Religions > Bible > Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18?
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Bible John" |
| Date: |
22 Mar 2006 04:54:52 PM |
| Object: |
Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
One poster seemed a bit confused as to why the bat is mentioned in a list
for unclean birds in the passages below.
Lev 11:13-19
deut 14:11-18
After looking through all my bible translations (NIV,KJV,NKJV,NASB,HCSB,ESV)
the word bat is mentioned in all of these translations.
The Hebrew word in both Lev 11:19 and Deut 14:18 are both the same. This
word is below.
5847. P©'+a(j atalleph (742a); of unc. der.; a bat:—bat(2), bats (1).
The word is mentioned a mere 3 times in the Hebrew Old Testament. All
instances of the word are in the singular voice except for Isa 2:20 which
renders the word plural to "bats."
There is no other Hebrew word throughout the Hebrew scriptures used to
translate this animal name.
I do not have my Interlinear bible on me at this time, so I cannot give you
the exact rendering of the verse to direct English (which would not sound
as clean in English). But I can assure you that the New American Standard
Bible Translation follows the original Greek the best of all the bible
translations. The NASB is often referred to as a word for word translation,
and not a thought for thought translation like that of the dynamic equalivence
translations.
You may be wondering why bats are mentioned in a group list for birds. Well
this is easy enough to explain.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary says;
11:13-23. The third group included flying creatures, both birds (vv. 13-19)
and flying insects (vv. 20-23). Twenty species of birds (including the
bat which is not strictly a bird) were forbidden. These are apparently birds
of prey (which would thus violate the fundamental prohibition against eating
flesh with blood in it; cf. chap. 17). Though not named, clean birds that
could be eaten were doves, pigeons, quail, and sparrows. The only edible flying
insects were four species of locusts (11:22).
Why was the bat forbidden to eat? Well there were animals that had bad
associations in that culture. Just like in American culture eating a cat,
dog or spider is. So these birds were bad for the Israelites to eat. Every
culture has their own set of norms and foods that they eat.
If I had my "Dictionary of Biblical Imagery" handy I could type out what it
has to say about bats, which often in the scriptures had a negative connotation.
But for your information I will copy and paste what the NUBD has to say about
bats.
Bat (Heb. (a6t@alle4p). The Hebrew idea of a bat was "a fowl that creeps,
going upon all fours." It was unclean (Lev 11:19). It is in reality a mammal
and not a bird at all; its wings are membranous and destitute of feathers.
It lives in caverns, tombs, or ruins (Isa 2:19-21). The bat is a voracious
destroyer of fruit, making it necessary for those who try to raise it in the
neighborhood of cities to cover the clusters, or even the whole tree, with
a net. There are about fifteen species of bats in the Holy Land.
So why is bat in with a list of birds? No one knows. But the point is moot
and very minor. The simple fact is that bats were unclean and were not to
be eaten.
Oftentimes exact animals names are lost in time, and in translation. Perhaps
a typist (Jewish scribes that hand copied the scriptures) could have made
a misake. I do not know.
But the verse below is one example of dozens in the translations that differ
on animal names.
ESV
[Pr 30:28] the lizard you can take in your hands,
yet it is in kings' palaces.
NKJV
[Pr 30:28] The spider skillfully grasps with its hands,
And it is in kings’ palaces.
Hope this helps
John
--
Posted with a Jornada 720 Handheld PC running Ink Spot CE
Usenet wherever you are - http://www.dejavusoftware.com/
[Rev 3:20] Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear
my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him,
and he with me.
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible
.
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
22 Mar 2006 08:15:18 PM |
|
|
Bible John wrote:
<snip>
11:13-23. The third group included flying creatures, both birds
(vv. 13-19) and flying insects (vv. 20-23). Twenty species of birds
(including the
bat which is not strictly a bird) were forbidden. These are
apparently birds of prey (which would thus violate the fundamental
prohibition against eating flesh with blood in it; cf. chap. 17).
It's good to know that a bat is not "strickly speaking" a bird.
<snip>
It lives in caverns, tombs, or ruins (Isa 2:19-21). The bat is a
voracious destroyer of fruit, making it necessary for those who try
to raise it in the neighborhood of cities to cover the clusters, or
even the whole tree, with a net.
So the bat was forbidden becasuse it was a "bird" of prey which preyed on
fruit?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Korsman" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
23 Mar 2006 01:38:45 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:WwnUf.58672$Jd.54270@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Bible John wrote:
<snip>
11:13-23. The third group included flying creatures, both birds
(vv. 13-19) and flying insects (vv. 20-23). Twenty species of birds
(including the
bat which is not strictly a bird) were forbidden. These are
apparently birds of prey (which would thus violate the fundamental
prohibition against eating flesh with blood in it; cf. chap. 17).
It's good to know that a bat is not "strickly speaking" a bird.
<snip>
It lives in caverns, tombs, or ruins (Isa 2:19-21). The bat is a
voracious destroyer of fruit, making it necessary for those who try
to raise it in the neighborhood of cities to cover the clusters, or
even the whole tree, with a net.
