For those who think the bible is literal, inerrent, and infallible...?

Question

Leviticus says that bats are birds, that some insects have four legs, and that rabbits chew cud.

All of these statements are not just inaccurate, they are outright wrong.

I believe in the bible, but I don't take all of it literally.
Others do, however, and this question is for them.

It's easy for you to just ignore the evidence for a 5 byo earth and evolution, but how do you reconcile these obvious errors, if you don't believe the bible can be wrong and must be interpreted literally?

Or did you even bother to read Leviticus?

Tick, I don't care about the little things. It doesn't matter what "all fours" means in Hebrew. I don't read Hebrew, I read English. Besides that, you are wrong. "Crawls" has a completely other, more appropriate word in Hebrew than "all fours." Ditto with cud. I agree with you, but I am not a literalist, and neither are you. This question is for those who are literalists. I'm not trying to discredit the bible. I'm trying to show faulty logic. Every Leviticus apologist here has had to travel OUTSIDE of the bounds of a literal translation to dismiss this question, howefver these are some of the same people who tell us that we can't do that with Genesis.
Got it?

BrotherMichael, In Genesis, The humans that God created were tasked with naming all of the animals. The differences between birds and bats would be glaringly obvious to even a caveman. Especially so to God, who could have pointed it out for us. Maybe I'm wrong, but show me just one ancient Hebrew document that classifies bats with birds, other than Leviticus. I think even the ancients knew the difference. Even so, I see that you are taking liberties with scripture that you wouldn't take with Genesis regarding literal creation.

"The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories." Nor geological, taxonomical, cosmological, paleontological, nor meteorological categories either.

Maybe Genesis was worded as it is so we could better understand it, rather than a detailed explanation like you YEC's like to believe. It is the same explanation you are using here, that you say doesn't apply in Genesis. Why?

Whitehorse, let's get this straight, rabbits do NOT chew cud. They eat their own excrement. There is a big, big difference, and there is also a perfectly acceptable word for eating one's own crap in the Hebrew language. If you wish to define partially digested excrement as cud, then ALL animals chew cud, even some humans I know. Also, nothing that is eaten in the animal world gets fully digested. So, no. It isn't cud, and it can't be written off so easily.

But thank you for helping me make my point.

Randy G, are you even intelligent enough to read? If so, then Go to Leviticus in the NIV. You will find that the rock badger, the convey, and rabbits were all seperately listed, and NONE of them chew cud. Not any of them. Now, why would God mention all of these different animals (Badgers, conveys, and rabbits) if He knew they were all the same animal? Have you ever seen a rack badger or convey? They look nothing close to a rabbit.

Yes, I know the bible wasn't written in English, but I don't read Hebrew. Nor do I have a Hebrew bible. Nor Greek, nor Italian. But if this can so easily be written off as a translational error, then HOW in the WORLD can we regard the bible as strictly literal, and why won't YEC's allow this apologetic in Genesis?

You, also, helped make my point glaringly clear.
Thanx!

sdr35hw, thank you for recognizing that I am not attacking the bible. You are correct.

You wrote, "I hope that your belief in the Bible is genuine and that you will grow to learn that is is not the what of the Bible that is important but Who wrote it." Let's not forget WHY.

My problem with YEC's as this question has made so obvious, is that they, too, pick and choose what is literal and what leaves room for translation.

Thanks again for recognizing my intent. I tried to make it clear from the beginning, but some people just don't get it.

Jeancommunicates, are you a biblical literalist? ie, do you believe that the earth is about 6,000 years old and that all life was created within a six day period, based strictly on the literal words of Genesis, for just a couple of examples?

If not, then this question wasn't for you.

If so, then can YOU understand that Leviticus classified bats as birds?
Cany YOU understand that bats are NOT birds, regardless of whether they can fly? Airplanes can fly, and last I checked, they are not birds either.

It doesn't matter that they can fly. Leviticus doesn't use "those that fly" as a qualifier. It says "'These are the birds you are to detest and not eat..." and then counts bats among this group. This wasn't a description by a prophet. Leviticus says that these are God's words. So that apologetic tactic fails.

Jeancommunicates, furthermore, IF you are a YEC (young earth creationist) then why can't you apply some of this same logic to Genesis?

Translational difficulties, categorical problems, explaining complicated concepts to an ancient, uneducated people, etc...

That is the reason for this question.

Randy G, I already told you once. Can you READ?? I can, and only English and Spanish. NOT Hebrew. So, if the translational problems explain why Leviticus is not literal, can you FINALLY see how the same can apply to Genesis?

And u never answered my question.

HOW in the WORLD can we regard the bible as strictly literal, and why won't YEC's allow this apologetic in Genesis?

So, obviously, I DIDN'T miss your point, otherwise I wouldn't have asked that question. So YOU grow a brain.

Answer my question or butt out.

And if it bothers you when people reply to you with sarcasm, maybe you shouldn't be the one to start out with it.

Or did God "forget" to inspire the ones who translated the bible into English?

No!!

It isn't that the bible is wrong. YOU ARE!!!!You are misapplying scripture. The bible is an explanation of who God is, what He wants for and from us, how much He loves us, and WHY He created us.

The bible isn't a science book. Leviticus is only wrong when expected to be scientifically inerrent. Leviticus wasn't MEANT to be scientifically inerrent.

Ditto with Genesis.

Get it????????

Answer 1

The Bible (and any other book based on religion) was meant as a basis to live a life with a moral code!
I personally am an athiest, i do not believe in 'gods', 'messiahs' or prophets, strictly because 'mankind' has abused, misinterprated, become fanatical about words, instead of REALLY looking at the 'meanings in a positive and enlightened way. The messages that are in these books have been corrupted by fanatics, zealots and power hungry narcissists!

Answer 2

Is a bat a bird?
Leviticus 11:13-19

(Leviticus 11:19) - "These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, 14and the kite and the falcon in its kind, 15every raven in its kind, 16 and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, 17and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, 18and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat."

In verse 13 Moses tells us about the birds and then he lists them out. In verse 19 we see the bat is included in this list. We know that a bat is not a bird. Does this not mean that the Bible is incorrect?
The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories. Instead, it is often written from the perspective of what we see. In other words, it makes generic categorizations. In this case, the bat is categorized as a bird because like birds, it flies and is similar in size to most birds. If we did not know that it was a mammal, it would be natural to call it a bird. To the Hebrew of ancient times, calling it a bird was perfectly logical. But, in modern times with our science of being able to categorize animal species, we know that the bat is actually a mammal and not a bird.
Also, we must be aware that it is modern science that has a different classification system than ancient times. To the ancients, creatures such as a bat were considered birds since they categorized all flying animals as birds. If that is the category that they used, then they were correct. It is not an error. It is a difference of categorization procedures. The critic has imposed upon the ancient text a modern system of categorization and then said that the Bible is wrong.

Do the badger and rabbit chew cud?
Leviticus 11:5-6

(Lev. 11:5-6) - "‘Likewise, the rock badger, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; 6 the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you."

The problem here is that cud is food that is regurgitated from the stomach into the mouth so that it can be chewed again and neither the rock badger or the rabbit regurgitate their food into their stomachs to chew.
The solution is that these animals were categorized with other animals who appeared to chew cud because they move their jaws in the same manner as the other animals listed.
It is known that rabbits practice what is called "refection," in which indigestible vegetable matter towards certain bacteria and is passed as droppings and then eaten again. This process enables the rabbit to better digest it. This process is very similar to rumination, and it gives the impression of chewing the cud. So, the Hebrew phrase "chewing the cud" should not be taken in the modern technical sense, but in the ancient sense of a chewing motion that includes both rumination and refection in the modern sense.

Answer 3

Maybe the Hebrew is not as sophisticated as you and doesnt know that a bat is a mammal but can tell that it flies:
13 " 'These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
The bible doesnt say insects have four legs,it says dont eat the bugs that walk on four legs:
" 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. 21 There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.
As for the rabbit, perhaps you could do the scholarly reseach of the original text to determine what animal that could be:
The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.

I trust your real intent is seeking truth and not trashing the Bible. I hope that your belief in the Bible is genuine and that you will grow to learn that is is not the what of the Bible that is important but Who wrote it.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training

Answer 4

How often has man been so certain of something and then found out later they were wrong? There are many possible explanations for all apparent "discrepancies" in Scripture. For instance, one apologetics site addresses the isse of the hare...

The truth is that the rabbit does, in fact, re-eat partially digested fecal pellets that come from a special pouch called the caecum. Bacteria in these pellets enrich the diet and provide nutrients to aid digestion. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica: “Some lagomorphs [rabbits and hares] are capable of re-ingesting moist and nutritionally rich fecal pellets, a practice considered comparable to cud-chewing in ruminants…The upper tooth rows are more widely separated than the lower rows, and chewing is done with a transverse movement.”

Whether or not this is even the correct answer, the point is that the word of God is always more trustworthy than man's opinion or scientific understanding (once a proper interpretation of Scripture is understood)...

Answer 5

It's not possible to take the bible "literally," because the bible contradicts itself throughout, and you cannot simultaneously accept two contradictory statements at face value. Unless you're insane!

People who fancy themselves "literalists" are more likely mere imbeciles.

By the way, all the characteristic refuge in exegetical tricks avails them not at all. Yes, the sense of the original Hebrew or Greek very often does modify or even reverse the apparent meaning of the English "translation" - but if you use that to argue your way out of a corner, you have to accept it when I use the same device to argue you back in!

