http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=2731&b=Leviticus
Did the Bible Writers Commit Biological Blunders?
by
Eric Lyons, M.Min.
In our scientifically advanced age of cloning, biomimetics, Pentium
processors, and the Internet, Americans’ skepticism of biblical
inerrancy appears to have reached an all time high (see Gallup and
Lindsay, 1999, p. 36), especially in regard to matters of the Bible and
science. How can a book, parts of which were written 3,500 years ago,
have relevant scientific data? How could the Bible writers have made
accurate statements about the heavens long before the invention of
telescopes and satellites? How could they have correctly classified
animals before the development of Linnaean taxonomy? How could their
references to zoology, botany, astronomy, and human anatomy be
trustworthy?
Although the purpose of the Bible is not to provide a commentary on the
physical Universe, Christians rightly conclude that, if the Bible was
truly given “by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16-17; see Butt, 2007),
then it should be free from the kinds of errors that books written by
uninspired men contain (see Lyons, 2005, 2:5-25). The Bible may not be a
textbook of biology, geology, or chemistry (the Bible is about God and
redemption through Jesus Christ), but “wherever it deals with these
fields, its statements are true and dependable” (MacRae, 1953,
110[438]:134). At least common sense demands such, if the writers really
were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV).
According to many outspoken skeptics, the Bible writers made several
scientific slip-ups. In a 1991 article titled “Scientific Boo-Boos in
the Bible,” Christian-turned-skeptic Farrell Till alleged: “One thing
the Bible definitely is not is inerrant in matters of science.... [T]he
Bible is riddled with mistakes” (1991a). Elsewhere Till challenged
Christians to explain
why a divinely inspired, inerrant book has so many obvious scientific
errors in it. And if the Bible is riddled with scientific errors, they
should wonder too about the truth of that often parroted claim that the
Bible is inerrant in all details of history, geography, chronology,
etc., as well as in matters of faith and practice. It just ain’t so!
(1991b).
After criticizing the sacred writers for making various “mathematical miscalculations,” Dennis McKinsey, author of
The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy,
began a section titled “False Science” in which he stated: “A second
major area in which the Bible fails miserably concerns the large number
of statements that are patently erroneous from a scientific perspective.
On numerous occasions the Bible makes statements that have little or
nothing to do with scientific accuracy” (1995, p. 213). According to
McKinsey,
Few topics activate biblical critics more than that of biblically
based scientific contradictions and inaccuracies. That is readily
understandable, in view of the fact that the book is a veritable miasma
of poor science, bad math, and inaccurate geography, all with a heavy
overlay of mythology and folklore.... Scripture is a veritable
cornucopia of scientific inaccuracies, falsehoods, and blunders (1995,
pp. 209,230).
After listing 21 alleged scientific blunders in the Bible, McKinsey
declared: “So that is biblical ‘science.’ Can you conceive of a more
discordant deluge of deceptive delusion! Saddest of all is that
most
of Christianity’s most prominent spokesmen are fully cognizant of these
biblical inanities, but have spared no effort to avoid them or minimize
their importance” (1995, p. 216, emp. added).
The truth is, faithful, Christian apologists have no reason to avoid
the questions posed by McKinsey or anyone else regarding the reliability
of the Bible. We may find many of the alleged discrepancies quite
trifling (e.g., “Judas died twice;” “Jesus was a thief;” cf. McKinsey,
2000, p. 236), and wonder why such allegations would even be made, but
we will not avoid questions about the Bible’s inspiration and inerrancy
out of fear that the Bible may not be the Word of God. In fact, this
issue of
R&R addresses McKinsey’s first four scientific
slip-ups supposedly found in Scripture—four alleged mistakes that
McKinsey believes are some of the very best proofs of the Bible’s
errancy. We think you will be both disturbed and impressed by the
answers—disturbed by the arrogance of skeptics’ allegations, yet
impressed with how easily the truth can be discovered and error refuted.
