BATS AREN'T BIRDS!

[Dr. Ernest C. Ville, D.C.S.]

Re: BATS AREN'T BIRDS!

Exactly, Brother! Just because you *call* something a name doesn't mean it *is* that. If I call a raven a swan, it doesn't mean that it is a swan! Catholics call themselves Christians, but that doesn't mean they're heading to Heaven. It's all a part of Satan's redefinition plan. The liberals play right into this. Why when I was a lad, an unmarried man was a "fag" or "homo", but now they try to call them "gay" (as in "happy") or "differently oriented". Call me crazy but I preferred it when it was "fag" or "rug muncher". It's all a part of the liberal double-speak, to redefine an abomination as something acceptable. As the Bible says, in the end times, man will call evil good and good evil. Just more proof that the Rapture is but moments away*!

*Rapture is moments away in Jesus' time. A moment to Jesus may be another 1,000 years. But it will most likely be tomorrow

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: BATS AREN'T BIRDS!

If this is how "perfection" is to be understood -- if the Bible is supposed to be prepared for our every change in natural understanding of unalterable data -- then all we'd have to do to make the Bible "wrong" is change our terminology on things. If the Bible says, "the sky is blue," we can change our definition of what is "blue" and then say that the Bible is wrong.

Exactly. That's exactly what scientists did. The Bible says that bats are birds, so the scientists come along and just change the definition of "bird" to exclude bats, just so they can claim the Bible is in error.

I'm not falling for it. God says that bats are birds, I believe it, and that settles it.

I suppose next you will try to claim that rabbits don't chew cud, grasshoppers don't have four feet, serpents don't eat dust, or that satyrs, dragons, cockatrices, and unicorns never existed.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Brother Temperance]

Re: BATMAN! A riddle, hiding a homosexual trap for children!

BATS AREN'T BIRDS!

Here's an explanation from my good friend James Patrick Holding:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.html

Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. (See also Deut. 14:11, 18)

A biological boo-boo here? Plenty of critics think so, including one in particular who prompted my wife and I to write a letter to the editor of our local paper.

Have your queer friend and his beard also written a letter of complaint to GOD?

[Trent Harvey, Jr.]

Re: BATMAN! A riddle, hiding a homosexual trap for children!

Do bats have feathers?

If not, then they aren't birds (If so, name one other bird that doesn't have feathers)

There you go - agreeing with the scientists, who only invented this "feathery means bird" classification for the sole purpose of disagreeing with GOD. You even just told us so!

You were given a clear choice between disagreeing with God, or disagreeing with the agenda-oriented scientific community. And you chose to disagree with God, in true Catholic fashion.

I guess you also believe in evolution (as the Pope does) and that, prior to the last century-and-a-half, life began after conception (as the Catholic Church did.)

[Mrs. Mary Whitford]

Re: BATMAN! A riddle, hiding a homosexual trap for children!

Do bats have feathers?

If not, then they aren't birds (If so, name one other bird that doesn't have feathers)

Chickens. I've never seen a single feather on any of the chickens my chef cooks up.

[Father Thomas Martin]

Re: BATMAN! A riddle, hiding a homosexual trap for children!

Do bats have feathers?

If not, then they aren't birds (If so, name one other bird that doesn't have feathers)

[Trent Harvey, Jr.]

Re: BATMAN! A riddle, hiding a homosexual trap for children!

Holy perversion, Judas-Girl! Is sex the only thing you think about?

You resort to name-calling because your argument has no logic. Here's your argument:

1. Bats aren't birds
2. Because scientists classify bats as mammals, for the sole purpose of disagreeing with the Bible.

To which I add:

3. Yes, I agree that there is a scientific conspiracy to disagree with the Bible, and the invention of categories such as "mammal" and "bird" is a major part of it, however
4. BATS ARE STILL BIRDS! Therefore;
5. You are doing nothing but wasting and wearing out the series of tubes that is the internet, the same way your Pope wears out the series of tubes that is the rectums of Rome's population of underage boys.

[Trent Harvey, Jr.]

Re: BATMAN! A riddle, hiding a homosexual trap for children!

BATS AREN'T BIRDS!

Here's an explanation from my good friend James Patrick Holding:

Your buddy sure does a good job of telling people that the Bible doesn't say what the Bible obviously says.

Coming up next: Mr. Holding tells us what the definition the "is" is, and how "is" doesn't actually mean "is".

Makes you wonder just what Mr. Holding is holding.

[Father Thomas Martin]

Well now that's no way to tell. Something like 98% of all the actors in Hellywood are limp-wrists and sodomites anyway. But that Batman thing is from a jap comic book, isn't it? How do the japs figure into this radical queer superhero conspiracy, brother unfalse?

BATS AREN'T BIRDS!

Here's an explanation from my good friend James Patrick Holding:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.html

Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. (See also Deut. 14:11, 18)

A biological boo-boo here? Plenty of critics think so, including one in particular who prompted my wife and I to write a letter to the editor of our local paper.
Let's start with the simple answer. Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.
The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around. Even modern ecologists classify water-dwelling life in a very similar way according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers). It's similar to refuting geocentrism charges against the Bible by showing that even modern astronomers use terms like "sunset" and "sunrise" without being accused of being geocentrists, so why shouldn't we make the same allowance for the Bible writers.

"Yeah, right, Holding! So are you more of an expert in Hebrew than all those Bible scholars like Strong who decided that 'bird' was the best word to use here? Get real!!!"

More of an expert in Hebrew, no -- the problem is that those Hebrew experts aren't experts in animal biology. The KJV chose "bird" and apparently no one sees a need to change it -- though they ought to. I am wondering if skeptics who make this objection are seriously proposing that when the Hebrews used this word, they actually had in mind the modern classification scheme which defines "bird" as a warm-blooded creature of a certain class who had feathers.

"Well, it is the Word of God, isn't it? It should be perfect at all times and in all circumstances!"

If this is how "perfection" is to be understood -- if the Bible is supposed to be prepared for our every change in natural understanding of unalterable data -- then all we'd have to do to make the Bible "wrong" is change our terminology on things. If the Bible says, "the sky is blue," we can change our definition of what is "blue" and then say that the Bible is wrong. So would skeptics seriously suggest that the Bible might have to say, for example:

This is what the Lord says: "The sky is blue -- although Joe Padooski, living in 1874 AD, will define this as others would define 'green' and he will call the color in question 'Fred'."

Skeptics who make this sort of complaint don't want answers. The objection has no legitimacy.

"You liar! You left out Deut. 14:11 purposely. It uses a different word - tsippowr. Obviously you're hiding the fact that this meant the same as the modern class Aves, ha ha!"

Actually, anyone who takes a close look at the word in question knows that tsippowr isn't even related to the list that follows it, except in the most general sense. The word comes from tsaphar, a word that means to skip about or even to depart early (cf. Judges 7:3). The reference is obviously to the sort of bird that skips around on the ground and would be easy pickin's for the peasant diet (Strong's lists the sparrow in its definition). Such would not describe ANY of the animals in the list afterwards (hence the adversarial "but" in 14:12) and the return in 14:20 is to the more general category of 'owph (owner of a wing) of which both the listed members AND the tsippwor would be part. (Note that the two words are reflective of different categories in Gen. 7:14, in the same way that "cattle" are from "beasts".)


Has good ol' Fr. Tom finally convinced them of the truth?

Could this be the end of Landover Baptist Church as we know it?

WILL ALL THE LOST SHEEP OF FREEHOLD COME HOME TO ROME??

GO TELL IT ON THE MOUNTAIN-THAT YOU SHOULD CHECK BACK TOMORROW FOR THE EXCITING RESPONSE!

SAME MARTIN TIME, SAME MARTIN CHANNEL!