Are Bats Birds? Deuteronomy 14:11

Are bats birds? Atheists will make the claim the Bible teaches that bats are birds in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Here are the passages,

[13] “And these you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, [14] the kite, the falcon of any kind, [15] every raven of any kind, [16] the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind, [17] the little owl, the cormorant, the short-eared owl, [18] the barn owl, the tawny owl, the carrion vulture, [19] the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.
[20] “All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you. [21] Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground. [22] Of them you may eat: the locust of any kind, the bald locust of any kind, the cricket of any kind, and the grasshopper of any kind. [23] But all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you. (Leviticus 11:13–23, ESV)

[11] “You may eat all clean birds. [12] But these are the ones that you shall not eat: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, [13] the kite, the falcon of any kind; [14] every raven of any kind; [15] the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind; [16] the little owl and the short-eared owl, the barn owl [17] and the tawny owl, the carrion vulture and the cormorant, [18] the stork, the heron of any kind; the hoopoe and the bat. [19] And all winged insects are unclean for you; they shall not be eaten. [20] All clean winged things you may eat. (Deuteronomy 14:11–20, ESV)

Atheists will say that since these passages, especially Deuteronomy 14:18, claim that bats are birds, the Bible has made a claim that is contrary to the truth of science. And if the Bible is making a claim contrary to science, then we cannot say that the Bible is inerrant. I will go through some issues and errors with this Atheists’ argument and show that it is based on a faulty and lazy reading of the passage and ignorance of basic concepts. If read carefully it is clear that passages are not in contradiction with modern science.

The Bible is not a science book

Some Atheists assert that God cannot use the understanding of the cosmology of the ancient world that the Bible was written. They say this because the cosmology of the ancient world is contrary to what we know of science, today. For them, if the Bible uses the cosmology of the ancient word it ceases to be inerrant because ancient cosmology has been proven wrong. But they fail to understand how the inspirations of the scripture took place or how it is defined. As God inspired the scriptures, he worked through men who lived in a particular time and culture and yes, with a particular understanding of cosmology and how the world works. God did not have them write in a trance or dictate the scriptures, and where he did speak to the prophets, he did so using the culture and understanding of those in that culture and time with whom He was speaking. He spoke personally to the people of that time in a way they would understand. The purpose of the Bible is to teach men about himself, God did not distract from that message by working to correct their science. The power of Biblical inspiration is that men wrote the Bible. This means they wrote it with all their cultural baggage and concepts and yet God used this to speak a truth that is more powerful than if he sought to correct their science. God takes their understanding of cosmology and uses it to tell us something about himself. It is within the prerogative of God to use imagery when he speaks. So, when we come to these passages, we expect God to use the language and the categorizing of animals that were used by the Israelites at this time.

Linguistic error

When Atheists insist that in these passages the Bible claims that bats are birds, they show their lack of understanding of linguistics. After having just said that the Bible is not a science book if the Bible did indeed say that bats were the same thing as birds in our modern understanding of the word this would indeed be an error. But is that the case? The error is in their logic and their understanding of how linguistics works. In logic, a contradiction is when you have contradictory propositions that cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. So, to prove their case they would have to first prove that bats are being called birds, then they would have to additionally prove that these scriptures are using the term “bird” in the exact same sense that we use the word “bird”, today. They assume that an ancient word means the same thing as a modern word in every way. But again, does it? The problem is that Atheists ignore several aspects of how linguistics work. A basic concept of linguistics is that words when translated into different languages often don’t have a direct or exact one-on-one equivalence. So, the word for “bird” in an ancient culture may not have the same connotation or meaning as the word “bird”, today. We also know that language tends to be more general in concepts that are not used by cultures as frequently. You see this with words for colors. Or for example, snow, where the Eskimos have several words for different types of snow, yet here where I am from, we don’t, because we don’t see snow often and have little use for that specific terminology. In a culture where bats are not a big part of their culture, they may have just lumped them in with the term for birds. After all, it is the only flying mammal, where would you group them if you wanted to put them in a group? We cannot expect them to group animals in the same way as we do today. And we cannot expect them to use language in the same way we do. The term “bird” in English has come to mean what it means in taxonomy over time. The term “bird” has not always had the same meaning. And even in modern times the word is used in more than one sense, for example, “He was angry and gave him the bird.” When comparing words of a different language and time we must be specific in how we are defining our terms. For example, in this time and history, a statement, “That is bad” could mean either it was awful or awesome depending on the context. If you don’t care about the text, you tend to be sloppy with the text. Since Atheist don’t care about the text, they are often foolish and sloppy with the scripture. And that sloppiness makes them closed-minded. There is only a contradiction if they can show that the ancient Hebrew word is being used in an equivalent and exact way as the modern scientific understanding of the word “bird”. The Leviticus and Deuteronomy passages are not a contradiction because they were in no way making a modern scientific claim. Atheists feel free to claim that these words are equivalent, despite the obvious faulty logic, and somehow neglect to not provide any of the supporting evidence required to support their claim. The weight of their argument is on how it sounds to others, not on the facts.

Ancient people thought birds were bats?

The other problem with this Atheist claim is that they say the people of this time believed that bats were the same as birds, because they didn’t know any better. Really? Do we really think that people of that time didn’t know the difference between bats and birds? Even though I am not an Eskimo and don’t have the words for it, I know that all snow is not the same. If I get that for something that is much more similar, I am pretty sure that people of that day even if they allowed bats to be included in the category of birds, did not think birds and bats are the same. We see that bats in these passages are placed in between birds and flying insects. This was purposeful because they did indeed know that bats and birds were not the same thing. This is an error of arrogance and pride, thinking that we are more observant and understand things more today than people in the past.

Why I labor on these points

Why did I labor on these points? Because in other places these points are relevant. For example, these passages also speak of insects having four legs when we know they have six. A culture that eats insects gets a pretty good look at them and would have known the difference between four legs and six. When they use this general description, they are using a term that would have been understood not to have been accurate. They had a general term for creepy crawly things or things that swarm along the ground, which would include the category of bugs and even lizards. There are bugs with eight legs, some with six, and some with more. And not all the legs are the same. Some have jumping legs. If we include lizards in this category some have four legs. It would not be unusual to just use a general saying to cover all creepy crawly things or things that swarm along the ground. Again, were they describing the world from their culture in general terms and categories, or were they making a specific scientific claim? It is clear that they were describing the world in general terms. But in order for it to be a contradiction, you would have to prove that they are using these terms in the same sense and time as modern scientific terminology. They obviously were not, and it takes a fool to claim that they were. It is bad scholarship on the part of the Atheist to claim these things as contradictions.

These passages are not calling bats birds

Now I will show the evidence for the fact that these passages are not speaking in modern scientific terms but are instead using categorizations that were well known to the culture at the time these passages were written. As we read the Leviticus passage carefully, it gives us the categories it is using. And it is obvious that the list of animals is not organized with the same kind of taxonomy of modern science but is instead using a basic very general concepts of domain and appearance among these animals. The categories are given to us in Leviticus 11:46, “This is the law about beast and bird and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms on the ground,” Listed below are the four catogies:

Beast (animals walking above the ground): Hoof cloven who chew the cud vs not
Water animals: with fins and scales vs not
Animals with wings (this category includes insects with wings not just bats)
Animals that swarm on the ground. (Isreal cannot eat anything in this category – important later)

These categories come directly from Genesis 9:2 when God tells Noah that the animals are given over as food.

The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. (Genesis 9:2–4, ESV)

In Genesis 9:2-4, all animals are given to mankind to eat, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you”. But now the Israelites are being set apart from the other nations and given restrictions on what they cannot eat among the animals. Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 do not randomly list animals, but purposely and fittingly harken back to Genesis 9:2-4. So, these restrictions are taking Noah’s mandate and its categories when animals were given to mankind as food and using it as a bases for the categories under which to list the added food restrictions for Israelites. We would not expect them to create a whole other system of categorization just to fit modern scientific taxonomy.

When we look at the Leviticus passage and explore the category of “animals with wings” we find that the word used to distinguish this category from the others is the word, “ʿôp̄”. The word “ʿôp̄” is a general term referring to winged animals. It is not a specific word for bird and therefore can encompass birds, bats, and insects as it does in this passage. So, in Leviticus 11, the passage is in no way shape, or form claiming that bats are birds. It is only saying that bats are winged animals. But there is also something else. We see two categories of flying animals, basically birds and bats (or flying animals with bony wings) vs flying insects (small swarming flying animals), though they are both included in the overall category of flying animals. Bats don’t fit in with the insects but being the only other animal with true boney wings other than birds, they fit well with that category.

But it is not in Leviticus 11 that we get the term for “bird” that is in dispute. The reason people get caught up in this claim is that Deuteronomy 14:11 uses a different word for bird, “ṣip·pôr”. Deuteronomy 14 is a summary of Leviticus 11. For example, it uses the same categories of Leviticus 11, but it leaves out the category of “animals that swarms on the ground” because after all none of the animals in this category can be eaten. When it comes to winged insects that can be eaten it just says “all clean winged things you may eat” expecting you to go back to Leviticus 11 for the detailed list. So it is important that in looking at this passages that we have Leviticus 11 in our head, since it is dependent on it. So when we get to verses 11-20, we are in the category of flying animals. Notice the structure of this passage.

