Science and the Bible: Bats and Birds

[DLH]

Many critics of the Bible mistakenly claim that it confuses bats with birds, primarily due to a misinterpretation of Leviticus 11:13-20. The Hebrew word used here, ohph, is often incorrectly translated as "birds" or "fowl." Historically, the English term "fowl" encompassed not only birds but also all winged, flying creatures, including insects and bats. Thus, while "fowl" is an accurate translation, its contemporary usage, which is more limited to birds only, leads to misunderstandings.

Here are the key Hebrew terms involved:​

• Ataleph: Specifically means "bat."
• Ohph: Refers to any flying creature, including birds, bats, and insects.
• Tsippohr: Generally means "birds."
• Ayit: Specifically denotes "birds of prey."

Additionally, the term sherets comes from a root meaning "to swarm or teem." In noun form, it describes small creatures that appear in large numbers, as seen in biblical contexts like the swarming of waters on the fifth creative day (Genesis 1:20), aquatic creatures (Leviticus 11:10), winged creatures including bats and insects (Leviticus 11:19-31; Deuteronomy 14:19), and various land creatures like rodents, lizards, and chameleons (Leviticus 11:29-31), as well as creatures that move on their "belly" or have many legs (Leviticus 11:41-44).

Today, the English word "fowl" mainly refers to large or edible birds, but the Hebrew term ohph, derived from the verb "to fly," is much broader, akin to how "cattle" in old English referred to all movable property.

This misunderstanding is not about scientific taxonomy but rather about language and translation nuances.​

 

[NoHolyCows]

View attachment 49774

Many critics of the Bible mistakenly claim that it confuses bats with birds, primarily due to a misinterpretation of Leviticus 11:13-20. The Hebrew word used here, ohph, is often incorrectly translated as "birds" or "fowl." Historically, the English term "fowl" encompassed not only birds but also all winged, flying creatures, including insects and bats. Thus, while "fowl" is an accurate translation, its contemporary usage, which is more limited to birds only, leads to misunderstandings.

Here are the key Hebrew terms involved:​

• Ataleph: Specifically means "bat."
• Ohph: Refers to any flying creature, including birds, bats, and insects.
• Tsippohr: Generally means "birds."
• Ayit: Specifically denotes "birds of prey."

Additionally, the term sherets comes from a root meaning "to swarm or teem." In noun form, it describes small creatures that appear in large numbers, as seen in biblical contexts like the swarming of waters on the fifth creative day (Genesis 1:20), aquatic creatures (Leviticus 11:10), winged creatures including bats and insects (Leviticus 11:19-31; Deuteronomy 14:19), and various land creatures like rodents, lizards, and chameleons (Leviticus 11:29-31), as well as creatures that move on their "belly" or have many legs (Leviticus 11:41-44).

Today, the English word "fowl" mainly refers to large or edible birds, but the Hebrew term ohph, derived from the verb "to fly," is much broader, akin to how "cattle" in old English referred to all movable property.

This misunderstanding is not about scientific taxonomy but rather about language and translation nuances.​

The issue isn’t just about translation—it’s about classification. Science and taxonomy define birds as warm-blooded vertebrates with feathers, while bats are mammals. The biblical classification in Leviticus places bats among “winged creatures,” which does not align with modern biology. Even if the Hebrew word ohph means “flying creatures” rather than “birds” specifically, that still doesn’t change the fact that the Bible groups bats with birds in a way that is inconsistent with scientific understanding.

Ancient cultures often categorized animals based on function rather than genetic relationships. That’s why whales were once called fish and why some insects were counted as four-legged. The Bible reflects this older way of thinking, not modern scientific taxonomy.

The real misunderstanding comes from trying to impose modern scientific precision on an ancient text. The Bible wasn’t written as a scientific manual; it was written in the language and understanding of its time. Acknowledging that doesn’t diminish its historical or religious value—it just recognizes that knowledge has advanced since then.

NHC