Why is a bat a bird?

[mindfulness]

I was reading in the OT where it says what foods we may not eat and under a list of birds, it says "a bat". Can someone explain?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Flying things verses creeping things? lol

 

[PaladinValer]

I was reading in the OT where it says what foods we may not eat and under a list of birds, it says "a bat". Can someone explain?

Simple; the Bible isn't a scientific textbook and is wrong in this instance.

The infallibility of Holy Scripture is on matters of faith, doctrine, salvation, and morals, not history or science.

St. Augustine of Hippo, arguably the greatest ancient interpreter of the Holy Writ in the Latin West ever, argued that if a discovery were to be made that seemed to imply Holy Scripture was wrong, it was due to our misinterpretation of the Writ and not the text itself.

In other words, just because the Holy Bible says bats are birds doesn't mean it is in error in the sense of a better interpretation; it merely means that the literal reading and interpretation is wrong. An alternative interpretation, despite the literal reading is clearly incorrect, is what is necessary.

 

[mindfulness]

I'd mostly like to hear from the inerrantists and literalists on the matter.

Clearly a bat is no more a bird than you are. But Moses, or the author rather, didn't know that. I'm glad to see that people can recognize that it doesn't have to be perfect with regard to science, history or the like.

 

[miamited]

hi paladinvaler,

You wrote: Simple; the Bible isn't a scientific textbook and is wrong in this instance.

Whoa! Because man has determined and named the bat as belonging to a genus different than birds, God's word is in error calling it a type of bird? Friend, listen, God isn't beholden to our classification of animals. I imagine that to the Israelites, when the law was given, bats were considered a bird merely because they flew. I'm confident that they didn't divide the animal kingdom based on the birthing practices of their young. They more than likely didn't divide the animals between mammals and reptiles, or any other model that we use today to divide the animal kingdom.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[mindfulness]

hi paladinvaler,

You wrote: Simple; the Bible isn't a scientific textbook and is wrong in this instance.

Whoa! Because man has determined and named the bat as belonging to a genus different than birds, God's word is in error calling it a type of bird? Friend, listen, God isn't beholden to our classification of animals. I imagine that to the Israelites, when the law was given, bats were considered a bird merely because they flew. I'm confident that they didn't divide the animal kingdom based on the birthing practices of their young. They more than likely didn't divide the animals between mammals and reptiles, or any other model that we use today to divide the animal kingdom.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

So you're saying a bad is a bird? Whoa indeed. Whoa indeed.

It is a fact that a bat is of the genus of the mammals, NOT birds. Genetically, it's not even in the same family. The fact is, whomever wrote that text thought they were of the same genus, when they clearly are not. Even children can now recognize that a bat is not a bird, but a mammal. It's not complex, but for ancient man, it would have been. To say, "God doesn't recognize what species or genus an animal is" seems to detract from the Almighty's ability to not only design creatures, but to know which family or part of the animal kingdom they actually belong to. Is God that unaware of his own creation that he cannot tell what family they belong to? I hope you realize the error of that all.

 

[God's Word]

Does the Bible Call the Bat a Bird?

 

[SolomonVII]

I'd mostly like to hear from the inerrantists and literalists on the matter.

Clearly a bat is no more a bird than you are. But Moses, or the author rather, didn't know that. I'm glad to see that people can recognize that it doesn't have to be perfect with regard to science, history or the like.

I an not a literalist, but all classifications are according to pre-set conventions. The Bible does not classify according to a scientific taxonomy that had not even been invented yet.

 

[razeontherock]

I imagine that to the Israelites, when the law was given, bats were considered a bird merely because they flew.

It really is that simple. Occam's razor applies.

 

[Jonathan95]

If there's no other interpretation, then yes bats are birds.

Since the bible is flawless, proof:

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

God cannot lie, so..


John 3:33
Whoever receives His testimony has set his seal of approval to this: God is true. [That man has definitely certified, acknowledged, declared once and for all, and is himself assured that it is divine truth that God cannot lie].


The Bible has so many scientific discoveries!

