Setting The Bible Reader Straight

[Skwim]

.

In main, every Christian accepts the truth of the Bible, some accepting this truth more rigorously than others, which varies from the fundamentalist literal truth to an interpretive truth wherein the Christian feels free to pick which verses are true or not. But regardless of the approach, the fact remains that in places the Bible does make some very specific assertions. "This is X---it is not Y." Last September I alluded to four of these, implying they are actually wrong when I said "Of course the bible also tells me that bats are birds, hares chew cud, grasshoppers walk on only four legs, and the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds . . . . but what the heck, no book is perfect." Since then one of my examples was challenged, it doesn't matter which one, which set me thinking that perhaps I should briefly explain my reasons for calling all of them wrong.


Herewith then is my explanation of each:

"Bats are birds"

Leviticus 11: 13-19
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. 19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.​

Now some Bibles use the term "fowl" instead of "birds," and in very rare instances, (6%) "creatures," but the error is quite clear; very simply, bats are mammals not birds or fowl.



***********************************************************************************************************


"Hares chew cud"

Leviticus 11:1-6
11 And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. 3 Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. 4 Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. 5 And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. 6 And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.​

Cud is partly digested food internally returned from the first stomach, the rumin, to the mouth for further chewing. Hares and other Lagomorphs lack a rumin so they're incapable of producing cud. Most likely this error arose from watching hares and rabbits eat their feces, a dining practice called refection. Here's a simple illustration of these two quite different operations.

***********************************************************************************************************

​

"Grasshoppers walk on only four legs"

Leviticus 11:21
“All flying insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. But you can eat some of these, namely, those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground: all locusts, katydids, crickets, and grasshoppers. But all the other flying insects that have four legs you are to detest.
​

The video below should dispel this error (actual walking at the 1:39 mark).

​

BTW, locusts are simply nine species of a migrating form of grasshoppers.

​

***********************************************************************************************************


"the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds"

Mark 4: 30-32
30 He said, “To what shall we liken the kingdom of God, or with what parable shall we compare it? 31 It is like a grain of mustard seed which, when it is sown in the ground, is the smallest seed on earth. 32 Yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes greater than all shrubs, and shoots out great branches, so that the birds of the air may nest in its shade.”
​

The facts say otherwise.

"Orchids (Orchidaceae): The World's Smallest Seeds

Certain epiphytic orchids of the tropical rain forest produce the world's smallest seeds weighing only 35 millionths of an ounce. They are dispersed into the air like minute dust particles or single-celled spores, eventually coming to rest in the upper canopy of rain forest trees."​

source

​

Some here may object to my four choices saying these errors only occurred because the writers at the time simply didn't know any better, which is fine if one accepts that premise that the original Biblical writings were solely the work of such people, but customarily the Bible is said to be the product of an all-knowing god. A deity who worked to tell his followers exactly what was what; that it's a trustworthy work that needn't be questioned. But this still leaves the problem of its errors. Aside from turning a blind eye, a not uncommon practice, what is one to do with them. As a Christian what do YOU do?

.

​

 

[Salvador]

.

In main, every Christian accepts the truth of the Bible, some accepting this truth more rigorously than others, which varies from the fundamentalist literal truth to an interpretive truth wherein the Christian feels free to pick which verses are true or not. But regardless of the approach, the fact remains that in places the Bible does make some very specific assertions. "This is X---it is not Y." Last September I alluded to four of these, implying they are actually wrong when I said "Of course the bible also tells me that bats are birds, hares chew cud, grasshoppers walk on only four legs, and the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds . . . . but what the heck, no book is perfect." Since then one of my examples was challenged, it doesn't matter which one, which set me thinking that perhaps I should briefly explain my reasons for calling all of them wrong.


Herewith then is my explanation of each:

"Bats are birds"

Leviticus 11: 13-19
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. 19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.​

Now some Bibles use the term "fowl" instead of "birds," and in very rare instances, (6%) "creatures," but the error is quite clear; very simply, bats are mammals not birds or fowl.



