Bats are birds. Just not our kind of bird.

Just my two cents: apart from flying and being warm blooded, there is very little that bats share in common with birds at all, from the lack of feathers to the structure of the lungs to the structure of the eyes to the structure of the digestive system to the structure of the wings.... (I can go into specifics on any point, if you would like).Oh, and by the way: Given the "flying non-insect" definition, ostriches aren't birds.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Mr. Jack:"These are the birds you must never eat because they are detestable for you: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey, the buzzard, kites of all kinds, ravens of all kinds, the ostrich, the nighthawk, the seagull, hawks of all kinds, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the pelican, the carrion vulture, the stork, herons of all kinds, the hoopoe, and the bat.If flight is the key, the ostriches do not count as birds. Clearly they do. I.e., the Hebrew people were ignorant as to the structure of bats.

quote:

---

on the basis of simpler morphological similarities (as the biblical writers appear to)?

---

Bats hardly have any morphological similarities to birds.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

Anyway, back to bat: I propose that Hebrews knew full well that bats were not birds or even feathered creatures, but that they resembled some sort of flying "mole," and that the scribes simply lumped them into a category of shagetz flying creatures in order to make more sense to the congregation members who might perceive bats as "flying-at-night, bird-like creatures."

---

That's impossible, unless they didn't know that ostriches can't fly, because ostriches are in the same category. Besides, knowing that many bats live in caves and knowing the anatomy of bats are entirely different things.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

The Hebrews would have known that ostriches don't fly just as the Hebrews would have been familiar with mud bricks as you and others correctly postulated in another thread due to direct and long-term contact with Egyptians.

---

Then, I'll have to ask the question again, because noone has answered it yet; perhaps slightly different phrasing will help:How are both bats and ostriches in the same category?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

In post 15, I pointed out that "bats" appear in the bird category, and "moles" appear in the "lizard" category of Leviticus. Don't two negatives make a positive around here?

---

Only if you're a bible literalist. ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

1. The ancient hebrew scholars were so ignorant of bats that despite being able to identify them as seperate from all those other kinds of creature and knowing of their habits in caves they had failed to notice the lack of feathers, lack of beak and presence of fur.

---

Seing as how they thought they were "unclean", that wouldn't be remotely surprising that they didn't examine them.

quote:

---

2. The chose to group bats as birds based on their ability to fly and the presence of two wings. This is, as Brian points out, scientifically naive; but not, I believe, strictly wrong.

---

It's more than just a little scientifically naive; the differences abound through the entire animal's body. Even the wings are more like arms with big flaps of skin over them than true wings.This, quite honestly, would be like me declaring a classification of animals to be mammals based on having brown eyes.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."