 

[Mark_Sam]

Flying things verses creeping things? lol

Yeah I too interpret it as "bird" equals "flying creature" in the Bible. The word for "bird" is 'owph, and can, according to Strong's (#05775), include winged insects.

 

[mindfulness]

If there's no other interpretation, then yes bats are birds.

Since the bible is flawless, proof:

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

God cannot lie, so..


John 3:33
Whoever receives His testimony has set his seal of approval to this: God is true. [That man has definitely certified, acknowledged, declared once and for all, and is himself assured that it is divine truth that God cannot lie].


The Bible has so many scientific discoveries!

I don't know if this is a joke or something much worse...

Is it or

 

[Jonathan95]

I don't know if this is a joke or something much worse...

Is it or

What is a joke?

I said if there's no other interpretation, then yes bats are birds.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Flying things verses creeping things? lol

This is exactly the case. The Bible doesn't group things according to modern scientific taxonomy. It groups them according to their appropriate spheres, whether the night (moon, stars), day (sun), birds (sky), fish (sea), or proper land animals that have cloven hoofs and chews chud (land).

The dietary laws (which the OP is citing) are basically meant to restrict animals that don't fit properly into these categories, whether they fly but are not proper birds (bats), are birds that eat carrion (vultures), sea creatures that aren't proper fish (shellfish), or land animals that don't fit the oddly narrow category of having cloven hoofs and are chud-chewing (pigs).

It's there to teach the Israelites how to think in terms of the "order of creation," i.e., to think of things that violate the basic structure of God's good ordering for the universe as "abominations." Of course, once the people of God learned to think in "order of creation" terms, some of the ones that aren't harmful could be put aside, like the kosher laws.

This is what is behind Paul's references to having "elementary principles" as tutors (Gal 4:3, 9). We should still think in terms of the order of creation, which is why Paul can speak against homosexuality in Romans 1 based on the logic of natural law and corruption, but there is no principle of corruption actually inherent in the kosher laws. However, for those who have not entirely learned to distinguish genuine elementary principles from pedagogical ones (thus, the "weak" of 1 Corinthians), Paul is willing to allow them to continue in Torah practice so long as it doesn't become a sign of covenant membership over-against faith in Christ and baptism.

 

[PaladinValer]

hi paladinvaler,

You wrote: Simple; the Bible isn't a scientific textbook and is wrong in this instance.

Whoa! Because man has determined and named the bat as belonging to a genus different than birds, God's word is in error calling it a type of bird?

Because humanity has observed what biology is as God saw it to be in reality.

Furthermore, Jesus is the Word of God, not the Holy Writ. I do not engage in Bibliolatry.

Friend, listen, God isn't beholden to our classification of animals.

God is beholden to truth however. It is true that bats aren't birds; the anatomy is clear.

The logic is clear.

I imagine that to the Israelites, when the law was given, bats were considered a bird merely because they flew.

Based on a ritual/holiness idea, not a truly scientific biological one. In reality, species align due to biology and anatomy, not by a false religion's ideas of ritual purity and cleanliness.

I'm confident that they didn't divide the animal kingdom based on the birthing practices of their young.

That doesn't mean they were right to do so.

They more than likely didn't divide the animals between mammals and reptiles, or any other model that we use today to divide the animal kingdom.

So what? Bats are not birds. The Bible, when literally read here, is wrong. I personally don't bat an eyelash because my faith isn't based on an unhistoric and unorthodox belief of biblical literal inerrancy. My faith is based on biblical inerrancy on matters of faith, doctrine, salvation (in particular), and morals.

I turn to science for biology. I turn to history for the past. I do not turn to whatever the Holy Writ says unless it is in alignment with it.

If there's no other interpretation, then yes bats are birds.

Biologically false.

Since the bible is flawless, proof:

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Nothing says "science and history" here. The language in Greek deals with philosophy, morals, and religion, not some secular notion of anatomy.

God cannot lie, so..

<snip>

Exactly! So, therefore, if the anatomy and biology of a bat is not that of a bird, then it isn't a bird. Therefore, your literalist interpretation of the Holy Writ must be wrong and to continue to hold on to it is to suggest that God is suggesting something which is contrary to His very Being since truth, by its nature, is eternal.