So the bat was forbidden becasuse it was a "bird" of prey which preyed on
fruit?
Only fruit-eating bats prey on fruit. Other bats prey on insects. Some
others drink bloooooood.
The Bible was not written as a textbook on taxonomy. For it to include bats
amongst birds just means that they were included with the other flying
things. Had it said that bats had feathers, that would be a proper mistake.
God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
add an s before .co.za
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
24 Mar 2006 05:23:34 PM |
|
|
Stephen Korsman wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:WwnUf.58672$Jd.54270@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Bible John wrote:
<snip>
11:13-23. The third group included flying creatures, both birds
(vv. 13-19) and flying insects (vv. 20-23). Twenty species of
birds (including the
bat which is not strictly a bird) were forbidden. These are
apparently birds of prey (which would thus violate the fundamental
prohibition against eating flesh with blood in it; cf. chap. 17).
It's good to know that a bat is not "strickly speaking" a bird.
<snip>
It lives in caverns, tombs, or ruins (Isa 2:19-21). The bat is a
voracious destroyer of fruit, making it necessary for those who try
to raise it in the neighborhood of cities to cover the clusters, or
even the whole tree, with a net.
So the bat was forbidden becasuse it was a "bird" of prey which
preyed on fruit?
Only fruit-eating bats prey on fruit. Other bats prey on insects.
Some others drink bloooooood.
If you read what was written, you will see that I was responding to what
the man said.
He should at least make an effort to be consistant in his little world.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
23 Mar 2006 02:48:28 PM |
|
|
Stephen Korsman wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:WwnUf.58672$Jd.54270@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Bible John wrote:
<snip>
11:13-23. The third group included flying creatures, both birds
(vv. 13-19) and flying insects (vv. 20-23). Twenty species of birds
(including the
bat which is not strictly a bird) were forbidden. These are
apparently birds of prey (which would thus violate the fundamental
prohibition against eating flesh with blood in it; cf. chap. 17).
It's good to know that a bat is not "strickly speaking" a bird.
<snip>
It lives in caverns, tombs, or ruins (Isa 2:19-21). The bat is a
voracious destroyer of fruit, making it necessary for those who try
to raise it in the neighborhood of cities to cover the clusters, or
even the whole tree, with a net.
So the bat was forbidden becasuse it was a "bird" of prey which preyed on
fruit?
Only fruit-eating bats prey on fruit. Other bats prey on insects. Some
others drink bloooooood.
The Bible was not written as a textbook on taxonomy. For it to include bats
amongst birds just means that they were included with the other flying
things. Had it said that bats had feathers, that would be a proper mistake.
It (KJV) does appear to qualify bats as "fowl"
[13] And these are they which ye shall have in abomination
among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an
abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
[14] And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; [15]
Every raven after his kind; [16] And the owl, and the
night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
[17] And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great
owl, [18] And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier
eagle, [19] And the stork, the heron after her kind, and
the lapwing, and the bat.
It's also worth point out, to Bible Bob's point, that this chapter
distinguishes between "fowls" and "flying creeping things." So
apparently, not all flying animals are fowl.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Korsman" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
24 Mar 2006 09:54:37 AM |
|
|
"Grinder" <grinder@no.spam.maam.com> wrote in message
news:wQDUf.879497$xm3.427988@attbi_s21...
Stephen Korsman wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:WwnUf.58672$Jd.54270@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Bible John wrote:
<snip>
11:13-23. The third group included flying creatures, both birds
(vv. 13-19) and flying insects (vv. 20-23). Twenty species of birds
(including the
bat which is not strictly a bird) were forbidden. These are
apparently birds of prey (which would thus violate the fundamental
prohibition against eating flesh with blood in it; cf. chap. 17).
It's good to know that a bat is not "strickly speaking" a bird.
<snip>
It lives in caverns, tombs, or ruins (Isa 2:19-21). The bat is a
voracious destroyer of fruit, making it necessary for those who try
to raise it in the neighborhood of cities to cover the clusters, or
even the whole tree, with a net.
So the bat was forbidden becasuse it was a "bird" of prey which preyed
on
fruit?
Only fruit-eating bats prey on fruit. Other bats prey on insects. Some
others drink bloooooood.
The Bible was not written as a textbook on taxonomy. For it to include
bats
amongst birds just means that they were included with the other flying
things. Had it said that bats had feathers, that would be a proper
mistake.
It (KJV) does appear to qualify bats as "fowl"
[13] And these are they which ye shall have in abomination
among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an
abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
[14] And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; [15]
Every raven after his kind; [16] And the owl, and the
night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
[17] And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great
owl, [18] And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier
eagle, [19] And the stork, the heron after her kind, and
the lapwing, and the bat.
It's also worth point out, to Bible Bob's point, that this chapter
distinguishes between "fowls" and "flying creeping things." So
apparently, not all flying animals are fowl.
Since the bat is classified as a fowl, their language probably used the word
to include bats ... and didn't limit it to the sort of fowl we mean when we
use the word in English today.
