Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: RnMomof7

The same scripture calls bats, birds. The same scripture has rules about eating four-legged flying beasts even though none exits. I’m told that in those cases the words should be seen as alegorical but somehow, in other places, words are inerrant. I doubt that.


19 posted on 06/16/2015 4:44:01 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Freedom isn't free, liberty isn't liberal and you'll never find anything Right on the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: muir_redwoods

Leviticus 11:13–19
These are the birds [05775 Pwe ‘owph] 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.

The Hebrew word for bird is actually owph which means “fowl/winged creature.”1 The word owph simply means “to fly” or “has a wing.” So, the word includes birds, bats, and even flying insects. The alleged problem appears due to translation of owph as bird. Birds are included in the word owph, but owph is not limited to birds. This shows that translators aren’t always perfect when handling the inerrant Word of God.

https://answersingenesis.org/birds/bats-of-a-feather/


20 posted on 06/16/2015 5:38:47 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson