If the bible is supposed to be scientifically sound then?

Question

Tell me, why is:

A bat considered a bird? Leviticus 11:13,19
Hares chew cud? Leviticus 11:5-6
Some birds and insects have four legs? Leviticus 11:20-23

Answer 1

The Bible wasn't written by modern scientists, you know. That is to say, it was modern scientists who came up with specific classifications for animals--why can only a "bird" be something cold-blooded with feathers that lays eggs? Because those are the characteristics modern day scientists decided would constitute a "bird." Why is it "insects" have to have three body parts and six legs? Again, because those are the modern day "qualifications" for being an insect.
People in Bible days didn't classify animals the same way we do today. That doesn't mean it's not scientifically sound.

Answer 2

It is always good to use a variety of translations.
In anything, some translations are better, or worse, quality.
However, it must be said that both birds and bats are flying creatures.
Sure hares chew cud!
François Bourlière in 'The Natural History of Mammals', 1964, page 41 says:
“The habit of passing the food twice through the intestine instead of only once, seems to be a common phenomenon in the rabbits and hares. In the wild rabbit 'refection' takes place twice daily, and the same habit is reported for the European hare.”
Some insects have 4 legs.
The locust is equipped with two pairs of wings, four walking legs, and two much longer leaper legs....."

Answer 3

No, the Bible is NOT supposed to be scientifically sound.

The Bible is a collection of books that describe the relationship between God and His people.

A "straw man" is a false supposition that is easy to refute. By refuting a weak and false supposition, the person setting up the straw man hopes to further discredit something.

I'm sorry, but your straw man is very obvious. Try again.

Answer 4

A bat is a flying creature - that is what the word "bird" means.

As far as the cud-chewing hare: ( Let me quote)

"Cud chewers are generally classified as belonging to the order of ruminants- (a sub order of artiodactyls) - and are defined as an "even-toed animal that regurgitates and masticates its food after swallowing. " This means that a cow, for example, will eat vegetation and swallow it. The cow's stomach is divided into four chambers where some of more easily digestible nutrients are absorbed by the body while other more fibrous material is stored in the stomach and then regurgitated. The cow will re-chew this material and re-swallow it so that it can digest it as well.

Rabbits and hares, however, do not have a chambered stomach such as the cow. They also do not regurgitate their food. What they do perform is a function named cecotropy. I will quote the process as cited at http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/rjbiology/ELOs/ELO45.html

SYMBIOSIS WITHIN THE VERTEBRATE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM

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) writes:
http://microvet.arizona.edu/Courses/MIC443/notes/rabbits.htm

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:
http://www.rmca.org/Articles/coprophagy.htm

"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."


god bless

Answer 5

Bible + Science Reasoning= Syntax Error

Answer 6

Since when is it supposed to be scientifically sound?

It also states that common illnesses are demons. I'd say it was socially sound and acceptable 2000 years ago, but has never been scientifically valuable.

Answer 7

The Bible scientifically sound? That's a joke.

Answer 8

Because it is only considered scientifically sound by those that find the Creationism myth to be scientifically sound!

Answer 9

Getting a little ridiculous here... if you are that desperate to not believe just don't.

I think applying scientific categories of animals that came thousands of years after a document was written in order to try to prove that document false is a little far flung.

Answer 10

If anything, religionists dislike or have little respect for science. Few, if any, bother to consider religion to be scientifically sound.