The same goes for flying creeping things, such as locusts, that creep around
on all fours - "all fours" may have simply been meant to refer to flying
things that also walk around in a different way to birds ... it may not have
been meant as literally walking on 4 legs. The only locusts that walk on a
literal 4 legs are those with 2 legs pulled off.
It was a different language, and a different culture, and we can't expect a
direct translation to satisfy our modern language usage.
Even today we have some phrases that don't make sense.
The phrase "I couldn't care less" means exactly that - I care so little,
that caring less than I actually do would be impossible. I cannot, even if
I tried, care less than I do.
But a lot of people say, "I could care less" when they mean exactly the same
thing. This is probably due to hearing it said, thinking they heard it
correctly and know how to use it, but never saw it written down because they
watch TV and never read a book. They never think about what they say, so
when they say "I could care less" they really couldn't care less.
The same goes for things like Bible truths, or Bible teachings. Bible is a
noun, not an adjective. The adjective is "biblical" and not "Bible." The
level of literacy of the people who started that one must have been low.
And I often wonder about the pastors/ministers/etc who talk about the
"bretheren" or the "brethern." Have they ever read the Bible? If they had,
they'd have seen the word spelled as "brethren" instead. Which makes me
wonder how good their comprehension really is. They just "spell it how they
say it" and don't speak properly because they don't read.
I think the same goes for sovran instead of sovereign. And do the users of
the word actually know what it means, or is it a nice holy-sounding word to
say?
But these things become entrenched, and even become part of accepted
speech - "to trek through the veld" ... two words derived from Afrikaans,
but accepted in English ... trek originally meant "pull" but the meaning
changed before it got into English. Nobody today would consider "Star Trek"
to mean "Star Pull" ...
Anyway ... just a few things that irritate me about how daft the jargon of
Bible brethern can be. A bit off topic ... but still counts as an example
for the point I made on topic.
God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
add an s before .co.za
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
31 Mar 2006 07:26:36 AM |
|
|
Bible John wrote:
One poster seemed a bit confused as to why the bat is mentioned in a list
for unclean birds in the passages below.
Lev 11:13-19
deut 14:11-18
The confusion does occur with the word Bat, but "birds..."
Notice the NWT translation:
(Leviticus 11:13-20) 13 "'And these are what YOU will loathe among
the flying creatures. They should not be eaten. They are a loathsome
thing: the eagle and the osprey and the black vulture, 14 and the red
kite and the black kite according to its kind, 15 and every raven
according to its kind, 16 and the ostrich and the owl and the gull and
the falcon according to its kind, 17 and the little owl and the
cormorant and the long-eared owl, 18 and the swan and the pelican and
the vulture, 19 and the stork, the heron according to its kind, and
the hoopoe and the bat. 20 Every winged swarming creature that goes on
all fours is a loathsome thing to YOU.
==========================================
Birds and flying creatures: eagle, osprey, black vulture, red kite,
black kite, glede, raven, ostrich, owl, gull, falcon, little owl,
long-eared owl, swan, pelican, vulture, cormorant, stork, heron,
hoopoe, bat, any winged swarming creature that goes on all fours (that
is, having locomotion in the manner of animals that walk on four legs).
The factors determining which flying creatures were designated
ceremonially "unclean" are not expressly stated in the Bible. While
most of the "unclean" birds were birds of prey or scavengers, not
all of them were
The Bat is a flying creature.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
31 Mar 2006 07:27:50 AM |
|
|
Bible John wrote:
One poster seemed a bit confused as to why the bat is mentioned in a list
for unclean birds in the passages below.
Lev 11:13-19
deut 14:11-18
After looking through all my bible translations (NIV,KJV,NKJV,NASB,HCSB,E=
SV)
the word bat is mentioned in all of these translations.
The Hebrew word in both Lev 11:19 and Deut 14:18 are both the same. This
word is below.
5847. P=A9'+a(j atalleph (742a); of unc. der.; a bat:-bat(2), bats (1=
)=2E
The word is mentioned a mere 3 times in the Hebrew Old Testament. All
instances of the word are in the singular voice except for Isa 2:20 which
renders the word plural to "bats."
There is no other Hebrew word throughout the Hebrew scriptures used to
translate this animal name.
I do not have my Interlinear bible on me at this time, so I cannot give y=
ou
the exact rendering of the verse to direct English (which would not sound
as clean in English). But I can assure you that the New American Standard
Bible Translation follows the original Greek the best of all the bible
translations. The NASB is often referred to as a word for word translati=
on,
and not a thought for thought translation like that of the dynamic equali=
vence
translations.
You may be wondering why bats are mentioned in a group list for birds. W=
ell
this is easy enough to explain.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary says;
11:13-23. The third group included flying creatures, both birds (vv. 13=
-19)
and flying insects (vv. 20-23). Twenty species of birds (including the
bat which is not strictly a bird) were forbidden. These are apparently b=
irds
of prey (which would thus violate the fundamental prohibition against eat=
ing
flesh with blood in it; cf. chap. 17). Though not named, clean birds that
could be eaten were doves, pigeons, quail, and sparrows. The only edible =
flying
insects were four species of locusts (11:22).
