Do insects have four feet as it says in the bible?

Question

All winged creeping things that go upon all fours are an abomination to you. Yet these may you eat of all winged creeping things that go on all fours, which have legs above their feet, with which to leap upon the earth; even these of them you may eat: the locust after its kind, the bald locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind. But all winged creeping things, which have four feet, are an abomination to you (Lev. 11:20-23, BB).

Nope Egg, because I am a bible thumper and because I love you and care about where you spend eternity, it is my duty to tell you that if you don't believe that insects have four legs you are going to hair. You were given a choice to believe or not. Remember God is Love and it's all about justice you know.

Nimrod.

Nope Egg, because I am a bible thumper and because I love you and care about where you spend eternity, it is my duty to tell you that if you don't believe that insects have four legs you are going to hell. You were given a choice to believe or not. Remember God is Love and it's all about justice you know.

Nimrod.

Answer 1

Interesting question, because it is obvious that the ancient Hebrews knew how to count as well as we do. You would have thought that they would have noticed such an obvious error and corrected it, if they were just making the Bible up from their imagination.

A footnote in the NIV states that the Hebrew in this section is "uncertain" and cannot be translated into English directly, so it is not entirely clear if the original Hebrew text was really talking about "grasshoppers", or if the word we translate into English as "four" really is the number four. The translators seem to be admitting that they are making an educated guess here. Since Jesus, Peter & Paul said that Christians don't have to keep kosher under the New Testament, most people don't care about the exact translation of this particular passage -- since it is here for purely historic purposes only as far as Christians are concerned.

Perhaps the concept of creeping on all fours is a poetic way of saying that these creatures do not normally fly. Other people have suggested that ancient people did not regard the two back jumping legs as "walking" legs (or "creeping" legs), so the four legs is referring to the front two pairs. The wording of the passage that you have quoted above suggests this latter explanation, especially if you consult a better English translation than the one that you have choosen.

'Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects [sherets] which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth.' (Leviticus 11:21)

The key part of the verse is the phrase "above their feet jointed legs." The Hebrew uses two different words to describe the "feet" (regel) and "legs" (kera). What the verse says is that these insects walk on four "feet" (their anterior four short legs), with an additional two "legs" that are used for jumping. Therefore, all six appendages are described.

BTW, if you are trying to prove the Bible is wrong and unreliable so that you can rationalize someone getting legally married to their hamster, or you are trying to get Christians to abandon their faith so that we won't talk about Hell anymore, then you might try picking a better argument than trying to nit pick at the wording of a bad English translation, but I digress.

Answer 2

The writers of the bible weren't inventing the fauna names while they wrote. They merely used the already existing names. Whether or not a thing's name suits it or not, doesn't effect whether it is conventional - and to not use the conventional name would sound weird, even if the reader thought the name incorrect in hearing it in all common use of it. What if the word "dog" should etymologically mean "fish"? Would you use a new word for a dog for the sake of lexical stem-word precision, when "dog" is all that would now sound natural? We have many words that have shifted in meaning, which, however, in the modern context, are standard, and, thus, considered correct.

Answer 3

Most of Leviticus is highly controversial. As Atheists, we need to show how logic plays more of a guide to the truth rather than quoting a book that was probably written by someone misquoting someone else that heard a story from a friend.

Answer 4

How could the authors of Scripture know more about science than present day scientists? Should this ignorance be a blow to the authority of the Bible? O course not. The Bible is not a scientific manual. It is a book of revelation about God, his creatures, and their relationship with him. God allowed our understanding of science to develop slowly over the centuries, but he gave us all we needed to know him, love him, and serve him throughout all ages. He gave us divine truth.

Peace and every blessing!

Answer 5

The writers of the scriptures couldn't have been less concerned with the study of insects, animals, geology, etc.
The details are irrelevant..talk about missing the forest for the trees.
Inspired works translate SPIRITUAL truths men need to grasp to know God.
If I ever happen to be concerned with beetle larvae, I will consult a expert. Thanks for your concern.

Answer 6

So how do you explain flying centipedes, bible thumper?

It seems to me that a true bible thumper would not go around calling people Nimrods. Keep eating locust feet, bozo.

Answer 7

Bald locust? Perhaps it means lucusts with aggressive foreheads...

Answer 8

Only if you tear some off.

Answer 9

No. Six. I'm quite sure of it.

Answer 10

Christian vs Science.

THE ETERNAL BATTLE


.