***********************************************************************************************************


"Hares chew cud"

Leviticus 11:1-6
11 And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. 3 Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. 4 Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. 5 And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. 6 And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.​

Cud is partly digested food internally returned from the first stomach, the rumin, to the mouth for further chewing. Hares and other Lagomorphs lack a rumin so they're incapable of producing cud. Most likely this error arose from watching hares and rabbits eat their feces, a dining practice called refection. Here's a simple illustration of these two quite different operations.

View attachment 35664​

***********************************************************************************************************

​

"Grasshoppers walk on only four legs"

Leviticus 11:21
“All flying insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. But you can eat some of these, namely, those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground: all locusts, katydids, crickets, and grasshoppers. But all the other flying insects that have four legs you are to detest.
​

The video below should dispel this error (actual walking at the 1:39 mark).

​

BTW, locusts are simply nine species of a migrating form of grasshoppers.

​

***********************************************************************************************************


"the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds"

Mark 4: 30-32
30 He said, “To what shall we liken the kingdom of God, or with what parable shall we compare it? 31 It is like a grain of mustard seed which, when it is sown in the ground, is the smallest seed on earth. 32 Yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes greater than all shrubs, and shoots out great branches, so that the birds of the air may nest in its shade.”
​

The facts say otherwise.

"Orchids (Orchidaceae): The World's Smallest Seeds

Certain epiphytic orchids of the tropical rain forest produce the world's smallest seeds weighing only 35 millionths of an ounce. They are dispersed into the air like minute dust particles or single-celled spores, eventually coming to rest in the upper canopy of rain forest trees."​

source

View attachment 35665



​

Some here may object to my four choices saying these errors only occurred because the writers at the time simply didn't know any better, which is fine if one accepts that premise that the original Biblical writings were solely the work of such people, but customarily the Bible is said to be the product of an all-knowing god. A deity who worked to tell his followers exactly what was what; that it's a trustworthy work that needn't be questioned. But this still leaves the problem of its errors. Aside from turning a blind eye, a not uncommon practice, what is one to do with them. As a Christian what do YOU do?

​

This scripture has been translated from Hebrew into English, which uses the word ''bird" in Leviticus 11:13; however, this is not the best translation; the original Hebrew language uses a word that meant any kind of creature with wings

 

[sooda]

Barnyard fowl means chickens, ducks and turkeys.

 

[Skwim]

This scripture has been translated from Hebrew into English, which uses the word ''bird" in Leviticus 11:13; however, this is not the best translation; the original Hebrew language uses a word that meant any kind of creature with wings

`owph also specifically means bird and fowl. And 94% of the Bibles I checked used one of these two words in Lev. 11:13. That you find "any kind of creature with wings" to be the best translation is interesting, but hardly persuasive.

.

 

[Skwim]

Barnyard fowl means chickens, ducks and turkeys.

As well it should I suppose.

.

 

[sooda]

As well it should I suppose.

.

Definition of barnyard fowl. : the common domestic fowl; especially : the mongrel fowl allowed to pick up its living casually about the farmstead.
Barnyard Fowl | Definition of barnyard fowl by Merriam-Webster
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barnyard%20fowl

 

[Salvador]

`owph also specifically means bird and fowl. And 94% of the Bibles I checked used one of these two words in Lev. 11:13. That you find "any kind of creature with wings" to be the best translation is interesting, but hardly persuasive.

.

Oh my gosh, the whole book of Leviticus is intended to have been followed only by the ancient nomadic tribes of Israel rather than as a book of science. The modern-day scientific classification of animals is a totally different subject than how ancient Jews were to follow dietary laws prescribed by their deity. Me thinks some people are taking this scripture totally out of context.

I've seen a bat close-up, I could tell this critter looked more like a winged-mouse than a bird; of course, anybody could tell a bat is a mammal rather a bird. ....

 

[whirlingmerc]

.

In main, every Christian accepts the truth of the Bible, some accepting this truth more rigorously than others, which varies from the fundamentalist literal truth to an interpretive truth wherein the Christian feels free to pick which verses are true or not. But regardless of the approach, the fact remains that in places the Bible does make some very specific assertions. "This is X---it is not Y." Last September I alluded to four of these, implying they are actually wrong when I said "Of course the bible also tells me that bats are birds, hares chew cud, grasshoppers walk on only four legs, and the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds . . . . but what the heck, no book is perfect." Since then one of my examples was challenged, it doesn't matter which one, which set me thinking that perhaps I should briefly explain my reasons for calling all of them wrong.