Why was the bat forbidden to eat? Well there were animals that had bad
associations in that culture. Just like in American culture eating a cat,
dog or spider is. So these birds were bad for the Israelites to eat. Eve=
ry
culture has their own set of norms and foods that they eat.
If I had my "Dictionary of Biblical Imagery" handy I could type out what =
it
has to say about bats, which often in the scriptures had a negative conno=
tation.
But for your information I will copy and paste what the NUBD has to say a=
bout
bats.
Bat (Heb. (a6t@alle4p). The Hebrew idea of a bat was "a fowl that creep=
s,
going upon all fours." It was unclean (Lev 11:19). It is in reality a mam=
mal
and not a bird at all; its wings are membranous and destitute of feathers.
It lives in caverns, tombs, or ruins (Isa 2:19-21). The bat is a voracious
destroyer of fruit, making it necessary for those who try to raise it in =
the
neighborhood of cities to cover the clusters, or even the whole tree, with
a net. There are about fifteen species of bats in the Holy Land.
So why is bat in with a list of birds? No one knows. But the point is m=
oot
and very minor. The simple fact is that bats were unclean and were not to
be eaten.
Oftentimes exact animals names are lost in time, and in translation. Per=
haps
a typist (Jewish scribes that hand copied the scriptures) could have made
a misake. I do not know.
But the verse below is one example of dozens in the translations that dif=
fer
on animal names.
ESV
[Pr 30:28] the lizard you can take in your hands,
yet it is in kings' palaces.
NKJV
[Pr 30:28] The spider skillfully grasps with its hands,
And it is in kings' palaces.
Hope this helps
John
--
Posted with a Jornada 720 Handheld PC running Ink Spot CE
Usenet wherever you are - http://www.dejavusoftware.com/
[Rev 3:20] Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear
my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him,
and he with me.=20
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harvest Dancer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
29 Mar 2006 06:29:37 PM |
|
|
Bible John wrote:
One poster seemed a bit confused as to why the bat is mentioned in a list
for unclean birds in the passages below.
Lev 11:13-19
deut 14:11-18
According to one prominent Bible scholar, the Hebrew word "oph"
describes a feathered animal that flies, and that describes the bat.
Jason Harvestdancer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
29 Mar 2006 08:29:52 PM |
|
|
Harvest Dancer wrote:
Bible John wrote:
One poster seemed a bit confused as to why the bat is mentioned in a
list for unclean birds in the passages below.
Lev 11:13-19
deut 14:11-18
According to one prominent Bible scholar, the Hebrew word "oph"
describes a feathered animal that flies, and that describes the bat.
Jason Harvestdancer
Absolutely, except that bats don't have feathers.
Birds have feathers.
And since this is posted from free.christians I'll have to ask who this
"prominent Bible scholar" is, what his degrees are and where he has
published his peer reviewed articles?
"There are many people who claim to be biblical scholars. I refer to
scholars who have the necessary training in languages, biblical archeology,
and literary and historical skills to work on the problem, and who meet
discuss and debate their ideas and research with other scholars through
scholarly journals, conferences, etc."
Richard Elliott Friedman "Who wrote the bible."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
29 Mar 2006 09:58:04 PM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
Harvest Dancer wrote:
Bible John wrote:
One poster seemed a bit confused as to why the bat is mentioned in a
list for unclean birds in the passages below.
Lev 11:13-19
deut 14:11-18
According to one prominent Bible scholar, the Hebrew word "oph"
describes a feathered animal that flies, and that describes the bat.
Jason Harvestdancer
Absolutely, except that bats don't have feathers.
Birds have feathers.
And since this is posted from free.christians I'll have to ask who this
"prominent Bible scholar" is, what his degrees are and where he has
published his peer reviewed articles?
I believe it's the same scholar that claims rivers sometimes flow uphill.
"There are many people who claim to be biblical scholars. I refer to
scholars who have the necessary training in languages, biblical archeology,
and literary and historical skills to work on the problem, and who meet
discuss and debate their ideas and research with other scholars through
scholarly journals, conferences, etc."
Richard Elliott Friedman "Who wrote the bible."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harvest Dancer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
30 Mar 2006 10:10:47 PM |
|
|
Grinder wrote:
Mike Painter wrote:
Harvest Dancer wrote:
Bible John wrote:
One poster seemed a bit confused as to why the bat is mentioned in a
list for unclean birds in the passages below.
Lev 11:13-19
deut 14:11-18
According to one prominent Bible scholar, the Hebrew word "oph"
describes a feathered animal that flies, and that describes the bat.
Absolutely, except that bats don't have feathers.
Birds have feathers.
And since this is posted from free.christians I'll have to ask who this
"prominent Bible scholar" is, what his degrees are and where he has
published his peer reviewed articles?
I believe it's the same scholar that claims rivers sometimes flow uphill.
