Changes

Getting back to the first question, how scientific is the Bible, I examined that with my discussions of the expanse and of the tannin.  But researching baraminology led me to "classification system" on Conservapedia, where it stated that the Biblical reference to bats as birds was based on the Bible "using a different classification system", the "flying creatures" level of baramin.  The verse where bats are "classified" with birds is Leviticus 11:19 (and Deuteronomy 14:18).  This verse is in the section of Leviticus forbidding the eating of unclean birds.  Another verse in this section, 16, lists "the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk" (KJV)  The JPS translates verse 16 as "the ostrich, the night hawk, the sea gull and hawks of every kind".  The discrepancy is obvious:  Owls and ostriches may both be birds - of course, according to the statement in Conservapedia, the ostrich wouldn't be a bird, since it is not a "flying creature" - but they are very different.  Looking at the Hebrew, we see that ostrich is yaen, while owl is yaanah, which is the feminine form of yaen.  The Hebrew for hawk is tachmas, which comes from chamas, to be violent, and, Strong's Concordance says, can mean either owl or hawk.  But the Hebrew for hawk can also be nets, from natsats, to glare or be brightly colored.  What's interesting, is that nets can also mean flower; and in Job 15:33, the term nitsah - the feminine of nets - is used for flower.  The Hebrew for cuckoo or gull is shachaph, to peel or be emaciated.  From this we can see that the words for these animals is based not on scientific rigor, but is rather more descriptive of these animals.  Both owls and hawks are violent in their attack, and both merit the word tachmas, which has nothing to do with their biological relationship.  An owl is also termed a yaanah, the feminine of yaen - again, perhaps descriptive - an owl is a feminine ostrich - but of course it is not biologically correct.  And then we get to the word nets used for both hawk and flower, which may be highly descriptive of both as colorful, but hardly signifies a close relationship in any classification system.  - Danielitld

Getting back to the first question, how scientific is the Bible, I examined that with my discussions of the expanse and of the tannin.  But researching baraminology led me to "classification system" on Conservapedia, where it stated that the Biblical reference to bats as birds was based on the Bible "using a different classification system", the "flying creatures" level of baramin.  The verse where bats are "classified" with birds is Leviticus 11:19 (and Deuteronomy 14:18).  This verse is in the section of Leviticus forbidding the eating of unclean birds.  Another verse in this section, 16, lists "the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk" (KJV)  The JPS translates verse 16 as "the ostrich, the night hawk, the sea gull and hawks of every kind".  The discrepancy is obvious:  Owls and ostriches may both be birds - of course, according to the statement in Conservapedia, the ostrich wouldn't be a bird, since it is not a "flying creature" - but they are very different.  Looking at the Hebrew, we see that ostrich is yaen, while owl is yaanah, which is the feminine form of yaen.  The Hebrew for hawk is tachmas, which comes from chamas, to be violent, and, Strong's Concordance says, can mean either owl or hawk.  But the Hebrew for hawk can also be nets, from natsats, to glare or be brightly colored.  What's interesting, is that nets can also mean flower; and in Job 15:33, the term nitsah - the feminine of nets - is used for flower.  The Hebrew for cuckoo or gull is shachaph, to peel or be emaciated.  From this we can see that the words for these animals is based not on scientific rigor, but is rather more descriptive of these animals.  Both owls and hawks are violent in their attack, and both merit the word tachmas, which has nothing to do with their biological relationship.  An owl is also termed a yaanah, the feminine of yaen - again, perhaps descriptive - an owl is a feminine ostrich - but of course it is not biologically correct.  And then we get to the word nets used for both hawk and flower, which may be highly descriptive of both as colorful, but hardly signifies a close relationship in any classification system.  - Danielitld

== 3:14 ==

== 3:14 ==