Background:
The following passages from the Book of Leviticus has, for a
long time, proven to be a thorn in the side of those of us who believe (despite
evidence to the contrary) that the Bible is the inerrant word of God:
Leviticus 11:13-19(KJV)
And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among
the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the
ossifrage, and the ospray,
14 And the vulture, and the kite after his
kind;
15 Every raven after his kind;
16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the
cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17 And the little owl, and the cormorant,
and the great owl,
18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the
gier eagle,
19 And the stork, the heron after her kind,
and the lapwing, and the bat.
These passages would seem to imply that bats are birds, when, as everyone knows, they are mammals.
 |
| Don't look at the similarities in skeletal structure. The Picture is just here to add an appearance of validity |
Many failed attempts have been offered throughout the years
to show that this is an erroneous idea and that the words have been taken out
of context to fool people into believing that the scientific accuracy of the
Holy Bible is in error.
One such attempt to explain things is by showing that the
Hebrew word for fowl/bird, “oph” could mean, flying animal. The problems with this idea are many, but the
most pronounced is that everywhere else that this word is used, it refers to
birds e.g animals with feathers.
But, after careful research on this matter, I have found the
connection.
1.
Bats don’t have feathers
2.
The Bible is never wrong.
So, with these two facts I looked for an explanation.
What I found was that the same Hebrew word was also used in
Genesis 6:20. In this passage God
(through Moses) is talking about the manifest for the Ark and says to bring,
among others, two “Of the fowls after their kind.”
We all know that ‘kind’ is a classification from God of a
group of animals. So, as long as we ignore Genesis 7:3 where Noah is told to
take 14[1]
of these animals, we see that Noah was instructed to bring two of each kind of
fowl aboard the ark. This would still
seem to say that bats are birds, but it is the word kind which is important.
 |
| Eye witness rendering |
We know that the accepted[2]
concept of micro-evolution vs macro-evolution clearly proves[3]
that evolution into a new species is impossible. So, what Leviticus is pointing out is that
bats are in fact birds which micro-evolved from a subset of bird kinds which I
have dubbed the mammalavian[4]
(pronounced mamma-lavian) kind.
Since bats are never mentioned in the Holy Bible before
Leviticus, it is safe to assume that they didn’t exist before that time. Given this now established fact. We can
deduce that one[5] of
the pairs of fowl on board the Ark was the now extinct mammalavian hairy-bird.
These hairy-birds obviously micro-evolved into all of the
species of bats which were around during Moses’ day, as well as other types of
birds which fly at night, like owls.
Conclusion:
 |
| Hairy-bird? |
It is obvious that by insinuating[6]
that the Bible is riddled with scientific error and contradiction, the
evolutionists are attempting to undermine the word of God. These findings about the hairy-bird kind show
that, not only did the so-called scientists fail to discover a wide-ranging
type of animal, but they can’t be right.[7]
[1] It
says seven pairs instead of one the one pair in Genesis 6, but we know that
seven days equals one week, so seven is the same as 1. No contradiction, except in the amount of
birds, which we can easily dismiss as contextually irrelevant.
[2] In
the Creationist community, though not by heathenistic actual scientists.
[3] To
believers
[4]
Copywrited
[5] Or
seven if you still insist on using Genesis 7
[6]
And, often “proving.”
[7]
Despite all of the evidence which shows that they are.