ARE BATS BIRDS?
Everyone knows that a bat is not a bird. Bats are beakless, give birth
to live young, and nurse their young with milk until they are
self-sufficient. A bat’s wings are featherless, and its body is covered
with hair. Based upon such characteristics, scientists classify bats as
mammals, not birds. So what does the Bible have to say about these
creatures?
Bats are specifically mentioned only three times in Scripture. Isaiah warned Israel of the
time
when their idols would be cast away “into the holes of the rocks, and
into the caves of the earth...to the moles and bats” (2:19-20). The
other two occurrences are found in the Pentateuch amidst laws regarding
clean and unclean animals. In the book of Leviticus, Moses wrote:
“[T]hese you shall regard as an abomination among the birds;
they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the
vulture, the buzzard, the kite, and the falcon after its kind; every
raven after its kind, the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the sea gull,
and the hawk after its kind; the little owl, the fisher owl, and the
screech owl; the white owl, the jackdaw, and the carrion vulture; the
stork, the heron after its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat” (11:13-19, emp. added).
Deuteronomy 14:11-18 also lists the bat among “birds.” But bats aren’t birds; they are mammals.
According to skeptics, the Bible’s classification of bats as birds
represents one of the “scientific difficulties in the Bible” (Petrich,
1990). Such categorization is supposedly “an obvious contradiction
between the Bible and Science” (Khalil, 2007). Since “the bat, is, of
course, a mammal, not a bird,” McKinsey listed Leviticus 11:19 as a “
superb
verse to use...to take enlightenment to the biblically benighted”
(1995, pp. 744,14, emp. added; see also McKinsey, 2000, p. 213).
Was Moses, who “was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was
mighty in words and deeds” (Acts 7:22), so uninformed that he could not
tell the difference between bats and birds? Was the God, Whom the Bible
claims
created bats and birds, unable to
classify them properly? How is this
not “an obvious contradiction between the Bible and Science,” as Ibrahim Khalil asserted?
The elementary answer to these questions is simply that God did not
classify animals 3,500 years ago according to our modern classification
system. As far back as Creation, God has divided animals into very
basic, natural groups. He made aquatic and aerial creatures on day five
and terrestrial animals on day six (Genesis 1:20-23,24-25). Similarly,
in the first 23 verses of Leviticus 11, God divided the creatures into
land animals (11:2-8), animals “that are in the water” (11:9-12),
“birds” (11:13-19), and flying insects (11:20-23). He did not divide
animals into mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. In fact, the
group of “creeping things” mentioned later in Leviticus 11 (vss. 29-30;
cf. Genesis 1:24-25) includes both mammals (e.g., mice) and reptiles
(e.g., lizards). Clearly then, God divided animals according to their
locomotion and environment rather than whether or not they have hair,
lay eggs, and nurse their young.
Still, some may question why the English word “bird” is used for the
category in which bats are listed. Why not simply call this group of
animals “the flying creatures”? Actually, the term “bird” in Leviticus
11:13 (as well as Genesis 1:20-30) is translated from the Hebrew word
‘ôp, which literally means “flying creatures” (Harris, et al., 1980, p. 654; cf. Brown, et al., 1993). It is derived from
‘ûp,
meaning to “fly, fly about, fly away” (Harris, et al., pp. 654-655).
That this word is not used solely for “birds” is evident from Leviticus
11:20-23, where it is used with
sherets in reference to “winged creeping things” (ASV), i.e., flying insects.
Admittedly, bats and birds have many differences, but one major
commonality—the ability to fly—is the very characteristic God used to
group them together. Why are no other mammals included in this list?