Herewith then is my explanation of each:

"Bats are birds"

Leviticus 11: 13-19
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. 19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.​

Now some Bibles use the term "fowl" instead of "birds," and in very rare instances, (6%) "creatures," but the error is quite clear; very simply, bats are mammals not birds or fowl.



***********************************************************************************************************


"Hares chew cud"

Leviticus 11:1-6
11 And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. 3 Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. 4 Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. 5 And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. 6 And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.​

Cud is partly digested food internally returned from the first stomach, the rumin, to the mouth for further chewing. Hares and other Lagomorphs lack a rumin so they're incapable of producing cud. Most likely this error arose from watching hares and rabbits eat their feces, a dining practice called refection. Here's a simple illustration of these two quite different operations.

View attachment 35664​

***********************************************************************************************************

​

"Grasshoppers walk on only four legs"

Leviticus 11:21
“All flying insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. But you can eat some of these, namely, those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground: all locusts, katydids, crickets, and grasshoppers. But all the other flying insects that have four legs you are to detest.
​

The video below should dispel this error (actual walking at the 1:39 mark).

​

BTW, locusts are simply nine species of a migrating form of grasshoppers.

​

***********************************************************************************************************


"the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds"

Mark 4: 30-32
30 He said, “To what shall we liken the kingdom of God, or with what parable shall we compare it? 31 It is like a grain of mustard seed which, when it is sown in the ground, is the smallest seed on earth. 32 Yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes greater than all shrubs, and shoots out great branches, so that the birds of the air may nest in its shade.”
​

The facts say otherwise.

"Orchids (Orchidaceae): The World's Smallest Seeds

Certain epiphytic orchids of the tropical rain forest produce the world's smallest seeds weighing only 35 millionths of an ounce. They are dispersed into the air like minute dust particles or single-celled spores, eventually coming to rest in the upper canopy of rain forest trees."​

source

View attachment 35665



​

Some here may object to my four choices saying these errors only occurred because the writers at the time simply didn't know any better, which is fine if one accepts that premise that the original Biblical writings were solely the work of such people, but customarily the Bible is said to be the product of an all-knowing god. A deity who worked to tell his followers exactly what was what; that it's a trustworthy work that needn't be questioned. But this still leaves the problem of its errors. Aside from turning a blind eye, a not uncommon practice, what is one to do with them. As a Christian what do YOU do?

.

​

There is a sense in which all those claims are true

Rabits do chew their cud and ruminate

Bats are flying creatures and the animal taxonomies of the Old Testament and today need not be the same

Grashoppers in a sense walk on 4 legs in a sense eating with two, jumping with two.

All is also an 'all of what' sort of word. A mustard seed could be the smallest seed of the types they were familiar with.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is a sense in which all those claims are true

Rabits do chew their cud and ruminate

Bats are flying creatures and the animal taxonomies of the Old Testament and today need not be the same

Grashoppers in a sense walk on 4 legs in a sense eating with two, jumping with two.

All is also an 'all of what' sort of word. A mustard seed could be the smallest seed of the types they were familiar with.

Poppies were known at that time in that area. They appear to have been first domesticated in Sumeria and their product is found in Egypt earlier than 1,000 BC:

Poppy - Wikipedia

They should have been familiar with the poppy seed to and that is far smaller than a mustard seed.

 

[Skwim]

Oh my gosh, the whole book of Leviticus is intended to have been followed only by the ancient nomadic tribes of Israel rather than as a book of science. The modern-day scientific classification of animals is a totally different subject than how ancient Jews were to follow dietary laws prescribed by their deity. Me thinks some people are taking this scripture totally out of context.

So why do Bibles ignore the more primitive meanings and purposely mislead (which I assume is your position) the reader with modern words like "birds" and "fowl"? Think the 94% are part of a huge cabal to undermine Christianity?

.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Anyone can count insect legs.

 

[sun rise]

some people are taking this scripture totally out of context.

@Skwim likes to use Biblical literalism to attack Biblical literalists.

 

[YoursTrue]

`owph also specifically means bird and fowl. And 94% of the Bibles I checked used one of these two words in Lev. 11:13. That you find "any kind of creature with wings" to be the best translation is interesting, but hardly persuasive.

.

When I see translations and someone like you challenging what's there, I generally like to go to an interlinear and other placements of that same Hebrew or Greek word or expression. So since you take issue with the Hebrew word 'oph,' which has been variously translated as bird, fowl, or flying creature, and then taking the position that because the vast majority use 'bird,' or fowl at Leviticus 11:13 it must be right, I wonder about the mentality of people that use that position. That type of mental inclination really does extend to other areas of life. Particularly political platforms. It's amazing to me as I continue reading, listening and learning.
So then, saying that because some translators put a bat in the category of birds because of the Hebrew oph, saying that it must always mean bird and therefore the Bible is wrong because so many translators did not do their job properly, you would have to admit that virtually no English translation (or probably any other language with multiple translations) are exactly the same. And the question is, why are they not all exactly the same? Are they all wrong because they use differing translations? When I see people like you continue in the same line of argument without wavering, despite being shown the reality, you bring me back to realize the brilliance of what Jesus was saying when he gave his illustrations.

 

[YoursTrue]

So why do Bibles ignore the more primitive meanings and purposely mislead (which I assume is your position) the reader with modern words like "birds" and "fowl"? Think the 94% are part of a huge cabal to undermine Christianity?

.

Translation is often set upon tradition and perception. Sorry you don't realize that and if you do, want to make a religious federal case out it (that, by the way, is simply an expressive description, not to be taken quite literally). For those who are truly inclined to understand these things, they are not easily misled by people who postulate as you do about bats being birds because of poor translation jobs. Bats are properly termed in the category of flying creatures as some Bibles properly have it. And scientists declare they have wings. At first I was wondering if bats have flaps that are called wings, I wasn't sure, so I looked it up. And yes, it seems that although they have parts like fingers, their flaps are termed as wings. Yes, they are, according to the Hebrew, properly termed as flying creatures in English. For centuries the Bible was a book forbidden to be read and translated. That should tell you something as to what the motivation is to undermine its message, since you brought that up.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh my gosh, the whole book of Leviticus is intended to have been followed only by the ancient nomadic tribes of Israel rather than as a book of science. The modern-day scientific classification of animals is a totally different subject than how ancient Jews were to follow dietary laws prescribed by their deity. Me thinks some people are taking this scripture totally out of context.

I've seen a bat close-up, I could tell this critter looked more like a winged-mouse than a bird; of course, anybody could tell a bat is a mammal rather a bird. ....

Bats, I am learnng, are marvelous creatures. I do, however, usually like to see birds instead of bats.

 

[3rdAngel]

Everything in the OP here is quite easy to address when the context of the scriptures are added and when we understand the time that these scriptures were writen. Some comments are provided below over a few posts for each section.

Herewith then is my explanation of each:
"Bats are birds"

Leviticus 11: 13-19
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. 19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.​

Now some Bibles use the term "fowl" instead of "birds," and in very rare instances, (6%) "creatures," but the error is quite clear; very simply, bats are mammals not birds or fowl.

There is no error here. There was no zoological classification systems as we have them today when these passages of the scriptures were written. These particular passages of the scriptures are in relation to clean and unclean foods. So to compare a classification system that we use today in zoology to something that was written before this science existed is simply a mute point. As a side note the Hebrew word used here for the english translation as bird, fowl or creature is עוף; ‛ôph From H5774; and it has many meanings that include; a bird as covered with feathers, or rather as covering with wings, often collective: - bird, that flieth, flying, fowl. Another words something that has wings as a covering which would include a bat that has wings as a covering.

One down three more to go...

