Blog

Many people in their bible reading skip through the Book of Leviticus in the Old Testament, saying that all those laws are too tedious or boring.   But all those laws and regulations from God have several purposes, among which are to protect the people of Israel from germs and diseases, as well as setting them apart from the idolatrous practices of surrounding nations.

As I talk about in Chapter Two of The Bible Can Be Proven, which covers the subject of scientific and medical knowledge in the Bible that is ahead of it’s time,  there are regulations which protect against infection by germs and the illnesses they cause.  What is remarkable about this is that in the surrounding cultures of  the day, and long into the future, invisible germs were not yet discovered.   Yet there are regulations in Leviticus and other parts of the Jewish Torah about not touching dead animals, scouring pots and pans, quarantining those suspected of disease,  or washing the hands and body with running water.  And in Leviticus 11, there are various animals mentioned, some that can be eaten, and some that are not to be eaten because they are unclean.

But as we look through this chapter, at first glance there seems to be some scientific errors.  For example, in Leviticus 11: 6 it says that the “hare” or “rabbit”, depending on your translation, “chews the cud”.  Skeptics have jumped on this “mistake” with glee over the years, but they are the ones mistaken.  The problem here is in the translation for the word arnebeth, which is translated “hare” or “rabbit” in this verse.  But the word arnebeth actually does not stand for any known animal today, but was likely an extinct animal, since the word is of uncertain derivation.  Modern translators seem to think that they are obliged to equate all animals named in the Bible with species alive and known today, even though many animals have become extinct in the last few thousand years.

And so what if it is a rabbit?  According to Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, the rabbit has pouch at the beginning of its large intestine which produces soft fecal pellets (different from its other type of fecal pellet which is harder) which are passed out of the body and then re-eaten.  These soft pellets contain bacteria that aid in the rabbit’s digestion, just as bacteria in the rumen of cattle or sheep aid their digestion.  So a rabbit actually “chews the cud” in a parallel manner to a cow.  Sarfati concludes: “Skeptics have claimed the Bible is in error in saying that the rabbit ‘chews the cud’ (Lev. 11:6). The Hebrew literally reads: ‘raises up what has been swallowed”.  The rabbit does re-eat what has been swallowed-it’s partly digested fecal pellets.  The skeptics are wrong again.” [1]

The “coney” in verse 5 is similar in that the identification of the animal is uncertain, and even if the translation “coney” or “rock badger” or “hyrax” is correct, this animal also has digestion similar to the rabbit (see article: Did Moses make a Scientific Mistake? by Wayne Jackson).  The Biblical definition of a ruminant or animal that “chews the cud” may have also been broader than today’s.  But then it seems we are always trying to look at the Bible through modern glasses without an appreciation for its accuracy.

Another point, as we shall see in the next article, is that the Biblical descriptions were not in scientific terminology, but rather in terms that would permit the common person to identify an animal by some visual characteristic, namely, how they chew their food.  The rabbit and coney both have chewing motions similar to cows and other ruminants.

So this difficulty is definitely not on that can be used to prove any error in the Bible.

In the next article we will look at some other supposed biology errors in this very chapter of Leviticus.

[1] Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution 2, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2002, p. 208.

Photo credit: Copyright: <a href=’http://www.123rf.com/profile_stefan1234′>stefan1234 / 123RF Stock Photo</a>