Earthling
David Henson
Maybe you should find a Jewish source that would corroborate this. Good luck.
Why, so you can dismiss that as well.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Maybe you should find a Jewish source that would corroborate this. Good luck.
Bats are mammals, not birds, so they do not lay eggs.
I don't have to dismiss it because you wont find any.Why, so you can dismiss that as well.
You do realize that what we are attempting to discuss is the Biblical and the archaic don't you.
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.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.
I don't have to dismiss it because you wont find any.
I very much doubt you did. At least from a Jewish source.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 am" is never a valid source.I am. Can you refute it?
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?Doesn't make any difference what a word's shades of meaning may have been in some ancient manuscript.
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.
My undergrad degree was Zoology.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.
Fowl goes back to at least 1400: "And smale fowles maken melodye ..."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.
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.
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.
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.
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 am" is never a valid source.
I have lost track of "context".. Does this mean people can eat bats?