Because “bats are the only mammals capable of true flight” (Jones,
n.d.)—another reason why Bible translators have chosen to use the term
“birds” in these passages, instead of the more general terms “flying
creatures.” The rationale among translators seems to be, “if 99.9% of
all ‘flying creatures’ are birds, then we will use the term ‘birds’ to
translate the word (
‘ôp).” Since Bible students should be very
familiar with the figure of speech known as synecdoche (“by which a part
is put for the whole”—
“Synecdoche,” 2009; see Dungan, 1888,
pp. 300-309; cf. Genesis 8:4; 21:7), they should have little trouble
understanding why translators continue to use the term “birds” to
categorize all the flying creatures, including bats. After all, bats
make up a very small percentage of all of the animals that fly.
What’s more, notice that bats are placed at the
end of
the list of birds and just before the list of flying insects. This
placement is entirely proper for the only living “flying creature” that
is neither a true bird nor an insect.
To accuse God or the Bible writers of categorizing animals incorrectly based upon Linnaeus’ taxonomy in
Systema Naturae
(1735), or any other modern method of classifying animals, is
tantamount to criticizing people for not organizing their wardrobe or
cataloging their books according to your own methods. Whether a person
chooses to organize books alphabetically, sequentially, or topically,
according to the Dewey Decimal Classification System or the Library of
Congress Classification System, is a matter of judgment. Likewise, it is
extremely unfair to judge ancient classification systems according to
modern man’s arbitrary standards. Skeptics are wrong for imposing their
preconceived standards back onto an ancient text. Frankly, placing bats
in the category of “flying creatures,” rather than with the land
animals, “all that are in the water,” or the “creeping things,” makes
perfectly good sense. Bats are, after all, “the world’s most expert
fliers”
(Cansdale, 1970, p. 135, emp. added), not walkers, crawlers, or
swimmers. For Moses’ allusion to bats to be a true error, he would have
had to say something to the effect of, “bats are not flying animals.”
Sadly, one significant question often left unexplored in a discussion
of the Bible’s treatment of bats and birds is why God classified bats as
“unclean.” Was this simply due to many bats’ eerie outward appearance,
or that they are nocturnal cave dwellers? Could there be something more?
Kyle Butt addressed the wisdom of God’s instruction about bats in his
book,
Behold! The Word of God (2007). The fact is,
...bats often carry rabies. While it is true that many animals are
susceptible to rabies, bats are especially so. The American College of
Emergency Physicians documented that between 1992 and 2002, rabies
passed from bats caused 24 of the 26 human deaths from rabies in the
United States (“Human Rabies...,” 2002). In the Science Daily article describing this research, “Robert V. Gibbons, MD, MPH, of Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in Silver Spring, MD,
reviewed the 24 cases of humans with bat rabies.” From his research, he
advised “the public to seek emergency care for preventive treatment for
rabies if direct contact with a bat occurs” (“Human
Rabies...,” 2002, emp. in orig.). Moses’ instruction to avoid bats
coincides perfectly with modern research. Once again, the super human
wisdom imparted through Moses by God cannot be denied by the
conscientious student of the Old Testament (p. 124).
ARE RABBITS REALLY RUMINANTS?
Not only is Moses ridiculed for classifying a bat as a “bird,” but
supposedly he made another mistake when he categorized the hare (or
rabbit, NASB, NIV) as an
animal that “chews the cud” (Leviticus 11:6; Deuteronomy 14:7). Cows,
goats, sheep, and deer all have three- or four-chambered stomachs and
bring already-chewed and swallowed vegetation up into their mouths to
masticate once more. These animals “chew the cud” and are known as
ruminants (“Ruminant,” 2009). A rabbit, however, does not have a three-
or
four-chambered
stomach, nor does it bring previously swallowed food directly back up
from its stomach to its mouth to chew again. For these reasons, skeptics
have repeatedly criticized the Bible’s categorization of a rabbit as an
animal that “chews the cud” (cf. Morgan, 2009; Wells, 2009; McKinsey,
1995, p. 214). [NOTE: Skeptics have also charged the animal mentioned in Leviticus 11:5 (Hebrew
shaphan)
of not being a cud chewer. Since, however, there is disagreement over
the identity of this animal (translated “coney” in the KJV, ASV, and
NIV, “rock badger” in the NASB and RSV, and “rock hyrax” in the NKJV),
our discussion will center solely on the rabbit. If the
shaphan
resembles the rabbit, as some believe (see Day, 1996), then whatever
arguments made for the rabbit’s inclusion in this list might also apply
to the
shaphan.]
