The Bible says that bats are birds. Has Science found that bats are not birds?

Answer 1

Science??? Wat iz dis "Science" dat u speak ov??? :-)

Answer 2

Bats are Birds
From the book of Deuteronomy (A
similar passage is in Leviticus):
11 "You may eat all clean birds. 12 But these are the ones that you
shall not eat: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, 13
the kite, the falcon of any kind; 14 every raven of any kind; 15 the
ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind; 16 the
little owl and the short-eared owl, the barn owl 17 and the tawny owl,
the carrion vulture and the cormorant, 18 the stork, the heron of any
kind; the hoopoe and the bat. (Deuteronomy 14:11-18)
The problem is clear enough. The Bible states bats are birds, when
every grade-schooler knows that bats are mammals.

There are a number of ways to address this claim.

The ancients were not stupid

This is not so much an argument against the details of the claim, but a
comment regarding the foolishness of making it in the first place. In
fact, this point can be made regarding most if not all of the
assertions of biblical scientific error: There is an assumption behind
these claims that the ancients were idiots-and their ignorance was
written into the Bible, belying both the inspiration and inerrancy (and
hence the authority) of scripture.

If one were to make a more logical assumption, namely that the ancients
were not morons, then one would be inclined, before declaring victory,
to ask whether or not the offending statements could in some manner be
correct. This could be done without acknowledging that the Bible is
truth rather than fiction. It's a simple matter of prudent caution;
the realization that maybe they did know what they are talking about.

Taxonomy is not Fundamental Science

Classification schema are not written into the fabric of the universe.
In fact, taxonomy debates are fairly common. Taxonomy is something we
overlay on the diversity of life. It is done sensibly, but there is not
an ultimate taxonomy that we have either discovered or awaits
discovery. There is only the question of what is useful,
self-consistent, and comprehensive enough for present scientific needs.

One rebuttal of the argument that the Bible errs is stating that bats
are birds is that, in the simpler taxonomy of the ancients, bats were
simply classified as birds. They were under no obligation to adhere to
twenty-first century taxonomy-a taxonomy that itself may someday be
completely revamped. (And if that happens, it would not relegate the
current scheme into the dustbin of scientific error.)

A taxonomy, for example, that has four broad categories: sea life,
amphibians, land animals, and flying-things (lets call them birds) is
not incorrect and is not scientific error. It's just not the scheme
we use today.

Translation Weakness

A additional but not unrelated explanation is not so much translation
error but translation weakness. The Hebrew word ôwph, translated as
"birds" or "fowl" means winged. Thus a better translation might
be: "You may eat all clean winged animals..." or "You may eat all
clean flying things..." It was not grossly wrong, however, to choose
"birds."

Furthermore, even the word atalleph, translated as "bat" is done
so with less than absolute certainty-it may mean "an animal flying
in the dark." Footnotes in many bibles attest to the uncertainty of
translating atalleph as "bat." So it is possible, though not
critical for this argument, that "bats" is a mistranslation.

Summary

The bottom line remains that, independent of the fairly strong case for
translational looseness, we have the argument that the ancients were
entitled to their own classification scheme, one that met their needs,
and without question a scheme that groups bats and birds together is
entirely sensible. To reiterate: our modern classification scheme is
not fundamental science. It is not like "general relativity." A
disagreement with our scheme in no way constitutes a scientific error.

Answer 3

2 points for the win. Well um yes science has proven it. Bats aren't birds at all but winged flying mammals. They do not lay eggs but sexually reproduce and give birth to live young. They locate and eat bugs via echo location. They're wings aren't really wings but thin skin stretched out when they fly and flap them. The wings have fingers like on them with the little claws. Bat's also have some wicked teeth. Just check out a vampire bat some time. If you'd watch the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet more you'd know. Also didn't you learn this stuff in school. Or are you just being weird and asking strange questions on q&a again captain mac n cheese? LOL.

Answer 4

1. Yes, science has found that bats are not birds.

2. Where does the Bible say bats are birds?

3. While the Bible is God's word, it was written my zero century man with no understanding of these things.

4. The point of the Bible is not to determine the scientific genus of bats and birds, it is to share God's love for us.

Answer 5

It is true that the bat is not a bird. However, the point here was that the command was not to eat certain FLYING creatures. God was not trying to get technical with his people.

The negative comments here just shows up the prejudice that people already have for the Bible, which basically is not a science book.

Answer 6

Where does the bible say that bats are birds?

Answer 7

Bats and Birds? I do not remember seeing that.

Answer 8

The Bible simply states that bats are "winged creatures". And I'm pretty sure that science has since comfirmed this to be true. I'm not really sure I understand the point of your question.

Answer 9

Science is not founded by the bible and bats are nocturnal animals

Answer 10

Yes. Bats are mammals. Birds are not. 'Nuff said.

Answer 11

Bats are one animal evolutionists have a hard time with.