How do literalists explain 4 legged insects in Bible?

[mcarans]

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.

Wanting ideas measured, tested and proved is not such a bad thing. If we just accept any idea we can go down some dark roads like throwing women in water to see if they are witches by their ability to float.

 

[eleos1954]

"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?

The Bible says that locusts, beetles, and grasshoppers (which are the ones you are allowed to eat) have four legs, while “(and) all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.”

 

[Grip Docility]

"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?

Biblical description of insects precluded scientific classification of how many legs insects have... Literally.

 

[DamianWarS]

Wanting ideas measured, tested and proved is not such a bad thing. If we just accept any idea we can go down some dark roads like throwing women in water to see if they are witches by their ability to float.

Which puts a conflict with many biblical accounts and in general faith itself.

 

[eleos1954]

"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?

Leviticus 11:20

New Living Translation
“You must not eat winged insects that walk along the ground; they are detestable to you.

Leviticus 11:21
New Living Translation
You may, however, eat winged insects that walk along the ground and have jointed legs so they can jump.

Leviticus 11:22
New Living Translation
The insects you are permitted to eat include all kinds of locusts, bald locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers.

Leviticus 11:23
New Living Translation
All other winged insects that walk along the ground are detestable to you.

and yes the the descriptions are accurate ... translation you were using as worded was a little difficult to follow

 

[Hawkins]

"All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you.

It's a very good generalization. It literally means "more than 4 legs". It gives a correct description on not only the insects with today's biological definition but all the like which standing on at least 4 legs.

I think that the "4 legs" description is delivered from the speculations that insects may walk on 4 legs and use the other 2 to hunt their preys. That's a reasonable speculation come up by ancient people. So it's not a surprise for some culture to define insects as walking on 4 legs. At the same time, it's not a difficulties for them to calculate the number of legs insects have. It's rather a common consensus on describing organisms (such as insects) which made use of at least 4 legs on standing and walking. The definition thus covers more than the insects we defined today.

 

[Alien Lotus]

"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?

No, there is no contradiction.
Is the Bible wrong about insects having four feet?

 

[Cis.jd]

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.

I think this is in reference literalists who take for how it is written, not going into the academic background of it or anything past face value. For example, in some debates here, your argument/explanation is going to be rejected because they will ignorantly dismiss it due to "not being in the bible". I used a definition of a specific word, and the person who replied dismissed any references for dictionary, and reference what it is in the bible.

 

[JustRachel]

Thank God that the church is not under the law. I simply do not like bugs with or without legs.

 

[His student]

I've gotten quite comfortable without fully understanding 3 days and 3 nights, predestination and free will, the Trinity, the hypostatic union, and the short 6000 year span for the existence of man in the Bible - and worrying about them doesn't effect my simple faith that the sacrifice of Jesus is enough to assure my eternal salvation.

I'm thinking I'll be OK in my faith without fully understanding how the 4 leg 6 leg controversy is to be resolved.

Back before I was born again I was a pretty hard sell when it came to trusting the scriptures. But since then I've gotten pretty easy I guess.

 

[Radagast]

Thank God that the church is not under the law. I simply do not like bugs with or without legs.

Grasshoppers were permitted. They were never compulsory (except for John the Baptist).

And I'm told they're tasty. I'm happy to take the word of other people on that.

 

[~Zao~]

Grasshoppers were permitted. They were never compulsory (except for John the Baptist).

And I'm told they're tasty. I'm happy to take the word of other people on that.

What about flutter byes

 

[Radagast]

What about flutter byes

I've never tried them.

They are not, of course, kosher (because they don't hop).

 

[mcarans]

I've never tried them.

They are not, of course, kosher (because they don't hop).

Now that eating insects is becoming slowly fashionable, we may well start seeing labelling of them as kosher or not (if we don't already).

 

[mcarans]

On the OP, the best explanation (and gentle put down) I've had is that the OT writers had seen a locust before and could obviously count so they wrote it as they saw it. I'm accepting that as a good answer.

 

[Calvin_1985]

It is quite amazing how so many people out there will find something in the Bible that does not make sense right off hand to them much like the 4 legged insects and use that to claim that the Bible has mistakes in it. First of all, it takes 5 seconds to search 4 legged insects on Google or a trip to your local library to find the FACT that there are 4 legged insects like THE PRAYING MANTIS and some forms of stick bugs as well as others.

 

[mcarans]

It is quite amazing how so many people out there will find something in the Bible that does not make sense right off hand to them much like the 4 legged insects and use that to claim that the Bible has mistakes in it. First of all, it takes 5 seconds to search 4 legged insects on Google or a trip to your local library to find the FACT that there are 4 legged insects like THE PRAYING MANTIS and some forms of stick bugs as well as others.

The praying mantis has 6 legs. See eg. General description of a praying mantis | Keeping Insects

 

[JustRachel]

Nonetheless, none of it should matter to Christians to whom the law does not apply.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

"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?

I see your problem and it does not relate to any serious doctrines.
I am guessing the forbidden is simply flies which walk on dead animals and poop which carries diseases and unhealthy germs, etc., I generally don't take every word literally, just look at the intended meaning using common sense, study of culture and history.

 

[1213]

...
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?

Insects don’t really have 6 legs. They have 4 legs and 2 arms. Modern “science” has just defined them wrongly.