(like the kelev and the parah and the gavagai) You try to explain that no, Solomon is wrong, dag are actually defined not by their swimming-in-sea-with-fins-ness, but by their genes.Solomon says you didn’t even know the word dag ten minutes ago, and now suddenly you think you know what it means better than he does, who has been using it his entire life?So you try again and say that a whale is a behemah, not a dag. You explain that you’re not an idiot, that in fact all kinds of animals have things called genes, and the genes of a whale are much closer to those of the other behemah than those of the dag.
Your translator isn’t very good, so you pause to explain “fish” and “mammal” to Solomon.
If God wants to call a whale a big fish, stop telling God what to do. When terms are not defined directly by God, we need our own methods of dividing them into categories.
The essay “How An Algorithm Feels From The Inside” is a gift that keeps on giving.
“Silliest internet atheist argument” is a hotly contested title, but I have a special place in my heart for the people who occasionally try to prove Biblical fallibility by pointing out whales are not a type of fish.
(this is going to end up being a metaphor for something, so bear with me) The argument goes like this. But the Bible says Jonah got swallowed by a big fish. The first problem here is that “whale” is just our own modern interpretation of the Bible.