In an article titled “Bible Biology,” Farrell Till alleged: “The
Leviticus writer made a serious biological error in describing them
[rabbits and
shaphan, which he contends are coneys—EL]
as cud chewers.... [T]hey have no cuds to chew” (1991b). Elsewhere Till
addressed this issue while simultaneously commenting on the scientific
foreknowledge argument that Christians sometimes use as one of the
proofs for the Bible’s inspiration:
Something that has long perplexed me is the way that inerrancy
proponents can so easily find “scientific foreknowledge” in obscurely
worded Bible passages but seem completely unable to see scientific error
in statements that were rather plainly written. There are too many to
discuss, but Leviticus 11:5-6 can serve as an example....They [rabbits
and coneys—EL] do not have compartmentalized
stomachs that ruminants must have in order to be cud-chewers. Inerrancy
champions have stumbled over these passages with various attempts to
explain them....Yet after all has been said on the matter, the fact
remains that hares and conies are not cud-chewers. But “Moses” said that
they were.
One would think that if God were going to arm his inspired writers
with scientific foreknowledge...he could have easily programmed them to
know the simple fact that hares and conies aren’t cud-chewers” (1990;
cf. Butt, 2007, pp. 103-130).
Once again, we are told the Bible is wrong. And, if the Bible is wrong
about something as basic as whether or not rabbits “chew the cud,” how
could anyone really believe that it was “given by inspiration of God” (2
Timothy 3:16)?
First of all, critics must acknowledge the fact that we frequently describe things as they
appear to take place and not necessarily as they
actually
happen. Meteorologists talk about the sun rising and setting, even
though they know very well that actually the Earth is moving around the
Sun, rather than vice versa. Doctors refer to a pregnant woman’s “water”
breaking, when actually the liquid is amniotic fluid, and not merely H
2O. Furthermore, the
amniotic fluid does not break, rather the
sac containing the fluid bursts. The Bible writers also referred to things as they
appeared.
Paul, for example, in his discussion of Jesus’ resurrection, described
some of the Christians who had died as having “fallen asleep” (1
Corinthians 15:6). Did Paul know that these Christians had died, and not
merely “fallen asleep”? Most certainly. Did the Bible writers know that
the bat is not a blue bird? Of course. But what about the rabbit? Why
is it listed among the cud chewers? It may be simply because rabbits “
appear
to chew their food very thoroughly like true ruminants, and this is
what the law is insisting on” (Wenham, 1979, p. 172, emp. added).
Rabbits move their jaws and wiggle their noses in a way which
looks like
they are ruminating (Harris, 1990, 2:571). In fact, so convincing is
this appearance that, according to Walter Kaiser, “Carolus Linnaeus
(1707-1778), to whom we owe the modern system of biological
classification, at first classified the coney and the hare as ruminants”
(Kaiser, et al., 1996, p. 158; cf. Keil and Delitzsch, 1996). In short,
it may be that rabbits were listed as “cud chewers” based on simple
observation.
Interestingly, though the rabbit (or hare) does not have a three- or
four-chambered stomach from which it directly regurgitates previously
swallowed food for a second chewing, it does practice what modern
scientists call “refection.” In his classic work titled
All of the Animals of the Bible Lands, George Cansdale addressed this process:
[A]t certain times of the day, when the hare is resting in its “form,”
it passes droppings of different texture and appearance which it at
once eats again, swallowing them after little or no chewing. It thus
seems to be eating without taking any green stuff into its mouth. This
is not, of course, the same thing as chewing the cud, but it has a
similar effect. Like the ruminants, hares feed on bulky vegetable matter
of which only a part can be digested, and the yield is largely the
result of bacterial action inside the gut; the process of breaking down
in to assimilable substances is started on the first passage through and
taken a stage further on the second (1970, pp. 131-132).