Therefore, bats are not birds and your interpretation is in error. GratiaCorpusChristi gives the correct interpretation. Your literalist one is based on a false and non-Christian idea of biblical literal inerrancy.

What is a joke?

I said if there's no other interpretation, then yes bats are birds.

This is why Bibliolatry is a sin and a blasphemy...

 

[Fireinfolding]

This is exactly the case. The Bible doesn't group things according to modern scientific taxonomy. It groups them according to their appropriate spheres, whether the night (moon, stars), day (sun), birds (sky), fish (sea), or proper land animals that have cloven hoofs and chews chud (land).

The dietary laws (which the OP is citing) are basically meant to restrict animals that don't fit properly into these categories, whether they fly but are not proper birds (bats), are birds that eat carrion (vultures), sea creatures that aren't proper fish (shellfish), or land animals that don't fit the oddly narrow category of having cloven hoofs and are chud-chewing (pigs).

It's there to teach the Israelites how to think in terms of the "order of creation," i.e., to think of things that violate the basic structure of God's good ordering for the universe as "abominations." Of course, once the people of God learned to think in "order of creation" terms, some of the ones that aren't harmful could be put aside, like the kosher laws.

This is what is behind Paul's references to having "elementary principles" as tutors (Gal 4:3, 9). We should still think in terms of the order of creation, which is why Paul can speak against homosexuality in Romans 1 based on the logic of natural law and corruption, but there is no principle of corruption actually inherent in the kosher laws. However, for those who have not entirely learned to distinguish genuine elementary principles from pedagogical ones (thus, the "weak" of 1 Corinthians), Paul is willing to allow them to continue in Torah practice so long as it doesn't become a sign of covenant membership over-against faith in Christ and baptism.

Thanks for that. I have never looked into it before really, it just appears he distinguishes maybe by the wording and other times not sure. Seems to leave it open to "after their kind"

Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind

Lev 11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

Fowls seem to be inclusive of all these

1) flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds
a) fowl, birds
b) winged insects

Then I see the word birds, and theres two words for that. Never really looked though, thanks for an insightful post

 

[God's Word]

Somebody's in for a rude awakening before God one day...

 

[The Dark Knight]

Clearly a bat is no more a bird than you are.

That's true.

 

[LaSpino3]

Palaidn Valer wrote, "Simple; the Bible isn't a scientific textbook and is wrong in this instance. The infallibility of Holy Scripture is on matters of faith, doctrine, salvation, and morals, not history or science."

Phil replies, "Hay Palaidn Valer, first of all let me say this, God created this world and all the existing universes. In this He also created all the sciences that went into making it, and does whatever it takes to keep it functioning.

Now, its not the Scriptures that's in error, its your lack of understanding that is in error. Like all beginner, you went right to the word "Bat," attempting to destroy the intergrety of the Bible, and in your pride are calling God fallible. But what YOU did, was forgot to examine the context of Lev.11.

From ver.14 on every dirty flesh eating creature that flies is listed, as in the eagle, vultures, owls, hawks, etc. Ver.13 begins the list using the Hebrew for "foul." Ver.20, picks up on this, also speaking of, "fowls that creep, going upon all four, (these) shall be an abomination unto you."

A bat is a flying mammal. In Lev.11, the bat closes out the list of fowls that should not be eaten." They take on the nature of a bird in that they fly, because the word "fowl," in the Hebrew, "foh," literally means a wing. God has applied it correctly in that the bat is a winged creature.

So, before you again criticize the Scriptures, do a little research so you don't come off as someone who does not know what their talking about.

The Scriptures were not written by chance, Neither will anyones bad theology, or poor opinions have any effect on them. Chance is the doer of nothing, neither is luck. Luck and chance can be right only half the time, unlike God who is right all the time. God is the cause and the reason for all things, this including all sciences. In Him is the power to create, in Him is the power of life, and without him, there is nothing. His word is perfect, or else we are all in trouble.

Phil LaSpino

 

[JimB]

I do not need a scripture to keep me from eating a bat.