There's someone with a good memory.
This person claims many degrees, but considers any analysis of his
degrees to be a third degree and so he quits the field of battle and
sends in his pit yorkie to fight for him.
Jason Harvestdancer
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
01 Apr 2006 07:46:53 AM |
|
|
Bible John wrote:
So why is bat in with a list of birds? No one knows.
We do know, John, and the answer is that the meanings of words changes
over time.
The word "Oph" has been rendered "fowls". If you go to a restaurant in
Tel Aviv today and ask in Modern Hebrew to eat "oph", you will be given
chicken.
In the later Bibical times it was related as "fowl", and referred to
flying things in general, as "fish" refers to swimming things in
general. The words "fish and fowl" are equivalents as to the question
of linguistic register, as we can see from the existence of the aged
saying "this is neither fish, nor fowl".
Now in English we have no problem with using the term "fish"
demotically, as referring to shellfish, cuttlefish and all manner of
things which are not the proper subject of ichthyology. Prior to
systematic taxonomy in the eighteenth century AD, there was no
consciousness of where the cut-offs should be between clades, and
therefore a clade called "oph" which should include any flying
warm-blooded thing is not wrong. It only becomes wrong later, when
people decide arbitrarily that the cut-off between bat and bird is
somewhere else, and they say that bats came from if memory serves
therapsids whereas birds come from diapsids (no doubt someone will
correct me if I am wrong, but, seeing as how evolution is all fairy
tales anyway, I am not overly concerned about it) that the inclusion of
bats in a class with birds is somehow a "bad thing".
Best,
Uncle Davey
http://www.usenetposts.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Teresita" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
16 Jun 2006 09:23:59 AM |
|
|
On 1 Apr 2006 05:46:53 -0800, "Uncle Davey"
<jerzy.jakubowski@gmail.com> wrote:
The word "Oph" has been rendered "fowls". If you go to a restaurant in
Tel Aviv today and ask in Modern Hebrew to eat "oph", you will be given
chicken.
If you ask for "15% off" you will be given chicken with 15% body fat.
;-)
--
Encyclopedia Teresita
http://home.comcast.net/~rubyredinger
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
01 Apr 2006 10:49:19 AM |
|
|
Uncle Davey wrote:
Snip
Tick, tock...tick, tock...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
01 Apr 2006 05:12:55 PM |
|
|
Uzytkownik "Dave" <horndw@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:1143910159.850851.326130@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Davey wrote:
Snip
Tick, tock...tick, tock...
Isn't it a pity when an intelligent man has reduced himself to writing like
a schoolboy?
Uncle Davey
http://www.usenetposts.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
01 Apr 2006 06:23:27 PM |
|
|
Uncle Davey wrote:
Uzytkownik "Dave" <horndw@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:1143910159.850851.326130@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Davey wrote:
Snip
Tick, tock...tick, tock...
Isn't it a pity when an intelligent man has reduced himself
to writing like a schoolboy?
Now that it's been exposed as a lie, the other tactic has been
abandoned. Surprise, surprise...tick, tock...tick, tock...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ozzy" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
23 Mar 2006 08:38:32 PM |
|
|
Bible John wrote:
So why is bat in with a list of birds? No one knows. But the point is moot
and very minor.
It's hardly minor if your credibility is at stake and one little typo
flushes
the whole book.
The simple fact is that bats were unclean and were not to
be eaten.
In Sumatra, fruit bats are considered a delicacy, sold in market
stalls. And what with the animals' diet, If you didn't know what
you were eating, it might actually taste pretty good -- I imagine
much like sweet and sour pork, with a side of fried bananas.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory A Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
22 Mar 2006 10:13:19 PM |
|
|
In article <1223lds77nobh59@corp.supernews.com>, Bible John
<johnw_94020@yahoo.comPDA> declared...
One poster seemed a bit confused as to why the bat is mentioned in a list
for unclean birds in the passages below.
I brought it up but I am not confused. I know exactly why bats
are included in a list of birds. It's because the fallible humans
that wrote the bible didn't know the difference. They were just a
bunch of uneducated shepherds, of course.
BTW, instead of starting a new thread, why don't you just follow
up my post? That's what you're supposed to do.
Lev 11:13-19
deut 14:11-18
After looking through all my bible translations (NIV,KJV,NKJV,NASB,HCSB,ESV)
the word bat is mentioned in all of these translations.
<snip>
You may be wondering why bats are mentioned in a group list for birds. Well
this is easy enough to explain.
Because the fallible people who wrote the bible were ignorant
shepherds. I'm pretty sure that their knowledge of biology was
limited to domesticated animals.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary says;
11:13-23. The third group included flying creatures, both birds (vv. 13-19)
and flying insects (vv. 20-23). Twenty species of birds (including the
bat which is not strictly a bird) were forbidden. These are apparently birds
of prey (which would thus violate the fundamental prohibition against eating
flesh with blood in it; cf. chap. 17). Though not named, clean birds that
could be eaten were doves, pigeons, quail, and sparrows. The only edible flying
insects were four species of locusts (11:22).