According to biologist Leonard Brand, “Lagomorphs [hares and rabbits—EL]
produce two kinds of fecal pellets which are produced at different
times during the day. When the animals are active and feeding they
produce the familiar hard pellets. When they cease their activity and
retire to their burrows or resting areas, they begin producing soft
pellets which they eat as soon as they are passed” (1977). So although
rabbits do not regurgitate previously swallowed food, they do swallow
their partly digested food a second time. In fact, rabbits reingest more
than half of their feces (Brand, 1977).
Still, the skeptic contends that the refection of rabbits is not rumination. To compare the two supposedly represents a
complete failure to explain away the biological error of the Leviticus
writer. After all has been said about what hares appear to be doing and
how their reingesting of caecotrophic materials [caecal feces—EL]
achieves the same purpose as cud-chewing, the fact still remains
that hares do not chew the cud.... [T]he Leviticus writer was wrong
when he said that hares and coneys “chew the cud” (Till, 1991b, emp. added).
But what did
Moses mean when he used the phrase “chew the cud”? The word “cud” (Hebrew
gerah)
appears only 11 times in all of Scripture: seven times in Leviticus 11
and four times in Deuteronomy 14—every occurrence is in the two passages
that give lists of clean and unclean animals. The rabbit is mentioned
in each list as one that “chews the cud” (Leviticus 11:6; Deuteronomy
14:7). Therefore, if the only sections in Scripture where specific
animals are mentioned that “chew the cud” include rabbits, then it is
entirely proper to conclude that Moses simply defined “cud chewers” more
broadly than modern scientists. Today, “cud chewers” (called ruminants)
may be strictly defined as animals that “swallow their food without
chewing it very much, store it temporarily in one of their stomach
compartments, then later regurgitate it and rechew it thoroughly, and
then swallow and digest it” (Wenham, 1979, pp. 171-172). It would be
completely unjust, however, to force present-day definitions on a
3,500-year-old document. “As with Moses’ classification of bats as
‘birds,’ the modern definition of terms does not take away from Moses’
ability, or even his right, to use words as he sees fit to use them”
(Kaiser, et al., 1996, p. 158). Moreover, Jonathan Sarfati concluded:
“It is inconceivable that someone familiar with Middle-Eastern animal
life would make an easily corrected mistake about rabbits, and also
inconceivable that the Israelites would have accepted a book as
Scripture if it were contrary to observation” (1998, 20[4]:56),
especially when the Book has so many negative things to say about the
Israelites.
ARE FOUR-LEGGED FOWL FOR REAL?
Following the section in Leviticus 11 where various unclean birds are listed, verse
20 begins a new category with these words: “All
fowls that creep, going upon all
four, shall be an abomination unto you” (KJV,
emp. added). Fowls on four legs? “Whoever heard of four-legged fowl?”
(McKinsey, 1995, p. 213). Surely Bible believers would agree with
critics who contend that “there are no birds that go around on four
legs” (Morgan, 2009), unless, of course, they are mutants. So why does
Leviticus 11:20 refer to birds with four legs?
The problem in Leviticus 11:20 is not with God or His inspired writer,
but with the King James Version’s translation of the verse. Moses was
not referring to “birds,” but to “flying insects.” The Hebrew
sherets ‘ôp
is more accurately translated “winged creeping things” (ASV), “winged
insects” (NASB, ESV, RSV), or “flying insects” (>NKJV, NIV).
