Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bats are birds. Just not our kind of bird.
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 1 of 39 (72926)
12-15-2003 7:51 AM


Perhaps the most oft-quoted biblical error round these-here parts is that it says 'bats are birds'. This strikes me as an anachronism, not an error. The term 'bird' used now means a specific branch of the heirachical tree of life, sharing certain properties, however we have no way of assertaining what exactly 'bird' (or more accurately the word translated as 'bird') meant to the writers of the time. It may well have meant 'flying non-insect' a group into which bats do, indeed, fall.
In other words, we cannot know that the biblical group 'bird' refers to our modern understanding of the word 'bird'.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Brian, posted 12-15-2003 8:41 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 2 of 39 (72932)
12-15-2003 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Jack
12-15-2003 7:51 AM


There are quite a few problems here.
Perhaps the most oft-quoted biblical error round these-here parts is that it says 'bats are birds'.
How do you know that it is an error, as you say we may not know what the author was referring to, but since you do not 'know' then it may well be an error. You cannot say that this is an 'oft quoted' error if you have not substantiated that it is.
This strikes me as an anachronism, not an error. The term 'bird' used now means a specific branch of the heirachical tree of life, sharing certain properties, however we have no way of assertaining what exactly 'bird' (or more accurately the word translated as 'bird') meant to the writers of the time.
You have just totally undermined your opening argument. By this statement you are yourself open to the possibility that they did mean that the bat is a bird, you do not know what they were thinking so they may well have been thinking exactly what the bible says.
It may well have meant 'flying non-insect' a group into which bats do, indeed, fall.
It MAY , so you really do not know.
Tell me, why do you assume that this is the most oft quoted error when you do not know if it is an error or not?
Do you know what Hebrew word is used in the reference?
Why do you think that many very learned men have translated the word as 'Bird' when it may not have been, there must be a reason why they translated it as bird?
Is the word used for 'bird' in the 'Bat' reference the same word used for every other reference to bird in the OT?
What seems more likely to you, that Moses' wife looked like a little bird, or that she looked like a 'flying non-insect'?
In other words, we cannot know that the biblical group 'bird' refers to our modern understanding of the word 'bird'.
And we cannot know if the biblical name for 'insect' means 'insect' or if 'yom' means 'day' or if the arnebeth was a hare, or any number of things.
The most likely scenario is that whoever wrote Genesis thought that as the bat flies then it is a bird.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Jack, posted 12-15-2003 7:51 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Jack, posted 12-15-2003 8:48 AM Brian has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 3 of 39 (72933)
12-15-2003 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Brian
12-15-2003 8:41 AM


How do you know that it is an error, as you say we may not know what the author was referring to, but since you do not 'know' then it may well be an error. You cannot say that this is an 'oft quoted' error if you have not substantiated that it is.
Is there a point to this passage, or are you just being silly?
The most likely scenario is that whoever wrote Genesis thought that as the bat flies then it is a bird.
But does not mean that according to what they call a 'bird', it is a 'bird'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Brian, posted 12-15-2003 8:41 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 12-15-2003 9:27 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 4 of 39 (72936)
12-15-2003 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Jack
12-15-2003 8:48 AM


Yes there is a point.
You have said that we do not know for sure what the biblical author meant by the word 'bird'.
If we do not know what they meant then the possibility that they meant the same as the modern day meaning of the word is at least a possibility.
To say that it is the most oft-quoted error would mean that you have shown that it actually is an error to begin with. You have not shown that it is an error, therefore your argument is flawed.
Is the word used in the 'bat' passage the same as the word used for bird in other references whose meaning can only be bird in the modern sense?
What leads you to think that linguistically this is an error, or does it simply have to be an error because there are no errors in 'God's Word'?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dr Jack, posted 12-15-2003 8:48 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 12-15-2003 9:52 AM Brian has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 5 of 39 (72942)
12-15-2003 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Brian
12-15-2003 9:27 AM


To say that it is the most oft-quoted error would mean that you have shown that it actually is an error to begin with. You have not shown that it is an error, therefore your argument is flawed.
Oh come on, that's semantic nonsense. Would you be happier if I refered to it as an oft-quoted biblical 'error'? In any case, how I refer to it in my pre-ramble is irrelevant to my discussion and thus cannot make it flawed.
What leads you to think that linguistically this is an error, or does it simply have to be an error because there are no errors in 'God's Word'?
The bible is riddled with errors and contradictions; I don't think this is one of them.
To consider it so is to apply a more advanced modern thinking about what constitutes a 'bird' to the writings of a bronze age culture. That strikes me as absurd.
As the writer refers to the bat as being a bird, is the logical conclusion not that whatever they considered 'bird' to mean includes bats?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 12-15-2003 9:27 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Brian, posted 12-15-2003 12:10 PM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 39 by Brad McFall, posted 01-15-2004 6:02 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 6 of 39 (72964)
12-15-2003 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Jack
12-15-2003 9:52 AM


Oh come on, that's semantic nonsense. Would you be happier if I refered to it as an oft-quoted biblical 'error'? In any case, how I refer to it in my pre-ramble is irrelevant to my discussion and thus cannot make it flawed.
I would be happier if you supported your claim that it is an error with somehting substantial rather than your psycho-analysis of a 3000 year old scribe.
It does make your argumnent flawed because in laying down the permises of your argument you claim that we do not know what the original author meant by 'bird', why can't the author mean that he thinks that bat belongs to the same family as a raven or a dove and is thus in error?
You haven't shown anything to support your argument at all. You have just given your opinion based on what you think the original author may be referring to.
The bible is riddled with errors and contradictions; I don't think this is one of them.
Why not, all birds are non-flying insects aren't they? Why didn't they call the bat a flying mouse or the night bird?
I think the problem that some sceptics have is that the fundies claim that the Bible is God's word and it was revealed to his prophets who wrote it down, in this case it was meant to be Moses whom no one except the most extreme fundy would believe actually wrote it. The problem is, not that the prophet didn't know that the bat isn't a bird, but why has God told the scribe to list bats in with the birds.
It really has nothing to do with the world view of the author, it has to do with God passing on false information.
To consider it so is to apply a more advanced modern thinking about what constitutes a 'bird' to the writings of a bronze age culture. That strikes me as absurd.
So you wouldn't consider a dove to be a bird then, or a lapwing or a heron as the bible authors did?
They obviously thought that everything that flew in the air with two wings was a bird, they are incorrect.
As the writer refers to the bat as being a bird, is the logical conclusion not that whatever they considered 'bird' to mean includes bats?
Yes, that is logical, and they have categorised a bat as being a bird, doesn't it strike you as surprising that everything else listed is actually a bird?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 12-15-2003 9:52 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Dr Jack, posted 12-16-2003 5:03 AM Brian has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 7 of 39 (72996)
12-15-2003 2:29 PM


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."

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 8 of 39 (73264)
12-16-2003 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Brian
12-15-2003 12:10 PM


They obviously thought that everything that flew in the air with two wings was a bird, they are incorrect.
Only by the modern definition of bird. Applying that to an ancient text is an anachronism. 'Bird' is an arbitary grouping, which we have tried (only largely succesfully) to give a world meaningful definition to.
To say a bat is a bird is only wrong by the modern definition of bird. It is not inherently wrong to group birds and bats.
Do you really think that they didn't know that Bats didn't have feathers? Or a beak? Or that they had fur? In other words, many of the things that we consider to make bats not birds? If they didn't know these things how would they even have had a concept of 'bat'?
So, having knowledge of the non-(modern-)birdlike qualities of a bat, they still considered it to be a bird. That tells me that what they had a different idea of what a bird is than we do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Brian, posted 12-15-2003 12:10 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-16-2003 6:24 AM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 10 by Brian, posted 12-16-2003 6:30 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6239 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 9 of 39 (73273)
12-16-2003 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr Jack
12-16-2003 5:03 AM


Only by the modern definition of bird. Applying that to an ancient text is an anachronism.
Anachronism is a category limited to human endeavors. The "Lord" is not permitted "anachronism" unless, of couse, one wishes to posit an omniscient dummy.
'Bird' is an arbitary grouping, ...
So much for science ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr Jack, posted 12-16-2003 5:03 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Dr Jack, posted 12-16-2003 6:35 AM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 10 of 39 (73274)
12-16-2003 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr Jack
12-16-2003 5:03 AM


Hi,
Only by the modern definition of bird.
Yes but then there is much more of the Bible that we wouldnt understand then. The thing is, you have to look at what else has been categorised along with the bat here, everything else is a bird isn't it?
Also, our modern defintion in regard to 'insect' is anachronistic as well, and our defintion of 'fish' too. The translators had to give it a defintion that makes sense to us, they would have to justify their choice of word to the committees that scrutinised the translations.
It is not inherently wrong to group birds and bats.
It is unscientific though isn't it? So if the Bible is unscientific, or prescientific, why are so many believers intent on proving that there is indeed accurate scientific information in the Bible.
I do not think that we are that far apart here, we both appear to believe that the Bible should be read for what it is, a collection of ancient literature written for a specific religious purpose.
The authors were not interested in giving accurate scientific information, they were only intent in informing their audience about the relationship between God and Israel, His chosen people.
The only point I had to bring up was that you couldn't say this is the most 'oft-quoted error' when we do not know for a fact if it is an error or not, you admit yourself that we don't know exactly what they meant, so they could have meant it was a 'bird'. They could have meant that they believed that the bat belonged to the same 'kind' as lapwings and doves and the other listed birds.
Do you really think that they didn't know that Bats didn't have feathers? Or a beak? Or that they had fur? In other words, many of the things that we consider to make bats not birds? If they didn't know these things how would they even have had a concept of 'bat'?
This isn't the issue with the debate over this information, the issue is that God should know and he should have passed on accurate information to his prophets, this is what the whole issue is. The arguments over this apparent error is not because the protagonists think that the ancients didn't have our definitions, the argument is over why God lumped the bat in with the birds.
So, having knowledge of the non-(modern-)birdlike qualities of a bat, they still considered it to be a bird. That tells me that what they had a different idea of what a bird is than we do.
It tells me that they are a very naive society. I would guess that most children would think that the bat is a bird and this reflects the child like presentation of the listings.
This is what undermines the inerrantists belief here, not that they authors placed bats in with birds but that God told Moses that a bat is a bird. This naivety just reflects the prescientific approach that the author had, and shows that the Bible is just the work of the human imagination.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr Jack, posted 12-16-2003 5:03 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Dr Jack, posted 12-16-2003 6:42 AM Brian has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 11 of 39 (73275)
12-16-2003 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by ConsequentAtheist
12-16-2003 6:24 AM


