• 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
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.
A unicorn is a horse, or it could be an okapi which is related to the giraffe.
 

Earthling

David Henson
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?

Why? The Bible wasn't written to us. It was written to the people in the time that it was written, who would have understood it completely. It's just an example for our consideration. That isn't to lessen it's importance, but it doesn't apply to us in the same way it did them. We have all we need.

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.

We've been there before. Judaism is a Pharisaic bastardization of the Jewish writings, given the nature of religiosity what else would you expect? It has been further bastardized since Alexander The Great in 332 B.C.E. The idea that Judaism got it right and Christians ****ed it up is the almost the exact opposite of the accurate truth. The Pharisees ****ed it (Judaism) up and the Christians preserved it then they ****ed it up as well.

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).

Where is that thread? I just posted this on the subject. (Link)
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Not really.

Shakespeare was a great observer of humanity.
There are some who only know him the debate
over whether he wrote all the works attributed
to him.
The great Western canon of philosophy and
literature examines the human condition. But
not to the extent of the bible. Like the bible this
canon is being rejected too.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Not demands, suggestions.



Is that a question? If so the answer is no.


"Pay attention. Pay attention to me very carefully."

Is not a suggestion, ot os a command


Again that surprises me considering the condescending attitude
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
And how do these links help your case that the English word "fowl" used to be used for bats or insects? Are you daft? Being serious here - what could you possibly be thinking? I scoured the information on the two links you cited, and the only thing that even comes close to supporting you (and it is quite a stretch) is this:

perhaps a dissimilation of a word meaning literally "flyer"

Otherwise, all I see is "bird" at every turn. And the above does not necessarily mean that the word "fowl" itself was used for just any type of "flyer" - it means that the root of the word "fowl" (not the word itself) was a more general word for "flyer". Hence the use of the word "dissimilation."

And theists are somehow surprised when no one takes them seriously, or they get mocked or ridiculed. Shame on you. You do those of your creed no service here.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
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.
David, you're my idol.
 

QuestioningMind

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.

All this really seems to emphasize in my opinion is just how useless the bible is in this day and age. If people can't agree on whether or not the bible says a bat is a bird or not, all because no one currently uses the languages it was written in or can truly comprehend the 'context of the times', why should anyone care less what it says? If there was anything genuinely worthwhile in it then you'd think that any all powerful creator God would have updated and clarified it long ago.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
foul (`oph; peteinon):

The word is now generally restricted to the larger, especially the edible birds, but formerly it denoted all flying creatures; in Leviticus 11:20 the King James Version we have even, "all fowls that creep, going upon all four," Leviticus 11:21, "every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four." (Source)

The Etymology Dictionary tells us the origin of this word is “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”.

The Etymology Dictionary actually says...
fowl (n.)
Old English fugel "bird, feathered vertebrate," from Proto-Germanic *fuglaz, the general Germanic word for "bird" (source also of Old Saxon fugal, Old Frisian fugel, Old Norse fugl, Middle Dutch voghel, Dutch vogel, German vogel, Gothic fugls "a fowl, a bird"), perhaps a dissimilation of a word meaning literally "flyer," from PIE *pleuk-, from root *pleu- "to flow."

You appear to be making things up at this point.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
The Etymology Dictionary tells us the origin of this word is “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”.
I know you feel backed into a corner, but this isn't getting you out. We use the words we do because they convey the meanings we all agree on.
When we use the word "awful" we mean very bad or unpleasant, but many years ago it meant “worthy of awe.” Same goes for the word "bachelor," which used to mean a young knight, and then meant someone who had achieved the lowest rank at a university, but now means an unmarried man.

So pack up your etymology dictionary and . . . . . . :)

.

.
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Why? The Bible wasn't written to us. It was written to the people in the time that it was written, who would have understood it completely. It's just an example for our consideration. That isn't to lessen it's importance, but it doesn't apply to us in the same way it did them. We have all we need.
If it wasn't written for us, if it doesn't apply to us the same way, why not discard the other thing? Or how do you decide to go about a "modern" understanding of ancient myths of stories involving acts that we know are impossible and are not supported by the evidence we have. It sounds very similar to the claim that not all of the Bible is literal, which begs the question of what guidelines and standards do we apply to know what is story and what is literal. If the laws that govern the growing of crops don't apply to us (and if IRC it's a law that only applies to Jews in Israel under specific conditions), then why should we assume the alleged crucifixion and resurrection and salvation applies?
We've been there before. Judaism is a Pharisaic bastardization of the Jewish writings, given the nature of religiosity what else would you expect?
Of course! The arrogance of Christians! You're commanded to judge not, yet here there are so many of them judging the Jews and insisting they got their own religion wrong.
The Pharisees ****ed it (Judaism) up and the Christians preserved it then they ****ed it up as well.
If they preserved it, as you claim, then why was the character Ha-Satan, a powerful, obedient, and high loyal angel of god, reinvented into the rebellious Devil? Why do Christians claim a Messiah, as no one has fulfilled all Messianic prophecy (the continued existence of war and not establishing Israel as a global super power are just two things Jesus failed to do).
Where is that thread? I just posted this on the subject. (Link)
It's no longer a current thread.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
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.
No. The original word (re'em) very likely refers to the now extinct aurochs bulls, which had two horns. And we have evidence, through the writings of Magellan, that when they wrote unicorn in English it was interpreted to mean what we today think of as a unicorn, as when Magellan found this one horned creature (rhinoceros) he wrote, in a disappointed tone, that it does not at all match the description of the creature of myth.
It's very appropriate and valid to criticize the English Bible for using the word unicorn because it should not be there.
 
Top