Earthling
David Henson
The Bible critic will sometimes make the uninformed claim that the Bible isn't scientific because it says that insects have four legs.
Leviticus 11:20-23 - Every winged swarming creature that goes on all fours is a loathsome thing to you. Only this is what you may eat of all the winged swarming creatures that go upon all fours, those that have leaper legs above their feet with which to leap upon the earth. These are the ones of them you may eat of: the migratory locust according to its kind, and the edible locust after its kind, and the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind. And every other winged swarming creature that does have four legs is a loathsome thing to you.
In Leviticus 11:22 a the Hebrew word arbeh is translated "locust" and is the migratory locust, fully developed and winged. The Hebrew word yeleq refers to the creeping, wingless locust, the immature undeveloped locust. (Joel 1:4) and the Hebrew term solam refers to the edible locust as in Leviticus 11:22 b. That is a leper locust rather than a flier. The Greek akris is rendered "insect locust" and "locust." (Matthew 3:4 / Revelation 9:7)
The leaper insect has two pairs of wings, four walking legs and two much longer leaper legs.
The question put forth by the Bible critic is, does the Bible say that insects have four legs when it says that they are 'going on all fours?' The answer of course is no. The writers of the Bible - in this case, Moses - were not scientist of entomology and botany, but we are talking about Moses' dietary restrictions. They ate the insects. They would have noticed how many legs they had and would have been capable of making the distinction between a leaper insect that actually had six legs but walked on four, or in fact would not have been far removed from using the expression even when considering six legged insects who walk as if on all fours like a four legged creature. We would use the term walking on all four legs in application to a two legged human doing the same.
To me it is an example of how far the Bible critic has to stretch the obvious truth in order to substantiate or promote propaganda rather than learning the application of rational thinking. In the name of science?
Leviticus 11:20-23 - Every winged swarming creature that goes on all fours is a loathsome thing to you. Only this is what you may eat of all the winged swarming creatures that go upon all fours, those that have leaper legs above their feet with which to leap upon the earth. These are the ones of them you may eat of: the migratory locust according to its kind, and the edible locust after its kind, and the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind. And every other winged swarming creature that does have four legs is a loathsome thing to you.
In Leviticus 11:22 a the Hebrew word arbeh is translated "locust" and is the migratory locust, fully developed and winged. The Hebrew word yeleq refers to the creeping, wingless locust, the immature undeveloped locust. (Joel 1:4) and the Hebrew term solam refers to the edible locust as in Leviticus 11:22 b. That is a leper locust rather than a flier. The Greek akris is rendered "insect locust" and "locust." (Matthew 3:4 / Revelation 9:7)
The leaper insect has two pairs of wings, four walking legs and two much longer leaper legs.
The question put forth by the Bible critic is, does the Bible say that insects have four legs when it says that they are 'going on all fours?' The answer of course is no. The writers of the Bible - in this case, Moses - were not scientist of entomology and botany, but we are talking about Moses' dietary restrictions. They ate the insects. They would have noticed how many legs they had and would have been capable of making the distinction between a leaper insect that actually had six legs but walked on four, or in fact would not have been far removed from using the expression even when considering six legged insects who walk as if on all fours like a four legged creature. We would use the term walking on all four legs in application to a two legged human doing the same.
To me it is an example of how far the Bible critic has to stretch the obvious truth in order to substantiate or promote propaganda rather than learning the application of rational thinking. In the name of science?