Blog

Last time we looked into the skeptic’s charge of a supposed scientific error in the Bible, namely that the rabbit “chews the cud” (Does the Bible contain a scientific error, saying that the rabbit “chews the cud?”?).  Now let’s look at the rest of Leviticus 11 to answer two more charges: does the Bible say that a bat is a bird, or does the Bible say insects have only four legs?  What kind of biology is this?

Well, as we mentioned last time, the Biblical descriptions must be understood in the purpose that the writers used them for, and not called errors if they don’f fit modern scientific taxonomy. That doesn’t prove any biological error.  We need to look at the Hebrew more closely to see this.

Verses 13 starts listing different “fowls” that are to be considered unclean, finishing up in verse 19: “…and the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.”   Oops!  At first glance this seems like an error, since a bat is not a bird like all the other creatures before it in these verses.  But the key is the translation of the word for “fowl” or”bird ” , which is owph in the Hebrew, and this word simply means “has a wing” or “owner of a wing”.  Therefore it is not a taxonomic classification but simply a descriptive term for these creatures, all of which have wings.  The  writers had in mind winged creatures in general, not just birds.

The parallel passage in Deuteronomy 14:11-18 uses a different word translated as birds in verse 11, tsippowr, which in turn is derived from the root word tsaphar , a word that means to ” depart early”, “leap or dance in a circle”,  or even to “twitter or chirp” as certain birds would do.  But verse 11 is referring to clean birds only, perhaps referring to their actions, and then in the next verse (12) we have a “but” followed by a similar  listing of unclean flying creatures as in Leviticus, including the bat, not necessarily connected to the word tsippowr in verse 11, in fact none of those unclean creatures in verses 12-18 would fit the description of a creature that “twitters” or “chirps” or “dances in circles”.

The next verse (20) talks about “fowls that creep”  and is likely talking about insects, just another category of winged creatures.  The audience for these terms just needed to know what kinds of flying creatures to avoid, and so they are grouped together for this purpose, not for a biology class interested in classifying them according to their anatomy!   This shows again how translation problems as well as cultural context must be taken into account before charging the Bible with error.

Speaking of insects, in verses 20-23 doesn’t it talk about “fowls” or “winged insects” that go on “all fours”?  Does this mean the writer thought insects have only four legs, when in fact they have six?  First, the audience of the writers just needed to know what the creature did, how it moved for identification purposes, and so the expression “going on all fours” is really a synonym for a crawling creature of any type.  Even we talk about a person crawling on “all fours”, and we don’t mean people have four legs!

Another insight is found by reading on past verse 20: “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.  “Even …the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.  But all the other flying creeping which have four feet, shall be an abomination to you. ” (vv. 21-23).

These insects described have “legs” and “feet” which they use to jump and crawl, two different types of limbs for different functions.  So it appears the Hebrew writers are separating the  two “legs” from the four “feet”, according to how the creature uses them.  The insects described are all grasshopper/locust type insects with two of the legs much larger than the four others, and used for hopping, including the “beetle” (chargol) , which should be translated “locust ” or “leaping creature” such as a cricket.   Even other flying insects such as bees  tend to have the two back legs larger than the other four, and often used for a different function.   For more on this idea and other insights, see article: Is the Bible wrong about insects having four feet?

So what we see with all these examples from rabbits to insects are several things: don’t call the Bible mistaken because the writers don’t describe or classify things according to modern conventions, and pay attention to the meaning of the words in their original language,especially since translators are prone to translating everything in terms only moderns would be familiar with.

As always, the Bible is right and it’s critics are wrong.

Photo credits: Copyright: <a href=’http://www.123rf.com/profile_AlienCat’>AlienCat / 123RF Stock Photo</a> ,  Copyright: <a href=’http://www.123rf.com/profile_isselee’>isselee / 123RF Stock Photo</a>