Interestingly, when these same creatures are discussed in Deuteronomy
14:19, the King James translators used the phrase “creeping thing that
flieth” to translate the same Hebrew words (
sherets ‘ôp)
used in Leviticus 11:20. That this alleged contradiction is merely a
translation issue has even been admitted by certain skeptics, including
Farrell Till. Although Till chides the Bible writers elsewhere in his
writings, he freely admits in this instance that “[f]our-legged
fowls...would be a biological blunder indeed, but since
the context clearly indicated insects in this passage, we won’t hold bibliolaters responsible for a translation flaw” (Till, 1991b, emp. added).
[NOTE:
Although four-legged “fowls” are only found among mutated birds, we
must not dismiss all “four-legged” flying creatures as biological
impossibilities. Bats, mentioned one verse earlier (Leviticus 11:19), “
crawl on all fours,
with their long arms and flexible legs splayed out to the sides”
(Zimmer, 1994, emp. added). What’s more, both history and the fossil
record reveal that extinct flying reptiles also had arms and claws
attached to membranous wings (cf. Lyons and Butt, 2008, pp. 13-46).
Though scientists believe these flying reptiles mainly walked upright,
at the very least their “hands” would have been used for climbing trees
and handling food (Zimmer)—they would have used “all fours.” While we
certainly believe that the “four-footed-fowl” difficulty surrounding
Leviticus 11:20 is merely a translation problem, and not a mistake by
the inspired writer, some flying mammals and reptiles currently have (or
had in the past) four limbs.]
GRASSHOPPERS DON’T WALK “ON ALL FOURS,” DO THEY?
All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you. Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours:
those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on
the earth. These you may eat: the locust after its kind, the destroying
locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper
after its kind. But all other flying insects which have fourfeet shall be an abomination to you (Leviticus 11:20-23, emp. added).
Skeptics admit that Leviticus 11:20 is not referring to four-legged
fowl, but to “flying insects.” However, as critics have repeatedly
noted, insects have
sixlegs, not four. About these verses, Dennis McKinsey asked: “Whoever heard of four-legged insects? In fact,
whoever heard of any four-legged creeping things that fly?” (1995, p.
213). He then listed this alleged discrepancy as another “superb verse
to use” when talking with Christians about the blunders in the Bible
(pp. 749,14). Steve Wells, author of
The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible,
wrote mockingly: “You’d think that since God made the insects, and so
many of them (at least several million species), that he would know how
many legs they have” (2009). In her article titled “Scientific Errors in
the Bible,” Loren Petrich declared: “There are...scientific
difficulties in the Bible.... In the part of Leviticus which lists
proscribed animals, we find that...grasshoppers have four legs.... [B]ut
the number of legs possessed by grasshoppers should have been easy to
find, since several people in the Bible reportedly ate grasshoppers, and
one can always count the number of legs a grasshopper has before eating
one” (1990). Farrell Till had much to say about the wording of
Leviticus 11:20-23 in his article about “Bible Biology”:
Many of the biological mistakes in the Bible were anatomical in
nature. The Leviticus writer...was so unobservant, for example, that he
apparently thought insects were four-legged creatures....
An immensely greater problem than linguistic and translation flaws in
this passage is the fact that whoever wrote it consistently referred to
winged insects as four-legged creatures, a mistake that practically any
modern-day elementary student would know better than to make. What
educated person today doesn’t know that insects have six legs? We have
to wonder why God, who so routinely gave scientific insights to his
inspired writers, couldn’t at least have opened the eyes of his earthly
messenger in this case and had him count the legs on a grasshopper....
What is there about insects that would warrant writing a description
(like the one in the Leviticus passage) that mentions only four of their
six legs?...[T]hese insects don’t “go on all fours”; they go on all
sixes. That’s a strange oversight from an author writing under the
direction of an omniscient deity who routinely gave marvelous scientific
insights to his inspired
crew (1991b).
As one can see, critics of the Bible’s inerrancy are not at a loss for
words when they discuss the Bible’s references to insects that “creep on
all fours.” But are the critics right?
