it if you want. Personally I can't find any Jewish sources for which I conclude it's just more Christians making terms and words up to fit the narratives and dialogues. It's good enough for me to end it on that note.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Doesn't make any difference what a word's shades of meaning may have been in some ancient manuscript.
It does make a tremendous difference because it shows a most curious issue, that if this book is so important and something we should all be following as it contains truth, why is it then that an accurately translated Bible is rather different from what we know as the English Bible? Either the Bible is blatantly wrong or the translation is bad, and with either one it begs to be asked why didn't god intervene to set things straight?
It also matters because it goes a very long way in demonstrating how Christians have bastardized Judaism and twisted the core texts into something that doesn't fit with the original religion or beliefs.
And it matters because you get to beat both Christians and Atheists alike over the head with their very poor quality work in research, criticisms, knowledge of, and desperate grasps to attack or defend the Bible (such as the recent thread about unicorns, where neither party wanted to acknowledge the fact the word unicorn should not appear in the English Bible and it was never intended to mean a rhinoceros).
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Many Bible critics will often make the incorrect assumption that the Bible confuses bats with being birds, and this is not the case. The reasoning behind this incorrect assumption is due to a misunderstanding of Leviticus 11:13-20. We are talking about the implication that science minded atheists, rational thinking people, make regarding the claim that the Bible can not distinguish between birds or fowl, and bats and insects.

Here is a brief lesson in Hebrew that will be of some help. The word used at Leviticus 11:13 is ohph, which is sometimes translated incorrectly as birds, and sometimes as fowl. It is important to note that the English word fowl applied not only to birds, but all winged flying creatures such as insects and bats. So, although the word fowl in translation is accurate it is often misunderstood due to the fact that today the English word fowl is somewhat more limited than it used to be, applying to birds only.

The Hebrew word for bat is ataleph.
The Hebrew word for flying creature or fowl (as in all flying creatures including birds, bats, and insects) is ohph.
The Hebrew word for birds in general is tsippohr.
The Hebrew word for birds of prey specifically is ayit.

The Hebrew word sherets is drawn from a root word that means to "swarm" "or teem." In noun form applies to small creatures to be found in large numbers. (Exodus 8:3 / Psalm 105:30) In scripture it first applies to the initial appearance on the fifth creative day when the waters began to swarm with living souls. Genesis 1:20
Fowl do not swarm in the waters.

The law regarding clean and unclean things demonstrates that the term applies to aquatic creatures (Leviticus 11:10) winged creatures, including bats and insects (Leviticus 11:19-31 / Deuteronomy 14:19) land creatures such as rodents, lizards, chameleons (Leviticus 11:29-31) creatures traveling on their "belly" and multi-legged creatures (Leviticus 11:41-44).

The English word fowl is primarily used today to refer to a large or edible bird. The Hebrew term ohph, which is derived from the verb fly, applied to all winged or flying creatures. (Genesis 1:20-22) So the Hebrew (ohph) is not so limited in usage as the English word fowl much like the old English cattle.

It isn't about taxonomy it is about language and translation.

The english definitions of fowl

a gallinaceous bird kept for its eggs and flesh; a domestic cock or hen.

Any other domesticated bird kept for its eggs or flesh

The flesh of domesticated birds as food; poultry.

Could you please provide your source for the claim insects are fowl?
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
I think it would be hilarious if there is an ornithologist, mammologist or chiropterist that reads these forums. That is probably too much to ask for.

Either the Bible got its zoology wrong or it has been twisted out of value by translations errors. Either way, it is not a science book.
My undergrad degree was Zoology.

That's great, but incomplete. You are talking about the etymology of the word foul and it's common usage from first about, what? 1570? Fowl, from flue, or fly. Not all birds fly. That should have raised a flag.

You can search for stuff on the Internet but you don't have to stop once you find what you are looking for.

Here. And Here.
Fowl goes back to at least 1400: "And smale fowles maken melodye ..."
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Many Bible critics will often make the incorrect assumption that the Bible confuses bats with being birds, and this is not the case. The reasoning behind this incorrect assumption is due to a misunderstanding of Leviticus 11:13-20. We are talking about the implication that science minded atheists, rational thinking people, make regarding the claim that the Bible can not distinguish between birds or fowl, and bats and insects.

Here is a brief lesson in Hebrew that will be of some help. The word used at Leviticus 11:13 is ohph, which is sometimes translated incorrectly as birds, and sometimes as fowl. It is important to note that the English word fowl applied not only to birds, but all winged flying creatures such as insects and bats. So, although the word fowl in translation is accurate it is often misunderstood due to the fact that today the English word fowl is somewhat more limited than it used to be, applying to birds only.

The Hebrew word for bat is ataleph.
The Hebrew word for flying creature or fowl (as in all flying creatures including birds, bats, and insects) is ohph.
The Hebrew word for birds in general is tsippohr.
The Hebrew word for birds of prey specifically is ayit.

The Hebrew word sherets is drawn from a root word that means to "swarm" "or teem." In noun form applies to small creatures to be found in large numbers. (Exodus 8:3 / Psalm 105:30) In scripture it first applies to the initial appearance on the fifth creative day when the waters began to swarm with living souls. Genesis 1:20
Fowl do not swarm in the waters.

The law regarding clean and unclean things demonstrates that the term applies to aquatic creatures (Leviticus 11:10) winged creatures, including bats and insects (Leviticus 11:19-31 / Deuteronomy 14:19) land creatures such as rodents, lizards, chameleons (Leviticus 11:29-31) creatures traveling on their "belly" and multi-legged creatures (Leviticus 11:41-44).