 

[3rdAngel]

"Hares chew cud"

Leviticus 11:1-6
11 And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. 3 Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. 4 Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. 5 And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. 6 And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.​

Cud is partly digested food internally returned from the first stomach, the rumin, to the mouth for further chewing. Hares and other Lagomorphs lack a rumin so they're incapable of producing cud. Most likely this error arose from watching hares and rabbits eat their feces, a dining practice called refection. Here's a simple illustration of these two quite different operations.

Actually a Hare fits into this category of Leviticus 11:1-6 quite nicely even by todays science. A little background first. Today's definitions of chewing the cud was not made until after the 1800's. To "chew the cud" simply meant at the time it was written in the Bible "to rechew food that had been previously digested" and not necessarily "to rechew regurgitated food."

Rabbits actually chew the cud in a different way. Here's a scientific explaination:

"Rabbits are sometimes called "pseudo-ruminants"... The rhythmic cycle of coprophagy of pure cecal contents practiced by all rabbits allows utilization of microbial protein and fermentation products, as well as recycling of certain minerals. Whereas the feces commonly seen excreted by rabbits are fairly large, dry and ovoid, excreted singly, and consist of fibrous plant material, cecotrophs are about half that size, occur in moist bundles stuck together with mucus, and are very fine textured and odiferous. They are seldom seen, as the rabbit plucks them directly from the anus as they are passed and swallows them whole."

Bacterial Digestion of Cellulose Within Animals - Vertebrates lack enzymes to digest plant material. Some bacteria can do so and are harbored by animals... Rats and rabbits redigest cellulose another way. [They] eat feces and literally redigest them a second time. Efficiency approaches that of ruminants.

In a more detailed version, Margert "Casey" Kilcullen-Steiner, (M.S., L.A.Tg) in The Experimental Animal in Biomedical Research: Care, Husbandry writes:

Rabbits are sometimes called "pseudo-ruminants"... The rhythmic cycle of coprophagy of pure cecal contents practiced by all rabbits allows utilization of microbial protein and fermentation products, as well as recycling of certain minerals. Whereas the feces commonly seen excreted by rabbits are fairly large, dry and ovoid, excreted singly, and consist of fibrous plant material, cecotrophs are about half that size, occur in moist bundles stuck together with mucus, and are very fine textured and odiferous. They are seldom seen, as the rabbit plucks them directly from the anus as they are passed and swallows them whole. Normal rabbits do not allow cecotrophs to drop to the floor or ground, and their presence there indicates a mechanical problem or illness in the rabbit.

And Janet Tast, D.V.M. notes:
http://www.ultranet.com/~hrs/artcl03.htm

Cecotrophy by Janet Tast, D.V.M. "Cecotropy is the process by which rabbits will reingest part of their feces directly from the rectum. This should not be confused with the term coprophagy (eating fecal material) since rabbits only ingest the soft "night" feces or cecotrophs."

Caryl Hilscher-Conklin (M.S. in Biology, University of Notre Dame) also makes this claim:
Rat & Mouse Gazette: Coprophagy: Rattus Biologicus: Healthy Behavior For Your Rats

"One may not give much thought to the lazy chewing of the cud that we observe cows doing all the time, but this behavior is analogous to coprophagy. The only difference between cud chewing and coprophagy is the point in the digestive tract at which nutrients are expelled and then placed back into the mouth."

Now, we must also remember that artiodactyls were first defined as a separate order in 1847 by Richard Owen and the behavior of cecotropy was first recognized in 1882. Deuteronomy, however, was written approximately 1500 BC in an ancient Hebrew. It would be intellectually dishonest for someone to claim that a 3500 year old writing is contradictory because it doesn't match with a scientific classification invented only about a hundred years ago. Further, if the ancient Hebrews defined 'cud-chewing" as that process where half digested vegetation was re-chewed by an animal for easier re-digestion ( and that is a very specific and scientific definition), I would say the hare fits here fine.

Whenever someone translates an ancient language or writing, some word for word parallels are not going to be available. Most scholars understand this and accept the cultural backgrounds and meanings for what they are. This is why hermeneutics is a serious field of study in higher education.

Yep gotta love science proving the bible though...