Yes and no. The skeptic
is right to conclude that
insects such as locusts, grasshoppers, and crickets have three pairs of
legs, not two pairs. But the skeptic is
not correct in
assuming that God or the Bible writers were unaware of this fact. The
very idea that the Israelites, who during various plagues saw untold
millions of insects at a time (e.g., locusts; cf. Exodus 10:1-20; Joel
1:4; Amos 4:9), were clueless about how many legs these creatures had,
is outlandish—“people in biblical times could count legs just as easily
as people today” (Hutchinson, 2007, p. 57). As Petrich mentioned, the
Israelites not only saw insects, but they ate them (cf. Mark 1:6;
Leviticus 11:22), which means they would have seen them “up close and
personal.” Are we to believe that when the Israelites caught, cleaned,
and put locusts up to their mouths, they never realized how many legs
these insects had? The writer of Leviticus would have known this as
surely as Americans know that beef comes from cows which walk on four
legs.
So why did Moses use the term “four” to describe creatures with
six
legs? Likely for the same reason we refer to certain arthropods as
having 100 or 1,000, legs—Moses was using a colloquial expression like
one might hear on a farm; he was not writing a technical,
scientific
paper on the anatomy of insects. Idiomatic expressions were as
prevalent in ancient times as they are in modern times. Today, we
identify certain creatures as centipedes (meaning “hundred feet”), yet
the “total number of legs in most species is closer to 30 than to 100”
(“Millipedes and Centipedes,” 2008). We refer to other arthropods as
millipedes (meaning “thousand feet”), but no millipede has ever been
reported as having anywhere near the number of feet suggested by its
name. The “most leggy” millipede discovered in modern times had only 750
legs (see “Most Leggy...,” 2006), while the vast majority of millipedes
have fewer than 400 legs (“Millipede,” 2009). Yet, we still call these
creatures millipedes. Why? Because numbers are often used as more of a
designation than a literal number. (Have you ever purchased a “2 x 4”
only to find that it was more like a “1½ x 3½”?) Just as the terms
“centipede” and “millipede” signify “no more than that such insects have
a great number of feet” (Clarke, 1996), the phrase “creep on all
fours,” could reasonably refer to something other than insects that have
literally only four legs.
Consider another example of the flexibility of names and numbers. In George Orwell’s novel
Animal Farm
(1946), the pigs gave the farm animals “Seven Commandments.” The first
two commandments were as follows: (1) Whatever goes upon two legs is an
enemy; (2) Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.”
Later, as the story goes, when the pigs realized that the “slower”
animals (e.g., sheep) were unable to learn the Seven Commandments, they
summed up the commandments of the farm with a single maxim: “Four legs
good, two legs bad.” Did the pigs suddenly mean to exclude the birds
from the good, four-legged animals? No. The pigs explained that by “two
legs,” they meant “man,” and by “four legs,” they meant “animal”
(regardless of whether the animals had four legs, or two legs and two
wings).
The skeptic must admit the fact that numbers often represent something
more than a literal number. But if this is the explanation to Moses’ use
of the term “four” in Leviticus 11:20-23, then what did he mean? Why
did he use the expression “winged creeping things that go upon all
fours” (Leviticus 11:20, ASV,
emp. added)? The fact is, he did not define the expression for us
(though his contemporaries surely knew its meaning). The phrase likely
means that, in contrast to birds (listed just previously—Leviticus
11:13-19), which walk
upright, “winged creeping things” walk
horizontally—they
“go upon all fours.” Skeptics cannot argue with the fact that we often
use similar language. If Farrell Till, Steve Wells, or other Bible
critics have ever referred to centipedes and millipedes, one wonders why
they would have a problem with Moses referring to the flying things
that walk horizontally as “winged creeping things that go upon all
fours.”
