How do literalists explain 4 legged insects in Bible?

[mcarans]

"All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest." (Leviticus 11:20-23)

The Bible refers to 4 legged insects, but insects have 6 legs. I've not heard of a 4 legged grasshopper or locust. If the Bible must be taken literally and must always be right, you'd have to disbelieve your own eyes. Thoughts?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Insects aren't a Biblical descriptor. The term comes from Greek via Latin, where Aristotle used it to refer to creatures whose bodies were divided in three parts (Entomon) which became Latin Insectum. This was then taken into modern Scientific nomenclature. It is a similar problem to assuming that where the Bible lists bats as 'birds' it is the modern nomenclature we are referring to. This simply is not the case.

What the Bible really says, is closer to the 'flying creatures that swarm' or the 'creeping things with wings', than specifically our moden 'insect' - though abroad agreement in group is evident.

'Having four legs' is however an idiomatic expression, similar to English 'going about on all fours', which therefore simply means 'walking thing' or non-bipedal.

I really don't see how this is in any way a problem to a literalist, as even if you believe the Bible literally true, there is no reason that idiomatic Hebrew must be. Or must they explain how Abraham had children from plant seeds, or how water must be endowed with Life in Living Waters, or how Canaan had flowing rivers of honey and milk? This is just an example of either forcing Scientific nomenclature onto an ancient text that uses a different frame of reference, or merely absurdity of argument.

 

[Radagast]

This is just an example of either forcing Scientific nomenclature onto an ancient text that uses a different frame of reference, or merely absurdity of argument.

There's also the fact that Leviticus applies a taxonomy that is quite different from modern scientific taxonomies. That doesn't make it wrong.

The taxonomy seems to be something like:

Crawling

- even-toed ungulates

- Bovidae: clean
- others: unclean​

- Orthoptera (also flying): clean
- others: unclean​

Swimming

- scaled fish: clean
- others: unclean​

Flying

- predatory birds: unclean
- other birds: clean
- Orthoptera (also crawling): clean
- other flying things: unclean​

 

[SkyWriting]

The Bible refers to 4 legged insects, but insects have 6 legs. I've not heard of a 4 legged grasshopper or locust. If the Bible must be taken literally and must always be right, you'd have to disbelieve your own eyes. Thoughts?

The scriptures were written by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
A grasshoppers front legs could be considered arms.
If we were grasshoppers, we might say the have 4 arms and two legs to hop with.
The terminology we use is variable. Just as the scriptures were not written in english.

 

[Radagast]

I really don't see how this is in any way a problem to a literalist, as even if you believe the Bible literally true, there is no reason that idiomatic Hebrew must be.

That's like, to take an English example, hearing that someone "kicked the bucket" and asking "what colour was the bucket?"

 

[mcarans]

The scriptures were written by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
A grasshoppers front legs could be considered arms.
If we were grasshoppers, we might say the have 4 arms and two legs to hop with.
The terminology we use is variable. Just as the scriptures were not written in english.

That's like, to take an English example, hearing that someone "kicked the bucket" and asking "what colour was the bucket?"

The last verse I quoted from Leviticus makes it clear that it is talking about a literal rather than metaphorical 4 legs.

The verses only mention 4 legs not 4 legs and 2 arms or some other combination of appendages that adds to 6.

 

[Radagast]

The last verse I quoted from Leviticus makes it clear that it is talking about a literal rather than metaphorical 4 legs.

It's talking about a literal crawling motion, yes.

The passage itself seems to be grouping together 4 legs (lizards) with 6 legs (locusts), and probably 8 legs (arachnids) too. So what?

Edit: on closer examination, Leviticus 11:21 seems to be distinguishing the 4 front walking legs (Hebrew regel) from the 2 quite different-looking rear jumping legs (Hebrew kara`).

Second edit: and you're completely missing my point about the bucket. "John kicked the bucket" is a phrase which literally means "John died." On the other hand, the Instagram phrase "I literally died" is not literal at all, but metaphorical.

 

[Norbert L]

"All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest." (Leviticus 11:20-23)

The Bible refers to 4 legged insects, but insects have 6 legs. I've not heard of a 4 legged grasshopper or locust. If the Bible must be taken literally and must always be right, you'd have to disbelieve your own eyes. Thoughts?

There are differences between people today and ancient people that lived thousands of years ago in how they conceptualize the natural world. They may have a rather different view of the world and when it's written down it can provoke questioning by today's standards.

There is a clearer example and explanation of this from a different passage of scripture in 1 Corinthians 11:13-16 and when we take that literally it becomes more controversial than 4 legged insects.

The short answer without quoting ancient Greek and Roman medical texts from that time period, hair it seems is largely regarded as part of the sexual reproductive system in the Roman world. They would no more want to see men with long hair and women without their hair covered than we today would want to see someone giving a sermon with their genitals exposed.

Basically we share the same natural world with the ancients however we don't always observe and think about it in the same way.

 

[SkyWriting]

The verses only mention 4 legs not 4 legs and 2 arms or some other combination of appendages that adds to 6.

So what? If I say you are "bipedal" it don't mean you are missing a head.
Try to agree on that, if possible.

On grasshoppers, the rear two legs were considered "hoppers" not legs.

 

[Radagast]

On grasshoppers, the rear two legs were considered "hoppers" not legs.

