• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Bible And Science: Insects

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Did you actually read the post? Where is the Bible scientifically inaccurate here? It's the uninformed skeptic that is inaccurate.

It seems to indicate that life does not have a common origin. Ergo, it is scientific inaccurate.

Unless you redefine the word “scientific” so that it always fits. In that case, which is the default one among creationists, the Bible will always be in accordance with science,tautologically. The same with any other book.

Ciao

- viole
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
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.
Whenever I see these verses my question is always......why? What's the dietary difference between "winged swarming creatures that go on all fours" and "winged swarming creatures that go on all fours and have leaper legs"?
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
It seems to indicate that life does not have a common origin. Ergo, it is scientific inaccurate.

Unless you redefine the word “scientific” so that it always fits. In that case, which is the default one among creationists, the Bible will always be in accordance with science,tautologically. The same with any other book.

Ciao

- viole
Sure. If you want scientific inaccuracies in the Bible, IMO it starts with how Genesis says flowering plants were on the earth before aquatic organisms.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
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?

Then to me the expression ' walking on all fours ' simply means a mode of transportation, and Not a literal four legs.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
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?
If the truth were so obvious, then why do you suppose you had to engage in a rather lengthy exposition to try to point out the 'obvious'? If it were so obvious, then why the need to explain it?

And it is so weird how YouTube refutes your strained etymology...


 

Earthling

David Henson
If the truth were so obvious, then why do you suppose you had to engage in a rather lengthy exposition to try to point out the 'obvious'? If it were so obvious, then why the need to explain it?

And it is so weird how YouTube refutes your strained etymology...



The obvious is often missed and needing of explanation to the uninformed or prejudiced. Especially where there is disagreement. As for You Tube refuting my "strained etymology" it doesn't. I've asked repeatedly how that may be in various ways to various respondents who disagree with the OP's in The Bible And Science Threads and have yet to get an answer. Namely, show me where the Bible says what you say it is saying.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
The obvious is often missed and needing of explanation to the uninformed or prejudiced. Especially where there is disagreement. As for You Tube refuting my "strained etymology" it doesn't. I've asked repeatedly how that may be in various ways to various respondents who disagree with the OP's in The Bible And Science Threads and have yet to get an answer. Namely, show me where the Bible says what you say it is saying.

Leviticus 11:21-24 (King James Version)
21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;​

So just what animal is god referring to when he says "every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four?


22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
So just what animal is god referring to when he says "all other flying creeping things, which have four feet?

Among the creeping things we have arachnids, which have eight feet, but don't fly. Millipedes, which have many more feet, but don't fly. Centipedes which also have many more feet, but don't fly, which leaves insects all of which have six (6) feet, some of which do fly.

However, as has been shown in a couple of posts, grasshoppers do "goeth" on all six of their feet, as do beetles.

..........
Obviously the Bible doesn't know what it's talking about, but if you think otherwise please feel free to justify it's glaring error.



.
 
Last edited:

Earthling

David Henson
Leviticus 11:21-24 (King James Version)
21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;​

So just what animal is god referring to when he says "every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four?

Flying or creeping creatures that may walk on all fours, like the family of humans I posted a video of who walked on all fours. It isn't negating the fact that those creatures can walk on six legs or that insects in general walk on all fours. It specifically refers to those that do. The term "walks on all fours" is an expression regardless of how many legs they have or typically walk on, but rather an indication that there are those who do or can walk "on all fours."

It isn't a proposition from Wittgenstein.


So just what animal is god referring to when he says "all other flying creeping things, which have four feet?

Among the creeping things we have arachnids, which have eight feet, but don't fly. Millipedes, which have many more feet, but don't fly. Centipedes which also have many more feet, but don't fly, which leaves insects all of which have six (6) feet, some of which do fly.

However, as has been shown in a couple of posts, grasshoppers do "goeth" on all six of their feet, as do beetles.
..........
Obviously the Bible doesn't know what it's talking about, but if you think otherwise please feel free to justify it's glaring error.