CONCLUSION
What does it say about skepticism when one of its leading voices over
the last few decades gives four “superb” examples of Bible discrepancies
that are then logically explained rather easily using everyday, common
sense? McKinsey and others claim to “take enlightenment to the
biblically benighted” (2000, p. 14) with the type of “discrepancies”
discussed in this article. However, it is the skeptic who needs to be
enlightened concerning the simple, easy-to-understand truths of God’s
Word. Yes, even those statements about bats, birds, and bugs, rabbits,
rodents, and rumination, are truthful, defensible, and understandable.
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made
that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And
the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it
(John 1:3-5).
For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the
light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes
to the light (John 3:20-21).
REFERENCES
Brand, Leonard (1977), “Do Rabbits Chew the Cud?”
Origins, 4(2):102-104, [On-line], URL: http://www.grisda.org/origins/04102.htm.
Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles B. Briggs (1993),
A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Butt, Kyle (2007),
Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Cansdale, George (1970),
All the Animals of the Bible Lands (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Clarke, Adam (1996),
Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Day, Alfred Ely (1996), “Coney,”
International Standard Bible Encyclopae-
dia (Electronic Database Biblesoft).
Dungan, D.R. (1888),
Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light, reprint).
Gallup, George Jr. and Michael Lindsay (1999),
Surveying the Religious Landscape: Trends in U.S. Beliefs (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing).
Harris, R. Laird (1990),
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980),
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).
“Human Rabies Often Caused by Undetected, Tiny Bat Bites” (2002),
Science Daily, [On-line], URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/05/020506074445.htm.
Hutchinson, Robert (2007),
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible (Washington, D.C.: Regnery).
Jones, Edwin (no date), “Bats,” Stewardship Forest, [On-line], URL: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/forestry/pdf/www/www21.pdf.
Kaiser, Walter C. Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch (1996),
Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996),
Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), new updated edition.
Khalil, Ibrahim (2007), “The Bat in Bible and Quran,” [On-line], URL:
http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/the-bat-in-bible-and-quran-113198.html.
Linnaeus, Carolus (1735),
Systema Naturae.
Lyons, Eric (2005),
The Anvil Rings: Answers to Alleged Bible Discrepancies (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2008),
The Dinosaur Delusion: Dismantling Evolution’s Most Cherished Icon (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
MacRae, Allen A. (1953), “The Scientific Approach to the Old Testament—Part 2,”
Bibliotheca Sacra, 110[438]:130-139, April.
McKinsey, C. Dennis (1995),
The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000),
Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
“Millipede” (2009), [On-line], URL: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/invertebrates/arthropod/Millipede.shtml.
“Millipedes and Centipedes” (2008), University of California Integrated
Pest Management, [On-line], URL:
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7472.html.
Morgan, Donald (2009), “Bible Absurdities,” [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html.
“Most Leggy Millipede Rediscovered” (2006),
BBC News, June 8, [On-line], URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5052966.stm.
Orwell, George (1946),
Animal Farm, [On-line], URL: http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/index.html.
Petrich, Loren (1990), “Scientific Errors in the Bible,” [On-line], URL: http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist/genesisd.htm.
“Ruminant” (2009), Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, [On-line], URL: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary.
Sarfati, Jonathan (1998), “Do Rabbits Chew their Cud?”
Creation, 20[4]:56, September.
“Synecdoche” (2009), Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, [On-line], URL: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary.
Till, Farrell (1990), “What about Scientific Foreknowledge in the Bible?”
The Skeptical Review, July-August, [On-line], URL: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/4scien90.html.
Till, Farrell (1991a), “Scientific Boo-Boos in the Bible,”
The Skeptical Review, January-February, [On-line], URL: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/1boobo91.html.
Till, Farrell (1991b), “Bible Biology,”
The Skeptical Review, March-April, [On-line], URL: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/2biolo91.html.
Wells, Steve (2009),
Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/.
Wenham, Gordon (1979),
The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Zimmer, Carl (1994), “Masters of an Ancient Sky,”
Discover, February 1, [On-line], URL: http://discovermagazine.com/1994/feb/mastersofanancie333.
