19 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI am afraid I will have to agree with Freaky on this one. Bats may be in the group that modern day man calls mamals but it is nevertheless an artificial classification based on general features and hereditry. If someone else chooses to base his classification on number of wings or ability to fly there is nothing wrong with that so long as the terminology is clear. The only question is how the word bird is taken in the origional context. Maybe it is the translaters fault.
Bats are mammals, not birds. Birds are a completely seperate phylum. You'd think God might know that.
19 May 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadah, so insects are included then?? They can fly. Some of them even have only two wings.
I am afraid I will have to agree with Freaky on this one. Bats may be in the group that modern day man calls mamals but it is nevertheless an artificial classification based on general features and hereditry. If someone else chooses to base his classification on number of wings or ability to fly there is nothing wrong with that so long as the terminology ...[text shortened]... stion is how the word bird is taken in the origional context. Maybe it is the translaters fault.
19 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHfowl (foul) pronunciation
"Fowls" covered all types of winged creatures. Read the passage and you'll see them numerated according to forbidden kind.
n., pl. fowl or fowls.
1. Any of various birds of the order Galliformes, especially the common, widely domesticated chicken (Gallus gallus).
2.
1. A bird, such as the duck, goose, turkey, or pheasant, that is used as food or hunted as game.
2. The flesh of such birds used as food.
3. A bird of any kind.
So, not insect then.
19 May 06
1 edit
"...the Hebrew word for “fowl” (owph, pronounced “oaf&rdquođ means not only birds, but anything covered with wings.
That means bats, birds, and even the large extinct flying reptiles, the pterosaurs, went on board the Ark. And that's why they are around today." http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/bats.html
But seriously--the meaning of words does change:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ine_none7.htm
19 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzWell, if you are interested in whether insects are mentioned, you can read it here:
fowl (foul) pronunciation
n., pl. fowl or fowls.
1. Any of various birds of the order Galliformes, especially the common, widely domesticated chicken (Gallus gallus).
2.
1. A bird, such as the duck, goose, turkey, or pheasant, that is used as food or hunted as game.
2. The flesh of such birds used as food.
3. A bird of any kind.
So, not insect then.
13And 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 osprey,
14And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15Every raven after his kind;
16And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after his kind,
17And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
20All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
21Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
22Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
23But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Does that clear things up for you?
19 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHinsects have six legs, not four.
Well, if you are interested in whether insects are mentioned, you can read it here:
13And 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 osprey,
14And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15Every raven after his kind;
16And the owl, and th ...[text shortened]... s, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Does that clear things up for you?
19 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe problem is you are criticizing the translator and not the origional text. The definition for fowl that you give only has relevance today. The translator would obviously have done better to use the phrase 'winged animal' but in translation it is not always easy to give the best meaning to a concept which no longer exists today. For example if you were to translate mamal into ancient hebrew would you write 'living things which have a hard skeleton, give milk and have fur' or do you include a whole text book on modern day classification or what? Note that the first definition covers the coconut so is clearly not suitable.
fowl (foul) pronunciation
n., pl. fowl or fowls.
1. Any of various birds of the order Galliformes, especially the common, widely domesticated chicken (Gallus gallus).
2.
1. A bird, such as the duck, goose, turkey, or pheasant, that is used as food or hunted as game.
2. The flesh of such birds used as food.
3. A bird of any kind.
So, not insect then.
I have no doubt that language and clasification will both change significantly in future and whatever word you come up with now may not fit then.
You must also realise that most modern day christians do not follow the law being given in the passage in question so it was not addressed to them anyway and accuracy of meaning for them was not important.
As to whether the current text in all english translations is 100% the truth the answer is a resounding No! But anyone who claims it is should be put in a mental hospital. Have you heard of the SMS version and the street language version?
19 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYes I can do quite better than that, fortunately I don't feel a need to do so. This isn't the "Biblical contradictions" thread. I was asked to show the particular verse that claimed bats were birds - I did so. We could get into apologetics for the remainder of today, but I find the idea unappealing.
So because bats were formerly classified under the general category of winged animals, i.e., birds, and were later re-classified Chiroptera, that somehow invalidates the accuracy of the word of God? You can do better than that, I'm certain. PLEASE do better than that.
Suffice to say the Bible was written by men who were ignorant of a great many things. God may be infallible, but the Bible is not. I understand this is not a concept that many Christians can reconcile with themselves.
-JC
19 May 06
Originally posted by ChurlantThis isn't the "Biblical contradictions" thread.
Yes I can do quite better than that, fortunately I don't feel a need to do so. This isn't the "Biblical contradictions" thread. I was asked to show the particular verse that claimed bats were birds - I did so. We could get into apologetics for the remainder of today, but I find the idea unappealing.
Suffice to say the Bible was written by men who were ig ...[text shortened]... understand this is not a concept that many Christians can reconcile with themselves.
-JC
Of course it isn't. However, you offered the 'bats-as-birds' argument to counter (give the impression of contradiction) RBHill's quote from the same source that "every eye shall see." Don't compound the issue by feigning innocence on the point.
Suffice to say the Bible was written by men who were ignorant of a great many things.
No one here claimed otherwise, that I have seen.
God may be infallible...
I'm sure He's grateful for your endorsement.
but the Bible is not.
That's a rather bold claim. As stated, you'll have to do better than that.
I understand this is not a concept that many Christians can reconcile with themselves.
Some probably from tradition, but some (believe it or not!) have rejected the "concept" strictly because the evidence does not bear the idea out.
19 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's a rather bold claim. As stated, you'll have to do better than that.
I'm not worried about it. There are plenty of websites that have list after list of Biblical contradictions. As I've already pointed out (and you agree), this is not the right thread for that discussion.
I responded to a post indicating Biblical instructions with a tongue-in-cheek answer. When asked to provide the scripture backing up that answer, I did so. You may wish to expand the argument, but I find no need and very little point for doing so.
-JC
19 May 06
Originally posted by ChurlantThere are plenty of websites that have list after list of Biblical contradictions.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]
That's a rather bold claim. As stated, you'll have to do better than that.
I'm not worried about it. There are plenty of websites that have list after list of Biblical contradictions. As I've already pointed out (and you agree), this is not the right thread for that discussion.
I responded to a post ...[text shortened]... y wish to expand the argument, but I find no need and very little point for doing so.
-JC[/b]
Ah, yes. Proof by website -- my personal favourite... second only to proof by sarcasm.
"Website X said so, ergo it must be undeniably true!!!"