I already have and you don't accept it, so let's play by your rules. What do alternate versions read and what does the original language read?

Leviticus 11:23 (NWT) And every other winged swarming creature that does have four legs is a loathsome thing to you.

A Jewish commentary reads, regarding the verse: “go upon all four. The phrase used here cannot be taken to mean that the insects were possessed of only four legs. The words probably refer to their method of locomotion, and signify, ‘that move like quadrupeds.’ . . . 23. which have four feet. i.e. without the ‘bending legs.’”
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Flying or creeping creatures that may walk on all fours, like the family of humans I posted a video of who walked on all fours. It isn't negating the fact that those creatures can walk on six legs or that insects in general walk on all fours. It specifically refers to those that do. The term "walks on all fours" is an expression regardless of how many legs they have or typically walk on, but rather an indication that there are those who do or can walk "on all fours."

So, lets have some examples of those insects that do walk on all fours---the Bible doesn't say a thing about those that can walk on all fours.

EXAMPLE 1) _______________________________

EXAMPLE 2) _______________________________​

Leviticus 11:23 (NWT) And every other winged swarming creature that does have four legs is a loathsome thing to you.
Okay. Give us an example of every other swarming creature "that does have four legs."

The phrase used here cannot be taken to mean that the insects were possessed of only four legs. The words probably refer to their method of locomotion, and signify, ‘that move like quadrupeds.’ . . . 23.
So which insects move like quadrupeds?


which have four feet. i.e. without the ‘bending legs.’”

tumblr_nwffrjY43q1qfl1rro2_500.gif


.
 
Last edited:

Earthling

David Henson
So, lets have some examples of those insects that do walk on all fours---the Bible doesn't say a thing about those that can walk on all fours.

EXAMPLE 1) _______________________________

EXAMPLE 2) _______________________________​


Okay. Give us an example of every other swarming creature "that does have four legs."


So which insects move like quadrupeds?



tumblr_nwffrjY43q1qfl1rro2_500.gif


.

You have got to be kidding is just what I was thinking. Read the OP, it answers all of your questions. The context is given quite clearly; "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."

Examples are "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" which isn't a statement insisting upon insects having only four legs but applies to those with leaper legs in addition to the four.

These people ate these insects. They weren't questioning modern day taxonomy. The verse refers to four legs in addition to the leaper legs. Now you can come to the logical conclusion that they didn't consider the leaper legs as legs as such or you can more logically conclude that in the context given the leaper legs are a specific characteristic of the insects in question. You can't logically conclude that Moses, who allegedly wrote Leviticus, was unaware of the number of legs that the insects in question had.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
These people ate these insects. They weren't questioning modern day taxonomy.
Taxonomy has nothing to do with grasshoppers having six legs.

The verse refers to four legs in addition to the leaper legs.
The verse you refer to, that in post 110, says nothing of the sort. Using your NWT Bible we read

Lev.11:20-23
20 Every winged swarming creature* that goes on all fours is something loathsome to you. So far you've failed to name any such creature. How about it?
21 Of the winged swarming creatures that move on all fours, you may eat only those that have jointed legs above their feet for leaping on the ground. Says nothing about the leaping legs as being in addition to the four.
22 Of these you may eat: various kinds of migratory locusts, other edible locusts,j crickets, and grasshoppers.
23 All other winged swarming creatures with four legs are something loathsome to you. So far you've failed to name any such four legged creatures. How about it?


You can't logically conclude that Moses, who allegedly wrote Leviticus, was unaware of the number of legs that the insects in question had.
Aside from being highly unlikely that Moses didn't know that grasshoppers had six and not just four legs, the implication here is that "Yes," the Bible was in error when it implied they had only four legs, AND, that if one contends the Bible was the work of god, god was wrong as well. :D

.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Taxonomy has nothing to do with grasshoppers having six legs.