Of course, if you're interested in the truth, rather than in
defending 2000+ year old myths, you're much less likely to say
stupid things like "the bat...is not strictly a bird". See, the
whole point is that the bat is not a bird by any definition, no
matter how strict or loose. The authors of the bible did not know
what they were talking about. Since the christian god is supposed
to be all knowing, this shows that christian beliefs are false.
Why was the bat forbidden to eat? Well there were animals that had bad
associations in that culture. Just like in American culture eating a cat,
dog or spider is. So these birds were bad for the Israelites to eat. Every
culture has their own set of norms and foods that they eat.
Who cares why bats were forbidden? The point is that they are not
birds and the bible says they are. The bible is wrong.
If I had my "Dictionary of Biblical Imagery" handy I could type out what it
has to say about bats, which often in the scriptures had a negative connotation.
But for your information I will copy and paste what the NUBD has to say about
bats.
Bat (Heb. (a6t@alle4p). The Hebrew idea of a bat was "a fowl that creeps,
going upon all fours." It was unclean (Lev 11:19).
They thought that a bat was "a fowl that creeps, going upon all
fours" ? Their god wasn't much on giving biology lessons was he?
It is in reality a mammal and not a bird at all;
Well, duh. Thanks for conceding the point. The bible is wrong.
its wings are membranous and destitute of feathers.
It lives in caverns, tombs, or ruins (Isa 2:19-21). The bat is a voracious
destroyer of fruit, making it necessary for those who try to raise it in the
neighborhood of cities to cover the clusters, or even the whole tree, with
a net. There are about fifteen species of bats in the Holy Land.
So why is bat in with a list of birds? No one knows.
Yes we do. It's because the ignorant, fallible people that wrote
the bible had a very limited understanding of biology.
But the point is moot and very minor.
It is neither moot nor minor. It shows that either the bible was
not written by an all knowing god, or that the all knowing god
intentionally puts errors in the bible for who knows what reason.
The simple fact is that bats were unclean and were not to
be eaten.
Fine. I'll make a point to not eat bats.
<snip>
Hope this helps
Not really. My point was that the bible is wrong. The response
was to just bury your head in the sand.
--
Greg
----
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
22 Mar 2006 10:50:29 PM |
|
|
[snip]
Bible John wrote:
Hope this helps
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
Not really. My point was that the bible is wrong. The response
was to just bury your head in the sand.
It's good that John did not live in the time in which the books of the
Old Testament were being written -- those authors would likely have
mistaken another mammal for a bird.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory A Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
23 Mar 2006 02:44:05 AM |
|
|
In article <pOpUf.635769$084.457571@attbi_s22>, Grinder
<grinder@no.spam.maam.com> declared...
[snip]
Bible John wrote:
Hope this helps
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
Not really. My point was that the bible is wrong. The response
was to just bury your head in the sand.
It's good that John did not live in the time in which the books of the
Old Testament were being written -- those authors would likely have
mistaken another mammal for a bird.
Pretty amazing isn't it? I point out that the bible erroneously
classifies bats as birds, and the response is "The bible says
bats are unclean because..."
--
Greg
----
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
23 Mar 2006 07:37:00 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:44:05 -0600, Gregory A Greenman <see@sig.below>
wrote:
In article <pOpUf.635769$084.457571@attbi_s22>, Grinder
<grinder@no.spam.maam.com> declared...
[snip]
Bible John wrote:
Hope this helps
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
Not really. My point was that the bible is wrong. The response
was to just bury your head in the sand.
It's good that John did not live in the time in which the books of the
Old Testament were being written -- those authors would likely have
mistaken another mammal for a bird.
Pretty amazing isn't it? I point out that the bible erroneously
classifies bats as birds, and the response is "The bible says
bats are unclean because..."
Of course there is also the possibility that people should use common
sense and if quoting from the Scriptures use the Biblical definition
of words:
Genesis 1:21 KJV
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every
winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Genesis 1:22 KJV
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the
waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Genesis 2:19 KJV
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field,
and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he
would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature
[chay nephesh = living soul], that [was] the name thereof.
Genesis 2:20 KJV
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to
every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help
meet for him.
"Winged fowl" refers to animals that fly without regard to how they
are classified by man (after Adam). A bat is an animal that can fly
that reproduces after its kind.
......
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory A Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
23 Mar 2006 12:17:32 PM |
|
|
In article <qc8522p807ikhvadv62qitfiio9jt06u7l@4ax.com>, Bible
Bob <biblebob@saintly.com> declared...
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:44:05 -0600, Gregory A Greenman <see@sig.below>
wrote:
In article <pOpUf.635769$084.457571@attbi_s22>, Grinder
<grinder@no.spam.maam.com> declared...
[snip]
Bible John wrote:
Hope this helps
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
Not really. My point was that the bible is wrong. The response
was to just bury your head in the sand.
It's good that John did not live in the time in which the books of the
Old Testament were being written -- those authors would likely have
mistaken another mammal for a bird.
