[Forest Keeper]

And bats being considered part of a group of "flying creatures" isn't unscientific, mistaking mammals for birds. It's just a matter of different taxonomies.

Exactly right. A while ago I posted this to Kosta on another thread:

Now, as far as bats being fowl, .... My argument was that this does not offend science at ALL. Words like "fowl" or "bird" or "mammal" or "fish" are only scientific classifications, based on the whim of the scientists who make them whenever they do. They are simply a method of grouping, and establish convenient relationships. This has nothing to do with facts, because it is all based on choices. Scientists might have decided to put men and ducks in the same category because we both have two legs. That would have been fine too. Scientists decided, based on then current knowledge, what would be the most efficient way of grouping and went with that. All well and good.

Whoever was in charge of such things back then put bats into the grouping called "fowl". So what? It worked for them, then. Now, today's scientists have decided to reclassify them into a new group called "mammals". That's fine, but it says absolutely nothing about whether the former classification was "wrong". It is only "wrong" by today's standards, which were not in effect then. 100 years from now, bats may be in some brand new category. Are you going to say that would make today's scientists "wrong"? I would not.

Sounds like the same thing you are saying.

[aruanan]

Sounds like the same thing you are saying.

Yep. And on another note. The BIble never claims to give exhaustive knowledge of God or anything else. But it claims to give sufficient knowledge to know God and to live a holy life. Notice that no book of the Bible tries to engage in systematic theology. There are many things stated as being true statements about God, about man, about the world that aren't necessarily able to be fitted into a system. Trying to do so and attempting to fill in what we think are the gaps and then claiming Biblical authority for those extrapolations or inferences or apparent connections because they are connecting, in our mind, teachings which do carry Biblical authority is a mistake and can lead to much grief. But some people do not like the feeling of not knowing an answer to a question and resent being told to pay attention to those things that are absolutely required and leave the rest up to God to reveal in the fullness of time (if ever). I believe this desire to have everything charted out, fully defined, completely systematized, and under one's complete intellectual control, is itself a manifestation of that desire to be God that was the core of the original sin. We are creatures. We are dependent both in nature and in fact. If anything, the point of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles in scripture is to remind us that he is the vine, we are the branches. Our life depends on being connected to him. We're children of God; we're servants. For the realization of our salvation we don't have to know everything the Father or the master knows. We just need to trust and obey in what we are told is sufficient for us to know. And we're told that if we do just that, we will know in our own experience that what Jesus has said is true. Some would scoff at this as being simply credulous, but this heart of trust lies at the center of a loving relationship: the child asks his father for fish to eat, trusting that he's going to give him something good to eat. He doesn't construct an elaborate mechanism of verification through which he can ascertain for any given thing the likelihood of it being granted him if he asks at this versus that degree of intensity of desire. In other words, he lives with his father as a trusting child, not as a possessor of a system (or magic lantern) to be finessed.

[kosta50]

Exactly right. A while ago I posted this to Kosta on another thread: Now, as far as bats being fowl, .... My argument was that this does not offend science at ALL. Words like "fowl" or "bird" or "mammal" or "fish" are only scientific classifications, based on the whim of the scientists who make them whenever they do

I know you haven't gotten to the post I already made earlier, but I will simply re-post Lev 11:13-19. It leaves no doubt that Moses counted bats among the birds.

"These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture,
the black vulture, the red kite,
any kind of black kite, any kind of raven,
the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk,
the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl,
the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey,
the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat."

Every species mentioned is a bird except for the bat. Now, why would the Holy Spirit lie to Moses? So, that we can be having this argument 3,500 years later?

[kosta50]

That's fine, but it says absolutely nothing about whether the former classification was "wrong". It is only "wrong" by today's standards, which were not in effect then

No, bats were never birds, even though some humans supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit believed they were. And humans were never dogs, even though the Bible likens some humans to dogs!. Truth doesn't change with changing classifications. Science changes because sciencia is imperfect. Some claim the Bible is perfect even thouhg it is clear that it isn't.

But when one's entire faith and ego rests on the infallibility of a book, I can see why, some hold on to it tenaciously like a drowing man would hold to a straw, and stop at nothing to deny that which is obviously wrong in it.