The verse you refer to, that in post 110, says nothing of the sort. Using your NWT Bible we read

Lev.11:20-23
20 Every winged swarming creature* that goes on all fours is something loathsome to you. So far you've failed to name any such creature. How about it?
21 Of the winged swarming creatures that move on all fours, you may eat only those that have jointed legs above their feet for leaping on the ground. Says nothing about the leaping legs as being in addition to the four.
22 Of these you may eat: various kinds of migratory locusts, other edible locusts,j crickets, and grasshoppers.
23 All other winged swarming creatures with four legs are something loathsome to you. So far you've failed to name any such four legged creatures. How about it?


Aside from being highly unlikely that Moses didn't know that grasshoppers had six and not just four legs, the implication here is that "Yes," the Bible was in error when it implied they had only four legs, AND, that if one contends the Bible was the work of god, god was wrong as well. :D

.
I have wondered about that claim about the likelihood that Moses would know about his foods living condition. It does seem more likely that a person that is closer to the origins of their food would know more about it, but look how little people today know about the food they eat. Then consider, that unless he ate them alive, Moses would not have had much opportunity to watch them walk about his plate.

Our Earthling has failed to make his case and continually referring us all to the OP is not doing it. I have read it several times and the only reasonable conclusion that comes from that reading is that the Bible reports insects as having four legs. It does not matter what the original text may or may not have stated, though I think that it too leaves the impression of four-legged insects, the Bibles that are being used today all falsely imply that insects have only four legs.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Taxonomy has nothing to do with grasshoppers having six legs.


The verse you refer to, that in post 110, says nothing of the sort. Using your NWT Bible we read

Lev.11:20-23
20 Every winged swarming creature* that goes on all fours is something loathsome to you. So far you've failed to name any such creature. How about it?
21 Of the winged swarming creatures that move on all fours, you may eat only those that have jointed legs above their feet for leaping on the ground. Says nothing about the leaping legs as being in addition to the four.
22 Of these you may eat: various kinds of migratory locusts, other edible locusts,j crickets, and grasshoppers.
23 All other winged swarming creatures with four legs are something loathsome to you. So far you've failed to name any such four legged creatures. How about it?


Aside from being highly unlikely that Moses didn't know that grasshoppers had six and not just four legs, the implication here is that "Yes," the Bible was in error when it implied they had only four legs, AND, that if one contends the Bible was the work of god, god was wrong as well. :D

.
I find his taxonomy response to be very, very amusing. Where does he come up with this stuff?
 

We Never Know

No Slack
A grasshopper has 6 legs. The front 4 legs are primarily used for walking and holding prey while the 2 back larger legs are primarily used for jumping.

However that doesn't mean it only uses 4 legs to walk and/or that the bible is correct because as we observe it, it has 6 legs and many times can and does use 6 legs to walk. Someone the other day said they were a entomologist. He should be able to confirm this.

Hope that helps with the grasshopper argument that's been dragged out for days now.
 
Last edited:

Earthling

David Henson
This is what I would expect from the defeated. Thank you for the confirmation.

Do you mean to accept defeat because you applied the same term to my use of the word "bull****" as a response?

I get that sort of response from atheists and it reminds me of a playground mentality. You know that I'm not defeated. You know there was no confirmation of any such thing. You're playing a game of words. You're spinning it. Like a kid on the playground that says "I know I am, what are you?"

It's silly. @Subduction Zone does this often.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Do you mean to accept defeat because you applied the same term to my use of the word "bull****" as a response?

I get that sort of response from atheists and it reminds me of a playground mentality. You know that I'm not defeated. You know there was no confirmation of any such thing. You're playing a game of words. You're spinning it. Like a kid on the playground that says "I know I am, what are you?"

It's silly. @Subduction Zone does this often.
Good grief guy. This is silly. You are just going to keep grousing about your loss. Walk it off.
 
Top