As I said in editing my post, Leviticus 11:21 seems to distinguish the 4 front walking legs (Hebrew regel) from the 2 very different rear jumping legs (Hebrew kara`). Here's a desert locust from the region, together with an Egyptian painting:

 

[SkyWriting]

As I said in editing my post, Leviticus 11:21 seems to distinguish the 4 front walking legs (Hebrew regel) from the 2 very different rear jumping legs (Hebrew kara`).

And so is MORE accurate than readers give credit to "modern" science
that lumps them all together.

So the question is why is modern science dumber than scripture?

 

[Radagast]

And so is MORE accurate than readers give credit to "modern" science
that lumps them all together.

So the question is why is modern science dumber than scripture?

Science also separates things out, so that this animal is seen as having 6 legs (look carefully...):

But science is not "wiser" or "dumber" than the Bible: it just takes a different point of view because it's explaining different things.

What counts as a "leg" depends entirely on what you are trying to explain.

The mistake is thinking that the scientific point of view is the only possible point of view, and then complaining that the Bible has a different one.

 

[mcarans]

Unfortunately the explanations given so far run into a problem:

"When the Bible mentions that “All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you” [Group A] this group does not include those with leaping legs as shown by the fact that the very next passage states “There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground.” [Group B]

Now if the passages lacked the first half discussing Group A, evangelical apologists may have some ground. But as the biblical text clearly differentiates Group A (those with no jointed legs) as separate to Group B (those with said jointed legs) and yet both groups are defined as having four legs, this argument can be of no defense. Even if J.P Holding were correct on the still unsubstantiated basis that the ancient Hebrews defined crickets and similar insects of Group B as having four typical legs and two "jointed legs" for leaping,that still would not explain the missing legs of the beetles and other non-leaping insects from Group A which are discussed separately." (Rationalwiki)

 

[Radagast]

Unfortunately the explanations given so far run into a problem:

"When the Bible mentions that “All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you” [Group A] this group does not include those with leaping legs as shown by the fact that the very next passage states “There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground.” [Group B]

We've already established that "going on all fours" (halak arba`) is a generic phrase covering both vertebrate and arthropod locomotion. @Quid est Veritas? was the first to point that out.

/thread

 

[com7fy8]

Well, it could mean insects that have had two legs pulled off by someone who is mean and cruel, and now they are living like they are damaged, instead of getting healed and loving. And we need to not feed on how people can be like this and get us to join them in their bitterness. But have compassion on them, and forgive ones who have pulled their legs off.

 

[Radagast]

Well, it could mean insects that have had two legs pulled off by someone who is mean and cruel, and now they are living like they are damaged, instead of getting healed and loving. And we need to not feed on how people can be like this and get us to join them in their bitterness. But have compassion on them, and forgive ones who have pulled their legs off.

That's not a literal interpretation, though.

It's what in the old days was called a tropological interpretation (and one I have never seen before). It seems a little bit of a stretch.

 

[DamianWarS]

Unfortunately the explanations given so far run into a problem:

"When the Bible mentions that “All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you” [Group A] this group does not include those with leaping legs as shown by the fact that the very next passage states “There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground.” [Group B]

Now if the passages lacked the first half discussing Group A, evangelical apologists may have some ground. But as the biblical text clearly differentiates Group A (those with no jointed legs) as separate to Group B (those with said jointed legs) and yet both groups are defined as having four legs, this argument can be of no defense. Even if J.P Holding were correct on the still unsubstantiated basis that the ancient Hebrews defined crickets and similar insects of Group B as having four typical legs and two "jointed legs" for leaping,that still would not explain the missing legs of the beetles and other non-leaping insects from Group A which are discussed separately." (Rationalwiki)

Where are you going with this? Are you saying when faced with logical difficulties we should take a different view on the text rather than a strict literal view which would conclude stuff like insects having 4 legs?

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, it could mean insects that have had two legs pulled off by someone who is mean and cruel, and now they are living like they are damaged, instead of getting healed and loving. And we need to not feed on how people can be like this and get us to join them in their bitterness. But have compassion on them, and forgive ones who have pulled their legs off.

U.N. Urges Eating Insects; 8 Popular Bugs to Try

 

[SkyWriting]

Where are you going with this? Are you saying when faced with logical difficulties we should take a different view on the text rather than a strict literal view which would conclude stuff like insects having 4 legs?

Literal Truth is different from "20th century terminology."

 

[DamianWarS]

Literal Truth is different from "20th century terminology."

some go to great length to reconcile biblical language with modern science. Maybe it just means that you can eat insects, just stay away from the 4 legged ones (which shouldn't be a problem)

interestingly the Quran agrees with this saying in 24:45 "God created every living creature from water. Some of them crawl on their bellies, and some walk on two feet, and others walk on four. God creates whatever He wills. God is Capable of everything."

so according to the Bible and the Quran, anything with more than 4 legs is just not worth mentioning (probably in the Quran's case insects are thought to crawl on their bellies). This just points to the perspective of the culture as today in a western culture if you said the same statement to a classroom full of 6 yr olds they would contest it and if you said it to a classroom full of 20 yr olds they would also contest it. In our culture, we value a truth that can be measured, tested and proven. if it cannot, then it is not truth.