Pretty amazing isn't it? I point out that the bible erroneously
classifies bats as birds, and the response is "The bible says
bats are unclean because..."
Of course there is also the possibility that people should use common
sense and if quoting from the Scriptures use the Biblical definition
of words:
<snip illuminating bible quotes>
"Winged fowl" refers to animals that fly without regard to how they
are classified by man (after Adam). A bat is an animal that can fly
that reproduces after its kind.
Thank you bible bob for explaining this in such a clear manner
that all doubt about the bible's accuracy has been erased. The
bible definition of birds is "anything that flies". So, using the
bible definition, here are some examples of birds:
bats
eagles
grasshoppers
doves
mosquitoes
blue jays
ants
hawks
gnats
hummingbirds
bees
sparrows
Not birds:
squirrels (except, of course, flying squirrels)
penguins
snakes
ostriches
people
emus
fish (except, of course, flying fish)
dodos
tulips
--
Greg
----
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
23 Mar 2006 07:02:42 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:17:32 -0600, Gregory A Greenman <see@sig.below>
wrote:
In article <qc8522p807ikhvadv62qitfiio9jt06u7l@4ax.com>, Bible
Bob <biblebob@saintly.com> declared...
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:44:05 -0600, Gregory A Greenman <see@sig.below>
wrote:
In article <pOpUf.635769$084.457571@attbi_s22>, Grinder
<grinder@no.spam.maam.com> declared...
[snip]
Bible John wrote:
Hope this helps
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
Not really. My point was that the bible is wrong. The response
was to just bury your head in the sand.
It's good that John did not live in the time in which the books of the
Old Testament were being written -- those authors would likely have
mistaken another mammal for a bird.
Pretty amazing isn't it? I point out that the bible erroneously
classifies bats as birds, and the response is "The bible says
bats are unclean because..."
Of course there is also the possibility that people should use common
sense and if quoting from the Scriptures use the Biblical definition
of words:
<snip illuminating bible quotes>
"Winged fowl" refers to animals that fly without regard to how they
are classified by man (after Adam). A bat is an animal that can fly
that reproduces after its kind.
Thank you bible bob for explaining this in such a clear manner
that all doubt about the bible's accuracy has been erased. The
bible definition of birds is "anything that flies". So, using the
bible definition, here are some examples of birds:
bats
eagles
grasshoppers
doves
mosquitoes
blue jays
ants
hawks
gnats
hummingbirds
bees
sparrows
Not birds:
squirrels (except, of course, flying squirrels)
penguins
snakes
ostriches
people
emus
fish (except, of course, flying fish)
dodos
tulips
LOL! That was a good one Greg; but, I think you know what I meant.
Proverbs 17:22 KJV
A merry heart doeth good [like] a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth
the bones.
I was a little down about something that happened today to one of the
girls I work with. Thanks for the medicine.
......
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
24 Mar 2006 05:18:07 PM |
|
|
Bible Bob wrote:
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:17:32 -0600, Gregory A Greenman <see@sig.below>
wrote:
In article <qc8522p807ikhvadv62qitfiio9jt06u7l@4ax.com>, Bible
Bob <biblebob@saintly.com> declared...
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:44:05 -0600, Gregory A Greenman
<see@sig.below> wrote:
In article <pOpUf.635769$084.457571@attbi_s22>, Grinder
<grinder@no.spam.maam.com> declared...
[snip]
Bible John wrote:
Hope this helps
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
Not really. My point was that the bible is wrong. The response
was to just bury your head in the sand.
It's good that John did not live in the time in which the books
of the Old Testament were being written -- those authors would
likely have mistaken another mammal for a bird.
Pretty amazing isn't it? I point out that the bible erroneously
classifies bats as birds, and the response is "The bible says
bats are unclean because..."
Of course there is also the possibility that people should use
common sense and if quoting from the Scriptures use the Biblical
definition of words:
<snip illuminating bible quotes>
"Winged fowl" refers to animals that fly without regard to how they
are classified by man (after Adam). A bat is an animal that can fly
that reproduces after its kind.
Thank you bible bob for explaining this in such a clear manner
that all doubt about the bible's accuracy has been erased. The
bible definition of birds is "anything that flies". So, using the
bible definition, here are some examples of birds:
bats
eagles
grasshoppers
doves
mosquitoes
blue jays
ants
hawks
gnats
hummingbirds
bees
sparrows
Not birds:
squirrels (except, of course, flying squirrels)
penguins
snakes
ostriches
people
emus
fish (except, of course, flying fish)
dodos
tulips
LOL! That was a good one Greg; but, I think you know what I meant.
We know that you meant to deny what real scholars say about the bible and
put a fundamentalist spin on things.
Laughing rathe than answering the question does not excuse your ignornace.
Greg did make a few errors. If flying squirrels are allowed then flying
snakes are allowed and they exist in Borneo.
He should also have found out if ants and several other creatures are still
considered birds after they can no longer fly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory A Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
24 Mar 2006 08:04:14 PM |
|
|
In article <P6%Uf.47832$2O6.27956@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Mike Painter <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> declared...
