- Mar 16, 2019
- 7,401
- 1,329
- 47
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
What about bats being on the list of birds we can't eat, despite the fact they have fur instead of feathers?
Upvote
0
It is interesting how people view the original languages, because most people is them as a TOOL For deeper understanding of the context of what was written and don’t know the original language itself.You have to go to the original language if you want to understand the Bible. A lot is lost in translation. God watches over His word to perform and what HE says HE will do. I personally believe HE watches over the KJV.
What about bats being on the list of birds we can't eat, despite the fact they have fur instead of feathers?
Yes, but then:For the Bible to say they sowed leaves together is mostly a lack of understanding of the language used in the Bible.
In ancient times, what animal classification existed?Major, how in the world did you miss my point? I specifically pointed out bats can't be mistaken for birds. (All mammals have hair and all birds have feathers.) So if the Bible has no mistakes, why aren't bats on a list of mammals we can't eat?
Major, how in the world did you miss my point? I specifically pointed out bats can't be mistaken for birds. (All mammals have hair and all birds have feathers.) So if the Bible has no mistakes, why aren't bats on a list of mammals we can't eat?
Please see comment #47.
God wrote this before man categorized bat as mammal .
ALL mammals do not have hair my friend. First thing I thought of was a dolphin.
There are two different covenants.Major, how in the world did you miss my point? I specifically pointed out bats can't be mistaken for birds. (All mammals have hair and all birds have feathers.) So if the Bible has no mistakes, why aren't bats on a list of mammals we can't eat?
There was no classification of "mammal", and in ancient times that concept was not understood as we understand it now.That is enough for the definition of mammals to include hair.
There are two different covenants.
The Old Covenant and the New Covenant.
We are not under the Old Covenant, so why are you making the Old Covenant relevant to today?
We get it and tried to explain it to you. Why do you not get that?I am just talking about bats being listed as birds. How do you still not get that?
That's because the bible is not a science book, and is not intended to be one. Even though some insist everything we need to know about science is "in the bible".It would be considered a scientific error in any other book today. The Bible is an exception to the rule.
OK I thought you guys were saying bats are food now and ignoring the taxonomy argument.
It would be considered a scientific error in any other book today. The Bible is an exception to the rule.
If the Bible was originally written in English, do you think it would have the scientifically correct words for six epochs and flying animals? I understand Hebrew did not have a million words to separate time periods and creatures with wings.