For centuries it was believed that Moses had horns when he descended from Horeb, owing to a mistranslation of the word for "shining." See, e.g., Michaelangelo's statue of the patriarch. Later the translation was "corrected." Did it matter to religion? Of course not. And here we are arguing over the cud-chewing habits of rabbits, as if it makes any difference. All because some people begin with the asinine assumption that every single word in the bible must be literally factually correct; so that if a given passage is demonstrably NOT, there must be some misunderstanding - on our part, not on the part of God the Author!

You could work the same trick with the Arabian Nights. A flying carpet? Impossible? But look at the Arabic - "flying" is a euphemism for "elaborate." Or, if that fails to convince, we can always fall back on theology: "God caused the carpet to be raised in demonstration of His Magnanimity." There is no limit to the disingenuity of "religious" people.

Answer 6

The bible is poorly compiled collection of poorly written myths composed by primitive, uneducated men who could barely be considered out of the Stone Age. There is no reason to even debate whether it has any literal or realistic qualities as it has already been proven time and time again that the Bible doesn't even describe nature accurately, much less history. Quite frankly, there is no reason that modern people living in a highly technological society even bother considering the bible for any reason at this point.

Answer 7

What is a "byo" earth?

Nevermind....it finally hit me....'billion year old'.......duhhh....lol.

I understand what you are saying, and I have to say, I too stumble and have difficulty bridging the gaps in things in the bible. Things like....if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out....(ever see that really, really old movie with Ray Miland? Man With the X-Ray Eyes? The last scenes in the movie he goes into a tent in the desert where people are chanting and this comes up. It was good and scary when I was a kid).....same with your hands and feet. That it's better to get into heaven blind, no hands, etc than to go to hell. I agree, but I do have difficulty with some of these things.

I often have to ask questions....like you are.....sometimes I get a decent answer, other times not. Still, it does not shake my faith in Jesus, or the bible, I take it as my inability to understand.

Some of how I resolve these issues (which isn't really a 'resolution' per se) is to understand a couple things:

First, a lot of the bible is prophetic......given to us by prophets.

Next, much of the bible is given in parables.

This is given in a time and language that is not even close to what we understand.

So, there are many things that I think we have to 'accept' as true without proof.

Incidentally, I thought rabbits did chew cud? I think they do.....I'm pretty sure they do, not that that matters, but I just wanted to point that out.

Yes I have read Leviticus. I need to re-read it again. There are many I go back and re-read tho. I recall liking this book a lot, but wondered about a lot of it like you are.

There is a good website that I like to visit when I have various questions. I included it below. I don't know if it addresses this particular question, but it does cover a lot of the common ones that I think we all do. He seems to go about addressing them in a very logical, clear, and unbiased way. He seems to be honest about what he's saying. He seems to lead up to certain conclusions, but often leaves the final conclusion up to the reader. Often I agree with him, but once in a while I end up with more questions....which is good tho!

Hope you get a satisfactory answer to your question.

Answer 8

The Bible has to be read in context. The written word of God is the Logos word...the Rhema word is when your reading it and God speaks to you in a powerful way with a clear understanding...
Can i add to the poster who quoted Corinthians: this chapter was written by the Apostle Paul to the Cor church, because the people were out of control, the women were unruly so Paul told the elders to enforce certain rules such as women staying quite in church and learning from their husbands at home. This was Paul's order NOT God's....if you have an introduction or footnoot in the Bible your reading this should be clear...Corinthians was written to that specific church. i hope this clears up at least one point....
wendy..

Answer 9

According to the footnote in the cheep NIV Bible that I have, the Hebrew word that is mistranslated as "rabbit" in the King James actually refers to the rock badger (or convey). And the Hebrew words that are translated as "Bat" and "insect" in the King James are actually of uncertain meaning.

You do realize that the Book of Leviticus wasn't originally written in English, don't you?

I take it that you are not a Hebrew scholar, and that you are not intelligent enough to understand what a "translation" is, or what a "footnote" is.

-----------------edit--------

Yes, I know that a rock badger looks nothing like a rabbit. Either you are playing stupid, or you missed my point. The word "rabbit" is a mistranslation. That is NOT what the original Hebrew said. And the original Hebrew didn't say anything about "insects" or "bats" either, as far as we know.

You are reading a poor ENGLISH translation of a HEBREW text.

Grow a brain!

Answer 10

You may not speak Hebrew--the people of the bible were Hebrew and it does matter how they used their language. There is no distinctive word for a non-flying mammal. in Hebrew. They use bird for Bat. That is a fact of language. If you choose to discuss biblical terms research the HERMENEUTICS that goes with it.
May you find the God you are looking for. Have a good day