Bible Bob wrote:
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:17:32 -0600, Gregory A Greenman <see@sig.below>
wrote:
In article <qc8522p807ikhvadv62qitfiio9jt06u7l@4ax.com>, Bible
Bob <biblebob@saintly.com> declared...
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:44:05 -0600, Gregory A Greenman
<see@sig.below> wrote:
In article <pOpUf.635769$084.457571@attbi_s22>, Grinder
<grinder@no.spam.maam.com> declared...
[snip]
Bible John wrote:
Hope this helps
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
Not really. My point was that the bible is wrong. The response
was to just bury your head in the sand.
It's good that John did not live in the time in which the books
of the Old Testament were being written -- those authors would
likely have mistaken another mammal for a bird.
Pretty amazing isn't it? I point out that the bible erroneously
classifies bats as birds, and the response is "The bible says
bats are unclean because..."
Of course there is also the possibility that people should use
common sense and if quoting from the Scriptures use the Biblical
definition of words:
<snip illuminating bible quotes>
"Winged fowl" refers to animals that fly without regard to how they
are classified by man (after Adam). A bat is an animal that can fly
that reproduces after its kind.
Thank you bible bob for explaining this in such a clear manner
that all doubt about the bible's accuracy has been erased. The
bible definition of birds is "anything that flies". So, using the
bible definition, here are some examples of birds:
bats
eagles
grasshoppers
doves
mosquitoes
blue jays
ants
hawks
gnats
hummingbirds
bees
sparrows
Not birds:
squirrels (except, of course, flying squirrels)
penguins
snakes
ostriches
people
emus
fish (except, of course, flying fish)
dodos
tulips
LOL! That was a good one Greg; but, I think you know what I meant.
We know that you meant to deny what real scholars say about the bible and
put a fundamentalist spin on things.
Laughing rathe than answering the question does not excuse your ignornace.
Greg did make a few errors.
Moi?
If flying squirrels are allowed then flying
snakes are allowed and they exist in Borneo.
I didn't know that.
He should also have found out if ants and several other creatures are still
considered birds after they can no longer fly.
Actually, I'm not sure if any ants can fly, other than queens. I
knew that one was ambiguous, but since I make no claim to being
omniscient, I figured why sweat it?
--
Greg
----
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
24 Mar 2006 11:20:48 PM |
|
|
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
Moi?
If flying squirrels are allowed then flying
snakes are allowed and they exist in Borneo.
I didn't know that.
They flatted their rib cage and spiral down from trees.
I learned it from B&W films in the late 40's early 50's but you can google
"flying snakes" for the info.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory A Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
25 Mar 2006 02:04:46 AM |
|
|
In article <Qq4Vf.47880$2O6.39821@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Mike Painter <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> declared...
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
Moi?
If flying squirrels are allowed then flying
snakes are allowed and they exist in Borneo.
I didn't know that.
They flatted their rib cage and spiral down from trees.
I learned it from B&W films in the late 40's early 50's but you can google
"flying snakes" for the info.
This can't possibly be true. Snakes were cursed to crawl on their
belly and eat dirt. How could they fly if they were so cursed?
--
Greg
----
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
26 Mar 2006 05:38:46 PM |
|
|
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
I didn't know that.
They flatted their rib cage and spiral down from trees.
I learned it from B&W films in the late 40's early 50's but you can
google "flying snakes" for the info.
This can't possibly be true. Snakes were cursed to crawl on their
belly and eat dirt. How could they fly if they were so cursed?
Turned Catholic, went to confession?
Found Jesus, got saved?
But perhaps we are completely off track.
The bible says "serpent", not snake.
If bats are birds then perhaps earthworms are serpents. They crawl on their
belly and "eat" dirt.
Snakes don't eat dirt.
Earthworms don't fly or glide, snakes do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
26 Mar 2006 06:51:48 PM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
I didn't know that.
They flatted their rib cage and spiral down from trees.
I learned it from B&W films in the late 40's early 50's but you can
google "flying snakes" for the info.
This can't possibly be true. Snakes were cursed to crawl on their
belly and eat dirt. How could they fly if they were so cursed?
Turned Catholic, went to confession?
Found Jesus, got saved?
Red Bull.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Bats mentioned in Lev 11:13-19 & Deut 14:11-18? |
27 Mar 2006 11:07:27 PM |
|
|
Grinder wrote:
Mike Painter wrote:
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
I didn't know that.
They flatted their rib cage and spiral down from trees.
I learned it from B&W films in the late 40's early 50's but you can
google "flying snakes" for the info.
This can't possibly be true. Snakes were cursed to crawl on their
belly and eat dirt. How could they fly if they were so cursed?
Turned Catholic, went to confession?
Found Jesus, got saved?
Red Bull.
As a favored professor used to say, "Do you know what 's wrong with that
idea?
After a pause while the newbie tried to figure out what had gone wrong, he
would say, "I didn't think of it."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
