• 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
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.

"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."
Is this a joke?

fowl
[foul]
NOUN
  1. a gallinaceous bird kept for its eggs and flesh; a rooster or hen.
    synonyms:
    poultry · domestic fowl
    • any other domesticated bird kept for its eggs or flesh, e.g., the turkey, duck, goose, and guineafowl.
      synonyms:
      poultry · domestic fowl
    • the flesh of domesticated birds as food; poultry.
    • birds collectively, especially as the quarry of hunters.
    • archaic
      a bird.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I'm not too interested in this topic, but as far as I'm aware, 'fowl' never referred to bats in English.
Rather it referred to all feathered creatures, whereas it's more commonly tied to domestic birds in the last 500 years (give or take).

Would be interested in evidence to the contrary, words interest me.

Bats are mammals, not birds, so they do not lay eggs.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I read the OP pretty carefully.
If you're arguing that ohph was mistranslated, then I have no opinion, or information to offer.
If you're arguing that ohph was translated correctly, but that fowl had a different meaning at the time which included bats and insects, then I strongly disagree but would be interested in proof to the contrary.

In neither case do I think this proves or disproves God, but I'm interested in words and in particular old English/Saxon words right now, for selfish reasons.
I can't find the word ohph anywhere in any Hebrew/Jewish source.

It turns out it's actually spelled o w p h and not o h p h.

Aside from the correction, the word still does not appear in any Jewish or Hebrew source.

It appears it's just a plain fabricated made-up term by Christians as it's only from a few specific Christian sources that mention the word.

If I had a nickel for every fancy translation for the same word that comes out of Christians, oh how I'd be a rich man.
 
Last edited:

sooda

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.

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.

There are lots of errors in the Bible. Bats and Insects are not fowl. Bats don't lay eggs and they have fur not feathers.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I can't find the word ohph anywhere in any Hebrew/Jewish source.

It turns out it's actually spelled o w p h and not o h p h.

Aside from the correction, the word still does not appear in any Jewish or Hebrew source.

It appears it's just a plain fabricated made-up term by Christians as it's only from a few specific Christian sources that mention the word.

If I had a nickel for every fancy translation for the same word that comes out of Christians, oh how I'd be a rich man.

Science? People don't live in the belly of a fish or walk on water .. and the sun doesn't stand still for a day long battle. Why would you blame Christians for this bit of bat/bird silliness?
 

Earthling

David Henson
I read the OP pretty carefully.
If you're arguing that ohph was mistranslated, then I have no opinion, or information to offer.
If you're arguing that ohph was translated correctly, but that fowl had a different meaning at the time which included bats and insects, then I strongly disagree but would be interested in proof to the contrary.

In neither case do I think this proves or disproves God, but I'm interested in words and in particular old English/Saxon words right now, for selfish reasons.

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”.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
I read the OP pretty carefully.
If you're arguing that ohph was mistranslated, then I have no opinion, or information to offer.
If you're arguing that ohph was translated correctly, but that fowl had a different meaning at the time which included bats and insects, then I strongly disagree but would be interested in proof to the contrary.

In neither case do I think this proves or disproves God, but I'm interested in words and in particular old English/Saxon words right now, for selfish reasons.

Well stated. I did find this on the word owph.

Owph - language hebrew

pronounced "ofe"

Short Definition:
a bird (as covered with feathers, or rather as covering with wings), often collectively

Detailed Definition:
flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds,
fowl, birds, winged insects

owph - Strong's number H5775 - Hebrew Lexicon | Bible Tools - Messie2vie
 

sooda

Veteran 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”.

Flying squirrels glide. Do they count?
 

We Never Know

No Slack
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”.


It's Owph and pronounced "ofe". How can you argue about something you can't get right?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Science? People don't live in the belly of a fish or walk on water .. and the sun doesn't stand still for a day long battle. Why would you blame Christians for this bit of bat/bird silliness?

A considerable number of Christians have a tendency to take things horribly out of context and even invent , embellish and fabricate things, that aren't even there.

One thing I learned from Aaron Ra is when Christians start spouting more nonsense and misleading information as if it's true or relevant, you call them out on it.

The good news is it's working and people are waking up everyday to the fact that Christianity is not reliable or accurate in the field of science or education in the so many pathetic attempts to validate their own imaginations and delusions that people just believe at face value without properly researching and checking it out to see if things are the case or not.

Christians tend to be intellectually lazy and gullible of which I myself was certainly a part of, prior to me slowly waking up and realizing one day that it was just a stained glass windows and a rose colored world fueled by the incredible power and influence of the imagination.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
By getting it right. It's a transliteration. (Strongs)

trans·lit·er·ate
[transˈlitəˌrāt, tranzˈlidəˌrāt]
VERB
(be transliterated)
  1. write or print (a letter or word) using the closest corresponding letters of a different alphabet or language.
    "names from one language are often transliterated into another"
 

sooda

Veteran Member
A considerable number of Christians have a tendency to take things horribly out of context and even invent , embellish and fabricate things, that aren't even there.

One thing I learned from Aaron Ra is when Christians start spouting more nonsense and misleading information as if it's true or relevant, you call them out on it.

The good news is it's working and people are waking up everyday to the fact that Christianity is not reliable or accurate in the field of science or education in the so many pathetic attempts to validate their own imaginations and delusions that people just believe at face value without properly researching and checking it out to see if things are the case or not.

Christians tend to be intellectually lazy and gullible of which I myself was certainly a part of, prior to me slowly waking up and realizing one day that it was just a stained glass windows and a rose colored world fueled by the incredible power and influence of the imagination.

Out of context?

So you weren't supposed to believe in Jonah or that the sun stood still or that Jesus walked on water unless you are a gullible Christian?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
At least Jeff A Benner appears to be more honest about it being Strongs is the preferred Source here.....

"עוּף Strong’s #5774 ooph
And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
(Genesis 1:20)

This verb means “to fly,” while the noun form, pronounced oph (Strong’s #5775) but spelled the same, is a “flyer” and can be a bird, bat or insect, anything that flies. Hebrew commonly uses word puns, words of similar sounds together. Genesis 1:20 is a good example where it says ve’oph ye’oph which means “flyers flying.”

It just refers to flying in general wheras the noun just refers to anything that flies regardless of taxonomy which includes birds and bats".

Source:
Biblical Hebrew Picture Dictionary
I'm not a fan of Jeff A Benner, but at least he does a little bit more homework.




I still haven't been able to find a Jewish Source however, so regard this as a disclaimer for the above quote and source.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Wow! So you are saying that it's not a transliteration? Like the Strongs link I gave saying it was a transliteration?

Back up that claim, as the atheists always say.
Maybe you should find a Jewish source that would corroborate this. Good luck.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Out of context?

So you weren't supposed to believe in Jonah or that the sun stood still or that Jesus walked on water unless you are a gullible Christian?
When I used to be a Christian I was certainly expected to believe in that nonsense. I'm glad I don't anymore.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
All religious myths likely contain some historical information and whatever scientific information that was available at the time it was written.
You won't see reference to science beyond the times however.
In Kings Pi was 3.

In Genesis the water covered the Earth then dry land was made. Water covering the Earth never happened, it would still be here. It also took billions of years for the water to accumulate on Earth.
The light appearing after Earth was made means Earth came before the sun. Wrong.
Why would a book of metaphors designed to pass on wisdom and knowledge about life need to be literal?
 
Top