The English word fowl is primarily used today to refer to a large or edible bird. The Hebrew term ohph, which is derived from the verb fly, applied to all winged or flying creatures. (Genesis 1:20-22) So the Hebrew (ohph) is not so limited in usage as the English word fowl much like the old English cattle.

It isn't about taxonomy it is about language and translation.

Some atheists mock the bible because it mentions "unicorns."
But the silly ones are the mockers - 'unicorn' meant 'horned
animal.' Maybe "back then" when the bible was written in the
ancient Akkadian language these horned animals could have
had different names again. It's all very complicated - but this
complexity is denied.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Some atheists mock the bible because it mentions "unicorns."
But the silly ones are the mockers - 'unicorn' meant 'horned
animal.' Maybe "back then" when the bible was written in the
ancient Akkadian language these horned animals could have
had different names again. It's all very complicated - but this
complexity is denied.


"According to Pliny, a creature with a horse's body, deer's head, elephant's feet, lion's tail, and one black horn two cubits long projecting from its forehead".

I would say mythological.

unicorn | Origin and meaning of unicorn by Online Etymology Dictionary
 

Earthling

David Henson
Some atheists mock the bible because it mentions "unicorns."
But the silly ones are the mockers - 'unicorn' meant 'horned
animal.' Maybe "back then" when the bible was written in the
ancient Akkadian language these horned animals could have
had different names again. It's all very complicated - but this
complexity is denied.

That's an interesting case. In nine places (Numbers 23:22; Numbers 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9, Job 39:10; Psalms 22:21; Psalms 29:6; Psalms 92:10 and Isaiah 34:7) some older translations, like the KJV translated the Hebrew word re'em as unicorn (one horn) because translators were uncertain of what the word meant. The Latin Vulgate translates it as "rhinoceros." Other translations use "wild Ox," "Wild beasts," or "buffalo."

Lexicographers Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner list it as "wild oxen" or Bos primigenius. But the modern day English word ox is associated with the sense of a castrated male, so wild bull is more accurate. The wild bull or ox became extinct by the 17th century.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
That's an interesting case. In nine places (Numbers 23:22; Numbers 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9, Job 39:10; Psalms 22:21; Psalms 29:6; Psalms 92:10 and Isaiah 34:7) some older translations, like the KJV translated the Hebrew word re'em as unicorn (one horn) because translators were uncertain of what the word meant. The Latin Vulgate translates it as "rhinoceros." Other translations use "wild Ox," "Wild beasts," or "buffalo."

Lexicographers Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner list it as "wild oxen" or Bos primigenius. But the modern day English word ox is associated with the sense of a castrated male, so wild bull is more accurate. The wild bull or ox became extinct by the 17th century.

Isn't it strange that people can argue over some obscure
text in the bible - and completely ignore what the bible
actual says about our human condition.
 

Earthling

David Henson
The english definitions of fowl

a gallinaceous bird kept for its eggs and flesh; a domestic cock or hen.

Any other domesticated bird kept for its eggs or flesh

The flesh of domesticated birds as food; poultry.

Could you please provide your source for the claim insects are fowl?

Pay attention. Pay attention to me very carefully.

The Hebrew word ohph (there are always variations in transliterations, for example, owph, oph, of) means any winged creature. Bats, birds, insects. The OP points out other words more specifically used for various forms of these creatures. Including bat and various birds.

The modern day word fowl has apparently changed from when it used to be applied to any winged creature. From the Old Norse fugal, German vogel, Gothic fugls, probably by dissimilation from *flug-la, literally “flyer”, from the same root as Old English fleogan, modern “to fly.

If just one of you had done any research beyond what a quick search on the Internet would produce you would have come to this conclusion yourselves.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Pay attention. Pay attention to me very carefully.

The Hebrew word ohph (there are always variations in transliterations, for example, owph, oph, of) means any winged creature. Bats, birds, insects. The OP points out other words more specifically used for various forms of these creatures. Including bat and various birds.

The modern day word fowl has apparently changed from when it used to be applied to any winged creature. From the Old Norse fugal, German vogel, Gothic fugls, probably by dissimilation from *flug-la, literally “flyer”, from the same root as Old English fleogan, modern “to fly.

If just one of you had done any research beyond what a quick search on the Internet would produce you would have come to this conclusion yourselves.

I have lost track of "context".. Does this mean people can eat bats?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Pay attention. Pay attention to me very carefully.

The Hebrew word ohph (there are always variations in transliterations, for example, owph, oph, of) means any winged creature. Bats, birds, insects. The OP points out other words more specifically used for various forms of these creatures. Including bat and various birds.

The modern day word fowl has apparently changed from when it used to be applied to any winged creature. From the Old Norse fugal, German vogel, Gothic fugls, probably by dissimilation from *flug-la, literally “flyer”, from the same root as Old English fleogan, modern “to fly.

If just one of you had done any research beyond what a quick search on the Internet would produce you would have come to this conclusion yourselves.

Ignorant sarcasm doesnt help, can you try again without the condensation?
 

Earthling

David Henson
"I am" is never a valid source.

Don't you think that eventually, going down the line, it would have to be? You can find the source of something, then you have to find the source that source used, etc. and eventually it ends at "I am."

Almost pointless to ask for a source. That's just asking, who else said that and if you can come up with one how can I discredit it? Find the ****ing source yourself and you will know you have no argument.
 
Top