NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/14508

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-17 | 1.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!arizona.edu!skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu!lippard
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Pt 1/3: Agnostics and Athiests
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (James J. Lippard)
Date: 17 Aug 1992 20:54 MST
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-Host: skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Lines: 22

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Joe Slater) writes...
>jds>> We classify bats as mammals which fly. The Bible classifies them as
>jds>> flying things which are mammals. See the difference?
>
>JJL> The Bible does not classify bats as "flying things which are mammals."
>JJL> See Leviticus 11:12-19.  It lists "the bat" as an instance of what
>JJL> "you shall detest among the birds."
>
>It classifies bats as flying things, because it calls a bat an "Oif" (in
>Hebrew). Since we know that that bats aren't birds, an "Oif" must be a flying
>thing, excluding insects. This is a bit of a circular issue: you say bats aren't
>birds and that the Bible shouldn't say they are. I agree, and say that since
>bats aren't birds the Bible *doesn't* say they are.

If this is correct, why is it translated as "birds" and not "flying things"?
(I've checked KJV, RSV, NASB.)  Surely all these committees of translators
would not have screwed up something so simple?

Jim Lippard              [e-mail]
Dept. of Philosophy      [e-mail]
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721