 

[3rdAngel]

"Grasshoppers walk on only four legs"

Leviticus 11:21
“All flying insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. But you can eat some of these, namely, those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground: all locusts, katydids, crickets, and grasshoppers. But all the other flying insects that have four legs you are to detest.
​

The video below should dispel this error (actual walking at the 1:39 mark). BTW, locusts are simply nine species of a migrating form of grasshoppers.

This one also, is easily answered as there was no taxonomy or classification systems used as we have them now today within the science of zoology and entomology. Take a look at the insects in question here.

Locust:

Katydid:

Cricket:

Grasshopper:

These insects are similar, especially the grasshopper and katydid, and all four insects have six legs. Although, it’s obvious that when the Bible says “all fours”, it’s making a distinction between the front four legs and the hind two legs, as they serve completely different functions. Only the front four legs are counted as feet, whereas the fact that the hind two legs serve a much different function due to their completely unique anatomy, size and responsibilities for the organism, are not counted as feet, rather merely legs.

Biblical anatomy has different forms of classifications and descriptions for its biological terms than we do today, and that’s not very surprising considering it was written over three thousand years ago. In other words, this is obviously not a Bible error, this is just a difference between how people today classify different parts of insects and how Moses did thousands of years ago. The Bible does not count “jointed legs above their feet for hopping on the ground”, as the passage in Leviticus above phrases it, as feet, and likely any set of legs on an insect where the hind legs serve completely distinctive functions from the four front legs. It would seem ridiculous to assume that the ancient Hebrews didn’t know winged insects have four legs, considering they literally ate them raw. So this is a silly argument to be honest.

Another one bites the dust. Gotta love it when those trying to prove the bible untrue actually end up proving the bible true

 

[3rdAngel]

"the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds"

Mark 4: 30-32
30 He said, “To what shall we liken the kingdom of God, or with what parable shall we compare it? 31 It is like a grain of mustard seed which, when it is sown in the ground, is the smallest seed on earth. 32 Yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes greater than all shrubs, and shoots out great branches, so that the birds of the air may nest in its shade.”
​

The facts say otherwise.

"Orchids (Orchidaceae): The World's Smallest Seeds
Certain epiphytic orchids of the tropical rain forest produce the world's smallest seeds weighing only 35 millionths of an ounce. They are dispersed into the air like minute dust particles or single-celled spores, eventually coming to rest in the upper canopy of rain forest trees."​

The problem here with this comparison is that the actual mustard plant being referred to here is unknown. It is not the same as the comonly cultivated mustard plants we have today. The scriptures here are in reference to the mustard tree some believe refer to a tree known in the middle east as Salvadora persica. It is mentioned that this plant was cultivated by the Hebrews in the Tamuld and grew into a tree. Luke's account of the same parable in Luke 13:19 says that this mustard plant turned into a great tree. So the above is evidence that we are not referring to the common mustard plant where birds can build their nests. The mustard tree is mentioned in the Greek new testament through the name G4615 σίναπι; sinapi which means a plant to hurt and sting; mustard. The Hebrew and Syriac name being mustard and the Arabic name being chardul or Khardal which has the same properties as the smaller mustard plant as we know it. It also has the smallest of seeds (not smallest known seed) but at the time of the writing of the scriptures for most people it would have been known as some of the smallest of seeds that can grow into a tree 25 feet high.

(Source; On the Identification of the Mustard Tree of Scripture Author(s): J. Forbes Royle Source: The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 8 (1846), pp. 113-137, Cambridge University press)

Some here may object to my four choices saying these errors only occurred because the writers at the time simply didn't know any better, which is fine if one accepts that premise that the original Biblical writings were solely the work of such people, but customarily the Bible is said to be the product of an all-knowing god. A deity who worked to tell his followers exactly what was what; that it's a trustworthy work that needn't be questioned. But this still leaves the problem of its errors. Aside from turning a blind eye, a not uncommon practice, what is one to do with them. As a Christian what do YOU do?

I think the above facts clearly show your claims are in error and you have helped to develop a thread that proves the bible true. As a non believer what will you do? Gotta love it when even unbelievers end up proving God's Word true by trying to tear it down.

Your welcome

 

[sooda]

Actually a Hare fits into this category of Leviticus 11:1-6 quite nicely even by todays science. A little background first. Today's definitions of chewing the cud was not made until after the 1800's. To "chew the cud" simply meant at the time it was written in the Bible "to rechew food that had been previously digested" and not necessarily "to rechew regurgitated food."

Rabbits actually chew the cud in a different way. Here's a scientific explaination:

"Rabbits are sometimes called "pseudo-ruminants"... The rhythmic cycle of coprophagy of pure cecal contents practiced by all rabbits allows utilization of microbial protein and fermentation products, as well as recycling of certain minerals. Whereas the feces commonly seen excreted by rabbits are fairly large, dry and ovoid, excreted singly, and consist of fibrous plant material, cecotrophs are about half that size, occur in moist bundles stuck together with mucus, and are very fine textured and odiferous. They are seldom seen, as the rabbit plucks them directly from the anus as they are passed and swallows them whole."

Bacterial Digestion of Cellulose Within Animals - Vertebrates lack enzymes to digest plant material. Some bacteria can do so and are harbored by animals... Rats and rabbits redigest cellulose another way. [They] eat feces and literally redigest them a second time. Efficiency approaches that of ruminants.

In a more detailed version, Margert "Casey" Kilcullen-Steiner, (M.S., L.A.Tg) in The Experimental Animal in Biomedical Research: Care, Husbandry writes:

Rabbits are sometimes called "pseudo-ruminants"... The rhythmic cycle of coprophagy of pure cecal contents practiced by all rabbits allows utilization of microbial protein and fermentation products, as well as recycling of certain minerals. Whereas the feces commonly seen excreted by rabbits are fairly large, dry and ovoid, excreted singly, and consist of fibrous plant material, cecotrophs are about half that size, occur in moist bundles stuck together with mucus, and are very fine textured and odiferous. They are seldom seen, as the rabbit plucks them directly from the anus as they are passed and swallows them whole. Normal rabbits do not allow cecotrophs to drop to the floor or ground, and their presence there indicates a mechanical problem or illness in the rabbit.

And Janet Tast, D.V.M. notes:
http://www.ultranet.com/~hrs/artcl03.htm

Cecotrophy by Janet Tast, D.V.M. "Cecotropy is the process by which rabbits will reingest part of their feces directly from the rectum. This should not be confused with the term coprophagy (eating fecal material) since rabbits only ingest the soft "night" feces or cecotrophs."

Caryl Hilscher-Conklin (M.S. in Biology, University of Notre Dame) also makes this claim:
Rat & Mouse Gazette: Coprophagy: Rattus Biologicus: Healthy Behavior For Your Rats

"One may not give much thought to the lazy chewing of the cud that we observe cows doing all the time, but this behavior is analogous to coprophagy. The only difference between cud chewing and coprophagy is the point in the digestive tract at which nutrients are expelled and then placed back into the mouth."

Now, we must also remember that artiodactyls were first defined as a separate order in 1847 by Richard Owen and the behavior of cecotropy was first recognized in 1882. Deuteronomy, however, was written approximately 1500 BC in an ancient Hebrew. It would be intellectually dishonest for someone to claim that a 3500 year old writing is contradictory because it doesn't match with a scientific classification invented only about a hundred years ago. Further, if the ancient Hebrews defined 'cud-chewing" as that process where half digested vegetation was re-chewed by an animal for easier re-digestion ( and that is a very specific and scientific definition), I would say the hare fits here fine.

Whenever someone translates an ancient language or writing, some word for word parallels are not going to be available. Most scholars understand this and accept the cultural backgrounds and meanings for what they are. This is why hermeneutics is a serious field of study in higher education.

Yep gotta love science proving the bible though...

Deuteronomy was written during and after the Babylonian exile.

Deuteronomy | biblical literature | Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Deuteronomy
Deuteronomy. An early edition of Deuteronomy as it exists today has been identified with the book of the Law discovered in the Temple of Jerusalem about 622 bc (2 Kings 22:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15). This early edition, corresponding roughly to chapters 5–26 and 28 of Deuteronomy as it …