Well, Webster has Fish defined as any animal in the sea, so whale qualifies.
Stop trying to play word games. I am not. I am pointing out that your definitions do not match the definitions used by biologists, nor have they ever matched since biologists began classifying organisms.
They do not match the definitions of modern biologists.
Besides, in word usage there is always a broader and narrower use of a word.
To use fish with whale in its broader sense is totally proper and accurate.
A whale can be considered a fish in the broad sense since it is in the water, hence 'fish-like'. Not when speaking of taxonomic classification, which is based upon very specific features of an organism.
Well, we are speaking about the legimate use of a term and if one calls a whale a fish, using the broad sense (as an animal in the water) it would be accurate based on the Webster defintion of the term.
A 'fish' is defined by Websters 1828, 'an animal that lives in the water' As I have pointed out, when speaking of biological terms, it is helpful to refer to the definitions used by biologists. In this case, your definition would appear to be significantly out of date.
No, we are not speaking of the word in its narrow term, but in its broad term, and fish in the broad sense can refer to any creature in the sea.
Evolutionists think that by changing the terms they can change the reality. No one is attempting to change reality. Whales are warm blooded, give live birth and the females of the species have mammaries. Those features are sufficient to classify whales as mammals rather than fish. Fish are not mammals.
If you want to narrow the definition, but if one wants to keep it in its broad sense, fish is still a legimate term to use for whale.
Well, if they don't then they are rejecting the definition that the Lord Jesus Christ gave it in Matthew 12:40 when He described the 'fish' which swallowed Jonah as a whale This appears to be an argument based in poor semantics rather than actual fact, given that the original language of the book of Matthew was not English.
Well every English translation before 1611 has whale for the Greek word.
So does the modern KJ21, Even the Spanish Bible (1865) has it.
In fact, according to biology the cete is a whale and the Greek word in Matthew is cetous.
As for the Webster definition being out of date, here is more recent one. .2.Any of various other aquatic animals.(The American College Dictionary, 1963)