Does the Bible Call Bats Birds & Contradict Science?
The Bible appears to contradict science by classifying ‘bats’ as “birds” in Leviticus 11:13-19. From science, we know that bats are actually mammals. Therefore, we do well to ask, “Does the Bible call bats birds and contradict science?” Let’s analyze the scriptures and science and see.
“These shall you detest among the birds, they shall not be eaten: they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture . . . the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat” (Leviticus 11:13,19 ESV)
“Bats are the only mammal capable of true flight” (Bats 101).
Since almost all Bible translations of Leviticus 11:13-19 call bats birds, yet science calls them mammals, there appears to be a contradiction between the Bible and science. But let’s look deeper into this.
“Birds: the term is broader, including all animals that fly (including bats, v. 19, and flying insects, vv, 20-23)”—NAB note on Leviticus 11:13-23,30)”. This study Bible note indicates the Hebrew word that is rendered “bird” in almost all translations, “eouph”, is not limited to birds, but ‘includes all animals that fly, including bats.’ Now, let’s look at the Hebrew word “eouph” itself, and see how it is defined:
“הָע֔וֹף (hā·‘ō·wp̄); Article | Noun – masculine singular: Strong’s 5775: Flying creatures”—Bible Hub
Let’s now look at how a much more accurate translation renders the Hebrew word “eouph” at Leviticus 11:13:
“These are detestable things for you among winged creatures that you are not to eat, because they are detestable for you: the eagle, vulture, osprey” (Leviticus 11:13 International Standard Version)
Notice that the Hebrew word “eouph” is not rendered “birds”, but “winged flying creatures”. This more accurate rendering of the Hebrew would “eouph”. certainly includes “bats”, since they are “winged flying creatures”.
This problem of this appearance of a contradiction between the Bible and science is thus cleared up when we understand that Leviticus 11:13 was written in the ancient Hebrew language and not in English, and by using an accurate translation of the Hebrew word “eouph”.
Using an accurate Bible translation and study Bible notes helps us to solve yet another seeming contradiction regarding the Bible. Even though the man Moses wrote the Bible book of Leviticus, its real author, however, is the “one who has perfect knowledge” (Job 36:4 NIV), the “God, who does not lie” (Titus 1:2 NIV).
13 thoughts on “Does the Bible Call Bats Birds & Contradict Science?”
The ancient writers of the OT were naive, ignorant, and unsophisticated about the taxonomy of living things. And so, they misclassified bats as birds. No mystery here. They were just mistaken. If the Bible had been written, dictated, edited, and/or inspired by God, then this error would not have occurred. However, we now know and have proven that God does not exist.
GW—The ancient writers of the OT were naive, ignorant, and unsophisticated about the taxonomy of living things. And so, they misclassified bats as birds. No mystery here. They were just mistaken. If the Bible had been written, dictated, edited, and/or inspired by God, then this error would not have occurred. However, we now know and have proven that God does not exist.
BA—Your statements are false.
“These are detestable things for you among winged creatures that you are not to eat, because they are detestable for you: the eagle, vulture, osprey” (Leviticus 11:13 International Standard Version)
Notice that the Hebrew word “eouph” is not rendered “birds”, but “winged flying creatures”. This more accurate rendering of the Hebrew would “eouph”. certainly includes “bats”, since they are “winged flying creatures”.
This problem of this appearance of a contradiction between the Bible and science is thus cleared up when we understand that Leviticus 11:13 was written in the ancient Hebrew language and not in English, and by using an accurate translation of the Hebrew word “eouph”.
There is no indication that the ancient writers of the NT knew that bats are mammals.
GW—There is no indication that the ancient writers of the NT knew that bats are mammals.
BA—The issue is not whether the writer Moses knew bats were classified as mammals. The issue is whether he called bats birds. He didn’t.
The translation of “eough” as birds at Leviticus 11:13 is inaccurate.
This is what they knew:
“הָע֔וֹף (hā·‘ō·wp̄); Article | Noun – masculine singular: Strong’s 5775: Flying creatures”—Bible Hub
The Hebrew word that Moses used to describe the type of animal bats are is “eough”, meaning “flying creature.”
But the related issue is whether any author of any book in the Bible knew that bats are not birds, but mammals. Related to that is whether any author of any book in the Bible knew about evolution. As far as I can tell from my reading of the Bible, the answer to both questions is NO. But if God did exist and if he wrote, dictated, influenced, or inspired the Bible in any way, then the answer would be YES to both questions.
GW–But the related issue is whether any author of any book in the Bible knew that bats are not birds, but mammals
BA—No, that issue is a “red herring” and is not the subject of the article. The issue the article deals with is whether the Bible called bats birds, and the article proves that in the Hebrew Leviticus was written in, it does not.
You’re simply chagrined that the Bible, once again, has proved its critics wrong.
Sometimes the critics are right, as I have shown, and sometimes they are wrong, as you have shown. In this case I agree with you that the author was just referring to flying animals, a primitive category, and so there was no contradiction. However, my related point is still valid, If the Bible had been influenced by God, it would have correct scientific information in it which would be discovered later, i.e. that bats are mammals, evolution is real, and the Big Bang occurred. God would know these things and would have ensured that they were mentioned. Additional evidence that God does not exist.
I am not presenting a red herring, which is a diversion or distraction. I am agreeing with you and then pointing out an additional related fact.
The Bible, at Leviticus 11:13,19 (ISV) refers to bats as winged flying creatures, which is accurate.
Your mammals assertion of criticism of the Bible is irrelevant and, in fact, invalid. A word that groups together creatures based the fact that they fly isn’t “wrong’ simply because it doesn’t match the modern system of classifying flying creatures. Calling “unscientific” is highly unscientific and ignorant. The classifications used in the Bible were practical for many day-to-day uses.
This is similar to what follows:
“any winged insect that crawls on four legs is detestable for you” (Leviticus 11:20-23 ISV)
“In the context of Leviticus, the term “flying insects” refers to a category of creatures that includes various types of winged insects. In ancient Israel, the classification of animals was based on observable characteristics rather than modern scientific taxonomy. This phrase highlights the importance of distinguishing between clean and unclean animals, a theme prevalent throughout Leviticus. The emphasis on flying insects reflects the broader concern with maintaining ritual purity, which was central to the Israelites’ covenant relationship with God.”—Bible Hub Study Bible note on Leviticus 11:20-23
The Bible just does not say what we would expect it to say about physics, chemistry, and biology, if it were the word of God.
The Bible is not a transcript of lectures delivered by a deity to all living persons at the same time. This is one reason that we KNOW that the Bible is not the word of God.
But God does not exist. We now know this and have proven it.
GW—The Bible just does not say what we would expect it to say about physics, chemistry, and biology, if it were the word of God.
BA—Leviticus 11 is not a science textbook, but its statements do not conflict with any scientific facts. It identifies which creatures Israelites were permitted to eat, and which they weren’t permitted to eat under the Old Covenant.
If God did exist and if the Bible were the word of God, then it would have a lot more scientific facts in it. It would present facts like evolution, the Big Bang, laws of motion, and accurate classification of organisms in biology.
But of course, God does not exist and so the Bible cannot and is not the word of God.
GW–If God did exist and if the Bible were the word of God, then it would have a lot more scientific facts in it. It would present facts like evolution, the Big Bang, laws of motion, and accurate classification of organisms in biology.
BA—The Bible wasn’t written to be a science textbook. It was written to explain the predicament sin, sickness, old age, death, the existence of evil, and God’s solution to all that, and what humans can do if they want to live forever.
The reason the Bible was written doesn’t matter. It would include more science if it came from God. Of course, it didn’t.