Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[Thumpalumpacus]

So what is the ancient Hebrew word for Mammal?

The ancient Jews did not classify animals as we do, the word, or idea of the word mammals and all life classified under it is relitivly new. Your comparing a classification system that is only a couple hundred years old to a text/understanding of a people several thousand years old. A people who had no concept of your modern classification. How is that a fair compareson? How do we know your compareson is unfair?

I'm not saying they should know the Linnaean system. I'm saying that they should know the difference between avians and mammals. Do you honestly think they were so stupid they couldn't tell? And even if they couldn't, wouldn't your god know? I mean, he's the one who issued those dietary restrictions. He's the one alleged to have created both classes in question. When your god's knowledge is limited by the knowledge of the culture that venerates him, that's a good indicator that he's an invention.

An all-knowing god could simply "inspire" the biblical author to say "don't eat these birds, and don't eat bats." Another option: he could actually show his followers something about the world they didn't know:

"Hey, Mo, tell your people not to eat birds and bats."
"Birds and bats, Lord? aren't they the same?"
"Of course not, Moses. Look at a bat. Does it have a beak? How are its eyes located? Does it have feathers? What is its body shaped like? And do birds have teeth? Ears? claws on their wings?"

The Bible would be more useful if it taught something, anyway.

I may or may not get to the rest of your drivel. It's too soon after waking up for me to wade through Biblical horseshit or inane walls of text.