Bible and Bats
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2013, 03:08 AM
Bible and Bats
Hi all

Did I hear that the bible states that bats are birds? if so could someone point me to it please..

thanks in advance..

Lee
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 04:03 AM
RE: Bible and Bats
See below, a not too impressive cartoon showing the bible references (@ 2:50) and some apologetics.





Either way, it demonstrates than man (not a god) wrote the bible.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
22-08-2013, 05:36 AM
RE: Bible and Bats
Because all the other crazy stupid retarded shit wasn't enough huh?

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like earmuffs's post
22-08-2013, 09:01 AM
RE: Bible and Bats
I think it's in Genesis, where God's giving Noah a list of animals to take onto the ark... which would take forever.

He says something like, "Take two of every kind of bird... the budgie, the chicken, the archeopteryx, and the bat."

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 09:32 AM
RE: Bible and Bats
(22-08-2013 04:03 AM)DLJ Wrote:  See below, a not too impressive cartoon showing the bible references (@ 2:50) and some apologetics.

I think I just lost about 15 IQ points watching that.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 10:25 AM
RE: Bible and Bats
(22-08-2013 09:32 AM)ridethespiral Wrote:  
(22-08-2013 04:03 AM)DLJ Wrote:  See below, a not too impressive cartoon showing the bible references (@ 2:50) and some apologetics.

I think I just lost about 15 IQ points watching that.

I refuse to watch it on principle (lest something similar happen! I can't afford that, what with the grad school and all Big Grin).

What did they claim? What was their ass-backward convoluted 'justification'?


Also: how would they explain the bible saying that rabbits chew cud (they don't, they eat their poop)? How would they explain the reference to "other flying things" with four legs (which are not birds or bats)?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 11:57 AM
RE: Bible and Bats
(22-08-2013 10:25 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-08-2013 09:32 AM)ridethespiral Wrote:  I think I just lost about 15 IQ points watching that.

I refuse to watch it on principle (lest something similar happen! I can't afford that, what with the grad school and all Big Grin).

What did they claim? What was their ass-backward convoluted 'justification'?


Also: how would they explain the bible saying that rabbits chew cud (they don't, they eat their poop)? How would they explain the reference to "other flying things" with four legs (which are not birds or bats)?

The whole thing was awful...

There was really bad voice acting and audio production in general...

...The sound effects seem to be lifted from I Dream of Jeanie and the original 60's Star Trek.

They tried to cast the atheist as some guy named "dummy dorkson" or some shit like that, who was a guy wearing blacked out coke sunglasses and a leather jacket who couldn't form a sentence...Who brought with him an expert panel consisting of Batman, a bat biologist and Dracula (all of whom he supposedly paid to side with him)...but they all turn on him when Dr.Apologist explains that the bible is improperly translated and that 'bird' means 'anything that flies.'

...and the host was a Walrus?

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 02:07 PM
RE: Bible and Bats
I've got no time for religious apologists...

The text in the bible is clear, plain and not open to reinterpretation. The people who wrote it meant it literally, and got the whole thing wrong.

When Joshua is meant to have commanded the Sun to stand still... clearly consistent with the geocentric, flat-earth beliefs of the time. If he'd said "Earth, stop turning..." he might have had a tiny bit more credibility.

There are no miracles... nothing breaks the laws of physics, anywhere in the universe. The idea that the whole Earth would simply stop revolving, just so Joshua could have a few hours extra light, only to immediately resume it without any negative effects... impossible, irrational bullshit that any thinking person would laugh at.

But the apologists have an escape tunnel... they claim it's "metaphorical" or "symbolic". How would a person of the time the Old Testament was written - illiterate, uneducated, no capacity for critical analysis - be capable of deciding what was literal and what was metaphorical.

If God really wanted to impress us, why couldn't he have included a few equations relating to modern physics? It would certainly be evidence of scientific/mathematical knowledge beyond what humans were capable of at the time.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 02:07 PM
RE: Bible and Bats
(22-08-2013 11:57 AM)ridethespiral Wrote:  The whole thing was awful...

There was really bad voice acting and audio production in general...

...The sound effects seem to be lifted from I Dream of Jeanie and the original 60's Star Trek.

They tried to cast the atheist as some guy named "dummy dorkson" or some shit like that, who was a guy wearing blacked out coke sunglasses and a leather jacket who couldn't form a sentence...Who brought with him an expert panel consisting of Batman, a bat biologist and Dracula (all of whom he supposedly paid to side with him)...but they all turn on him when Dr.Apologist explains that the bible is improperly translated and that 'bird' means 'anything that flies.'

...and the host was a Walrus?

So, not watching was the correct decision. Good to know!

If 'bird' means 'flying thing' then why does it also go on to mention (literally) 'other flying things'?

I'm not asking you (Tongue), that's rhetorical, but it rather strikes me as patching a hole in the wall by taking the bricks from elsewhere in the wall... But then, that's biblical apologism contortionism for you.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
22-08-2013, 07:51 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2013 07:56 PM by Starcrash.)
RE: Bible and Bats
I hate to rain on everyone's parade, but despite the bible claiming that bats are birds, it was a fair thing to say given the time period.

There isn't an objective definition of "bird". For the sake of biological classification, scientists defined what "bird" means. But that doesn't mean that it has always meant what it currently means, nor does it mean that scientists necessarily had to define birds the way that they currently do.

You could still argue that God lacked foresight, because someday bats would not be seen as birds and this part of scripture would look primitive and "stupid". However, given the period it was written in, bats may have fit the definition of birds at the time (creatures that fly?) and so it wasn't stupid in context.

For further clarification, let me give you an analogy. Let's say that you bought an SUV, and you write an email to someone about how happy you are with your new car. Then a few years down the road, SUV's are re-classified by your state as an entirely separate type of vehicle that is (for legal purposes) not referred to as a "car". Would it be fair for someone to make fun of your email for calling your SUV a car? Of course not. At the time that you wrote it your SUV was a car.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: