Science and the Bible: Insect Legs

[DLH]

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.'

At Leviticus 11:22, the Hebrew word arbeh is translated as 'locust' and refers to the migratory locust, fully developed and winged. The Hebrew word yeleq refers to the creeping, wingless locust, the immature, undeveloped locust. (Joel 1:4) The Hebrew term solam refers to the edible locust as in Leviticus 11:22. That is a leaper 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 scientists of entomology and botany, but we are talking about 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, they 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.​

 

[pood]

Look like Phase II has begun with a lightning assault of total inanity.

 

[steve_bank]

I am not critical of the bible, I am critical of what people today try to make it into.

As to science and he bible, the OT is a collection of writings that survived by unknown authors written at different times and places. A mix of cultural history, mythology, and rules of an ancienter group of people.

There is no way to know how close the bible you read today is to what was actually written thousands of years ago.

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 scientists of entomology and botany,

I agree. Adding that applies to all the commentary in the bible. Reports of a global flood that killed surface life fpr which tere is no evidence.

 

[pood]

Whether the bible says insects had two or four or eight or sixteen legs, or whatever, should be of interest why?

 

[ideologyhunter]

Look at the big picture.
If a praying mantis eats a Mormon cricket, does it start collecting extra wives?
If an assassin bug eats a Jesus bug (look it up!), does that count as Communion?
Were the bedbugs on the Ark stowaways, or did they have boarding passes?
If you ate nothing but handfuls of locusts and honey, would you have nutty visions, too?
Until these ancillary issues are addressed, Phase II is off to a feeble start.

 

[DLH]

I am not critical of the bible, I am critical of what people today try to make it into.

As a Bible student for over three decades and a great admirer of it, I am even more critical of what people have made of it over time, in the last two thousand years even more so than today. How the misuse and misrepresentation has done so much damage, more so to the texts themselves than the sociopolitical effects, which would have taken place with or without it.

As to science and he bible, the OT is a collection of writings that survived by unknown authors written at different times and places. A mix of cultural history, mythology, and rules of an ancienter group of people. There is no way to know how close the bible you read today is to what was actually written thousands of years ago.

I pretty much agree with this except possibly for the significance of the authors, and their historically documented attribution. If you rightly criticize the Bible as a modern-day sociopolitical tool that's one thing, but to underestimate, in what I believe is often ignorance, the Bible without comparing its authenticity to secular histories like those of Livy, Caesar or Plato.

“Julius Caesar wrote his Commentaries on the Gallic War in the year 52 before Christ. The oldest extant copies, however, written by a later hand, are from the ninth century after Christ. The Greek philosopher Plato lived from 427 to 347 before Christ; the oldest copy we have of his philosophical works is dated 895 after Christ. Almost a thousand years and more generally lie between the first writing, the original writing of ancient books, and their oldest extant copies.” Das Buch der Bücher (The Book of Books), page 3: Karl Ringshausen

I agree. Adding that applies to all the commentary in the bible. Reports of a global flood that killed surface life fpr which tere is no evidence.

Saying there is no evidence and saying that there is no reasonable challenge to mainstream geological thinking are two very different things. There is a great deal of evidence for the Biblical global deluge but if you're looking for Biblical attribution science isn't the place to do that. Rightfully so.

 

[unapologetic]

The Bible critic will sometimes make the uninformed claim that the Bible isn't scientific because it says that insects have four legs.

I have never heard anyone say that.
Besides, Who gives a shit. After the 'flood' any other charges of un-science are irrelevant.

 

[pood]

The bible is unscientific through and through, for some many reasons you probably couldn’t even write them all down.

 

[DLH]

The Bible critic will sometimes make the uninformed claim that the Bible isn't scientific because it says that insects have four legs.

I have never heard anyone say that.

That surprises me, I have heard it many times. That's why I wrote a response to it.

Besides, Who gives a shit. After the 'flood' any other charges of un-science are irrelevant.

Why is that? Science is self-correcting, which means it disagrees with itself, corrects itself. If you are saying once science disagrees with the Bible it is thereafter irrelevant then it is irrelevant without the Bible anyway.

 

[DLH]

The bible is unscientific through and through, for some many reasons you probably couldn’t even write them all down.

The Bible is unscientific because it isn't science, but that doesn't mean that if science disagrees with it or even is thought to disagree with it that it is invalid. But that isn't so much the point anyway, the point is more akin to where science is thought to be unscientific it more often than not isn't unscientific. Thia is one such case of many which I will present in new threads.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Thia is one such case of many which I will present in new threads.

Who is Thia? Girlfriend? Maid? Fellow prognosticator?
Anyway, prophesies about the upcoming threads:
> You'll be talking to yourself, and gathering zero adherents.
> You'll remind us 5,000 frigging times about the 35 years you've spent in study.
> We'll have to "see what you just did there" multiple times.
> You'll label any/all critics as deluded ideologues and stupid people.
Prophesy is sometimes just plain common sense.

 

[unapologetic]

Why is that? Science is self-correcting, which means it disagrees with itself, corrects itself. If you are saying once science disagrees with the Bible it is thereafter irrelevant then it is irrelevant without the Bible anyway.

You are talking to atheists, not scientists. So I say again: Who Gives A Shit. Your bible has shown it's hand at being propaganda. So, after the 'flood' BS, TOTAL loss of credibility.

 

[unapologetic]

By the way DLH. In case you didn't notice. Your credibility is in the shitter too.
If you think posting here is a good way to promote Revelation In Space. It's a FAIL.

 

[steve_bank]

DLH

If all you have doe for 30 years is read tn the bible over and over then you have no context with which to view the bible. All the influences that may have fed into Jewish mythology.

The Epic of Gilgamesh, including its flood story, predates the biblical flood story of Noah's Ark, with the earliest versions of the Epic of Gilgamesh dating back to around 2000 BC, while the flood narrative in the Pentateuch (part of the Bible) is believed to have been written later, possibly around 1430-1201 BC.

Hinduism is considered the oldest tradition. Buddhism and Taoism.

Tibetan Buddhism has a supernatural element/. he Tibetan saint Milarepa was said to fly through the air with the speed of an arrow', levitation is part of the tradition.

You need to broaden your horizons.

If it were not for one or two two key battles between European Christians and Islamic states Europe may have gone Muslim and you would be studying the Koran.

As to authorship read the Oxford Bible Commentary. There are sed paperbacks online. It is a reasonably academic review of the OT ad NT as to dating, authorship, transl;ation issues and erors, and historical cultural context as to meaning.

For example Job was probably relating to Jewish or subjugation. More recent archeology indicates the Exodus story, the feeling of Jews and crossing the waters, was probably a conflation of multiple events and battles at different rimes. The Exodus story never happened, but it supports the Jewish narrative.

https://www.scriptureanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/The-Oxford-Bible-Commentary.pdf

I used the Annotated Oxford Bible when I took a comparative religions class in philosophy.

 

[DLH]

By the way DLH. In case you didn't notice. Your credibility is in the shitter too.
If you think posting here is a good way to promote Revelation In Space. It's a FAIL.

I only promote it on forums I post on, not so much for promotion itself but for reference and a storage for my earlier stuff. It's a personal site and serves that purpose along with eye candy (art) and music I listen to when I'm online. Like right now I'm listening to Atlanta Rhythm Section playlist on the site.

 

[DLH]

You are talking to atheists, not scientists.

Actually, I thought I was talking to infidels. I'm an infidel but not an atheist. Also, I have a private audience who lurk without posting which observes the objectivity of unbelievers in our discussions.

So I say again: Who Gives A Shit.

I've said it before. If you don't give a shit, piss off. Save me of having to go through reams of meaningless, tiresome diatribe.

Your bible has shown it's hand at being propaganda. So, after the 'flood' BS, TOTAL loss of credibility.

Okay.

 

[ideologyhunter]

BTW, that is one weird logo. I keep looking at it. It looks like Aretha Franklin fell into the shark tank at Sea World.

 

[unapologetic]

Also, I have a private audience who lurk without posting

Sure, whatever you say. I would believe laughing lurkers. You rarely get any likes.

I've said it before. If you don't give a shit, piss off. Save me of having to go through reams of meaningless, tiresome diatribe.

You don't fool me. You love the attention. It looks like pissing people off is the only way you can get it.
Every thing you post is meaningless, tiresome diatribe. Especially this thread.

 

[NoHolyCows]

View attachment 49762

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.'

At Leviticus 11:22, the Hebrew word arbeh is translated as 'locust' and refers to the migratory locust, fully developed and winged. The Hebrew word yeleq refers to the creeping, wingless locust, the immature, undeveloped locust. (Joel 1:4) The Hebrew term solam refers to the edible locust as in Leviticus 11:22. That is a leaper 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 scientists of entomology and botany, but we are talking about 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, they 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.​

The Bible does, in fact, describe insects as “going on all fours,” which, from a scientific standpoint, is incorrect. Insects have six legs, not four. The attempt to justify this by saying that locusts “walk on four legs and use two for jumping” does not change the fact that they still possess six legs. The Bible describes them in a way that does not align with modern biological classification.

The argument that ancient people observed insects closely and would have noticed the extra legs is irrelevant. Many ancient cultures categorized animals based on function rather than anatomy. Just as whales were once called fish and bats were classified with birds, the Bible reflects an older way of thinking. It was not written as a scientific document, but as a religious and moral text.

This is not a criticism of its value but a recognition of historical context. Trying to retrofit modern scientific understanding onto an ancient text only creates unnecessary justifications. The Bible’s description of insects walking “on all fours” is not scientifically accurate, but that does not diminish its historical or religious significance.

NHC

 

[EricH]

There is a great deal of evidence for the Biblical global deluge but if you're looking for Biblical attribution science isn't the place to do that. Rightfully so.

You are wrong. There is no evidence for a global flood that inundated the planet in recent history (tens of thousands of years). Such a flood would have left indelible evidence in the geologic column, and the bottleneck caused by a single mating pair of each animal species transported to safety on a magic boat would have similarly left an indelible mark on their genetic makeup. We would see this evidence everywhere and we don't. Therefore, we can safely rule out the Biblical story of the planetary flood as a work of fiction, or perhaps an exaggeration of a much smaller local event.