Oh, but it's science that tells us it's an arbitary grouping. At some point some dinosaur grew feathers and starting jumping off things, or running and jumping (taking a rather simplistic view of current theories on avian evolution). When did it become a 'bird'?
Why do we choose to group that particular branch on the tree of life as 'bird', and not an earlier or later one? Why do we choose to group according to the particular properties we do, and not (like quadraped) on the basis of simpler morphological similarities (as the biblical writers appear to)?
Anachronism is a category limited to human endeavors. The "Lord" is not permitted "anachronism" unless, of couse, one wishes to posit an omniscient dummy.
The anachronism is not in the biblical text, but in our reading of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-16-2003 6:24 AM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Rei, posted 12-16-2003 1:13 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 12 of 39 (73280)
12-16-2003 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Brian
12-16-2003 6:30 AM


The authors were not interested in giving accurate scientific information, they were only intent in informing their audience about the relationship between God and Israel, His chosen people.
In agreement.
It tells me that they are a very naive society. I would guess that most children would think that the bat is a bird and this reflects the child like presentation of the listings.
In agreement.
This is what undermines the inerrantists belief here, not that they authors placed bats in with birds but that God told Moses that a bat is a bird. This naivety just reflects the prescientific approach that the author had, and shows that the Bible is just the work of the human imagination.
In agreement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Brian, posted 12-16-2003 6:30 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Brian, posted 12-16-2003 10:34 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 13 of 39 (73314)
12-16-2003 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr Jack
12-16-2003 6:42 AM


Cheers!
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr Jack, posted 12-16-2003 6:42 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 14 of 39 (73358)
12-16-2003 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dr Jack
12-16-2003 6:35 AM


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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dr Jack, posted 12-16-2003 6:35 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Abshalom, posted 12-16-2003 2:28 PM Rei has replied
 Message 22 by Dr Jack, posted 12-17-2003 5:03 AM Rei has replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 39 (73381)
12-16-2003 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Rei
12-16-2003 1:13 PM


Bats and Moles
Rei:
It may be a little stretch to say, "the Hebrew people were ignorant of the structure of bats."
Bats lived in caves then as now, and Hebrews were familiar with caves as well as bats. Surely from time to time an inquisitive Hebrew closely examined a dead bat and clearly noticed its "structure" and its obvious differences and similarities to birds, particularly the bat's grotesque facial features that resemble a pig-faced mole.
Evidence of Hebrew knowledge of bats in this sense: "And they shall go into the holes of the rocks and into the caves of the earth for fear of the Lord and for the glory of his majesty when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth. In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver and his idols of gold which they made each one for himself to worship to the moles and the bats." (Isaiah 2:19 & 20)
"Casting idols to the moles and the bats" implies carrying the idols into dark caverns or desolate places, where bats and moles live, in order to consign the idols to desolation and ruin.
It's interesting that bats and moles should be associated alongside one another in this verse of Isaiah, in both Deuteronomy 14 and Leviticus 11 where this thread draws its list of "shagetz birds," the bat is lumped in (Deut. 14:18 and Lev. 11:19) with unclean birds (the Hebrew word for bat,"atalleph," implies "flying in the night"), and the mole is lumped in with the chameleon, the lizard, and the snail (see Lev. 11:30).
Now, the word used in Leviticus for mole, "tinshemeth," also is used for, or has been translated as, some sort of hissing lizard in other scriptural texts from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English.
Furthermore, these kosher/shagetz lists found throughout Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy sometimes jumble one oddball type of animal into a category with other more closely related kinds. Leviticus 11:30 even lumps obvious mammals and reptiles together in one string, making it even more difficult to determine whether to read "tinshemeth" as "mole" or "hissing lizard."
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."
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Rei, posted 12-16-2003 1:13 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Rei, posted 12-16-2003 3:08 PM Abshalom has replied
 Message 38 by k.kslick, posted 01-14-2004 8:46 PM Abshalom has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024