So, when it comes to the winged animals category, Deuteronomy gives you two bookends listing things you can eat, “You may eat all clean “ṣip·pôr”. . . . All clean winged things you may eat” In between these two bookends, it lists winged animals including insects and bats that should not be eaten, who are among the category of winged animals. So, it is basically saying, clean winged “ṣip·pôr”, yes and clean winged animals, yes, anything in-between these two in this list don’t eat. So bats are clearly listed here within a category of animals with wings along with insects and birds. But there is also another indication that these sandwiched lists of winged animals are meant to be seen as a group in Deuteronomy 14 and associated with Genesis 9:2, for it is interesting to note that all the sandwiched winged animals on the list of what not to eat are connected by the Hebrew “וְ” or “and”, including “and all winged insects”. With the added sub-bookends consolidating this list with “But these are the ones that you shall not eat . . . . are unclean for you; they shall not be eaten. This supports the notion that all these animals are meant to be seen together as a Genesis 9:2 group, providing further support that bats were not being called birds in the modern sense. Peter Altmann in his article, Banned Birds, argues that because Deuteronomy relies heavily on Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14 also splits this into two subcategories, with the term “ṣip·pôr” fitting with the larger flying animals which would include bats and birds. A similar usage may be employed in Genesis 7:14. “and every bird, according to its kind, every winged creature” (Genesis 7:14b, ESV). If we look at the way animals are being categorized throughout the Pentateuch, this would be no surprise. The only animal besides birds that have wings is the bat, so this is the category you would expect it to be in. What is also interesting is that they indicate that despite categorizing bats with birds, they understood that bats and birds were not the same. We know this because they listed them at the end. Owls have a unique body structure and yet are listed in the middle, so they understood also that owls have the same basic structure as the other birds. And this is what you would expect from this culture and how we see them use words. Bats are listed exactly where we would expect them to be listed. Atheist will claim that bats could have been categorized differently. Really! Only if you ignore Genesis 9:2-4 and their culture. No, this is the perfect place for them to list bats.

Although not needed to show no contradiction exists, another question arises, does the list in Deuteronomy 14:12-18 refer to “ṣip·pôr” or is it understood as referring to “ʿôp̄” or the general category of winged animals. This all depends on the pronoun “ē-hěm’” is referring to. Is it referring to the understood category of flying animals or is it referring to “ʿôp̄” or is it specifically referring to “ṣip·pôr”? Although not needed to prove that it is not contradictory, could the passages in the middle of the bookends not be referring to “ṣip·pôr” at all? Because dialogue is often more of the gist rather than a word for word dictation, literarily this is possible. But the syntax also matters in determining this. And this is where an expert in Hebrew language would need to step in. And so an interesting question for someone who is more of an expert than I. And so, I leave it there as a curiosity, though not needed to support our case.

Here is the issue, in order to provide proof that these passages are saying that bats are birds in the modern scientific sense, you first have to prove that “ṣip·pôr” is being used for more than a bookend and is in fact specifically referring to bats. Which can be argued. But then you are still stuck with the more difficult task of showing that linguistically the term for “ṣip·pôr” in an ancient language is exactly equivalent to our modern scientific word “bird” in English (that they are in the same sense) for there to be a contradiction. Based on the evidence this does not seem to be the case. As already mentioned, in response to this, I have heard some say well this may be true, but if God is all-knowing wouldn’t he use better categories? What? Saying, “I would categorize it differently” is an opinion, not evidence and is quite arrogant and foolish. It ignores proper scholarship. Bats are listed exactly where we would expect them to be listed given the context of Genesis 9:2 and Leviticus 11. We also see this same method of categorization in Genesis 1:30, 6:7, 7:8, 7:23, and 8:17, which bolster this case. We would be surprised to see them listed in an all-new category.

If we look closely at these passages the focus is on animals with wings, and that is the most anyone can say with any authority or certainty. Even insects are included in this category. If we were sitting around with a group of people playing a game and they said list as many animals as you can with wings, there would be no shock or discomfort if people listed bats or insects on their list. Even scientists playing this game would have probably put bats on their list. Some thinking they were extra smart probably included winged insects. If it is not a contradiction for scientists, it should not be a contradiction for Atheists. Imagine the response of the scientists to the Atheists, if the Atheists got up and started arguing that the scientists were claiming bats were birds. The Atheists would look foolish to the scientist. This is what we have here.

Conclusion

It is important that we read scriptures carefully and allow the text to speak for itself. If we don’t read them and process them carefully, we will find ourselves overlooking aspects of the text and making basic errors. Atheists have been quick and emphatic to make a claim that goes against the basic, very basic, understanding of logic, linguistics, and literature. Declaring something strongly or emphatically doesn’t make it right, it only makes them look foolish because they do not have the evidence to back it up when tested by scrutiny. In these two passages, you have to make too many leaps of logic and ignore basics to insist that the Bible is claiming that bats are birds in the modern scientific sense. And then you have to be even more ignorant to say that this claim is definitive and a fact, and not just an opinion. Atheists are simply wrong and have nothing to stand on. But because they don’t care about the text, they are sloppy in their scholarship in general when it comes to supposed contradictions. It is true what the Bible says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt . . .”