|
Some Miscellaneous Points Anonymous (Investigator 95, 2004 March)
In this article
I will
answer some objections
to biological statements in the Bible that I haven't previously
addressed.
Quotes from Scott Bidstrup and Louis W Cable are from their websites.
BATS AND FOWL Scott Bidstrup writes on his Internet website: Leviticus
11:13-19
refers to bats as fowl,
when in fact they are mammals. As for bats being birds, where are the
feathers?
The skin-covered wings and the hair are good
clues that these aren't birds. L W Cable similarly writes: Leviticus
11:13-19 These
are they which
ye shall have in abomination among the fowls;
they shall not be eaten… the eagle…and the bat. The bat is not a fowl. It's a mammal. The problem is not one of biological classification but of semantics and translation. The Hebrew word in Leviticus 11:13-25 is "oph". (G V Wigram, Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance, Bagster & Sons, pp 911-912) In a similar
passage in
Deuteronomy 14:11-20
the word is "psippor" in verse 11 and "oph" in 19-20. (Wigram p. 1079)
Neither word completely corresponds to the English "bird" or "fowl".
"Tsippor" is
used of birds
and bats. "Oph"
also refers to birds and bats. However, when "Oph" is qualified by the
word "creeping things" (Hebrew = "sheretz"; Wigram p. 1327) it refers
to
insects.
If we translate
"oph" and
"tsippor" as "flying
creatures" or "winged creatures" the skeptic's complaint is answered
since
both birds and bats are winged creatures!
The
misunderstanding began
when the translators
of the King James Bible, in the 17th century, translated
"oph"
as "fowl" in Leviticus 11:13, 20.
Furthermore, in
the Bible
the last item in
any list is often put last because it differs from the previous items.
The seventh day of creation differed from the first six days in being a
day of "rest". Several lists of the twelve apostles have Judas Iscariot
last. Judas differed in being the only traitor. The Old Testament
probably
put the bat last in its lists of "birds" (or "winged creatures") to
acknowledge
that the bat differed from other "birds".
BIRTH PAIN Cable writes:
Genesis 3:16
In sorrow
(pain) thou shalt
bring forth children.
First, are
we to
understand that physical
pain associated with normal childbirth is the result solely of this
ancient
curse?
Genesis 3:16 is a
matter-of-fact declaration
of what Eve would experience due to ignorance. In a future article I'll
show how the medical profession's ignorance of the Bible added to the
suffering
of millions of women.
EAGLE Cable says:
Deuteronomy
32.11 As the
eagle taketh her
young and beareth them on her wings.
Eagles have never been known to carry their young on their wings. Cable is contradicted by:
…the female of
this
eagle has been seen,
even though only on a few occasions, to catch her falling young and
carry
it off on her back…
(Grant F C & Rowley, H H 1963, Dictionary of the Bible, Revised, T & C Clark) FABULOUS ANIMALS Skeptics G W
Foote and W P
Ball say, "Fabulous
animals are treated as really existent." (The Bible Handbook For
Freethinkers
and Inquiring Christians, 1921, Pioneer Press, pp 73-74)
They mention:
These
"fabulous",
mythical, animals are mentioned
in the Bible because 17th-century translators of the King
James
Bible lacked knowledge of wildlife in the Middle East. The translators
could not work out what some Hebrew words meant and so they resorted to
mythology. For example, the Hebrew word reem, translated
"unicorn",
was the wild ox.
HOOFS
Cable writes:
The description "divide not the hoof" the Bible
applies to many animals including three animals that do not have hoofs.
The three lacking hoofs are the camel, hyrax and hare.
The hyrax is phylogenetically (i.e. by its evolutionary origin) related to elephants – and elephants have hoofs. Hence biologists sometimes speak of the Hyrax's "hoofs" – but they're theoretical hoofs and don't look like hoofs. The camel, hyrax and hare "divide not the hoof" because they do not have hoofs! INSECT FEET Cable says: you. There is not now nor has there ever been a 4-legged fowl. Leviticus 11:21
These may
ye eat of every
flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above
their
feet, to leap upon the earth.
Leviticus 11:22-23 These ye may eat; the locust...and the beetle...and the grasshopper. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. There is no such thing as a 4-legged insect. Similarly G W Foot and W P Ball (1921) included "four footed beetles" (Leviticus 11:20-23) in their list of "Bible absurdities". Firstly, the word "fowl" is in the King James Bible. Leviticus 11:20 says "All fowls that creep, going upon all four…" Modern versions often translate the Hebrew "oph" as "insects". Even better, as
suggested
above, would be
"winged creatures". However, in Leviticus 11:20 the "winged creatures"
are qualified by the Hebrew "sheretz" meaning creeping things. Hence
the
reference is to winged creatures that creep i.e. insects.
Today we refer to an insect's six appendages as "legs". The ancient Israelites had a different convention. They distinguished the front four appendages from the two rear appendages. The front four they called "feet", the two to the rear they called "legs". This distinction probably came about because some insects such as grasshoppers leap – the two rear appendages are "leaper legs". "Go on all fours" refers to what the front four feet i.e. front four legs do – they walk. What the rear legs do, whether they contribute to walking or are used for leaping, is excluded from the meaning of "go on all fours". Some skeptics
make fun of
the phrase "legs
above the feet". However, the leaper legs are longer than the front
four
legs. When the insect is resting on the ground, part of the leaper legs
are higher than the "feet" i.e. higher than the front four legs. In
that
sense the legs are "above the feet".
There is no profound biological point in all of this – just a case of semantics.
SEED DIES
Bidstrup writes on the Internet: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." How can it bring forth any fruit at all if it's dead? The reference obviously doesn't make sense unless one assigns unusual meanings to the word "die"… Cable similarly asks, "How could something that is dead bring forth anything?" The original cells of the seed die as the seed grows into a plant with fruit. It's often said that all living cells in the human body are replaced every few years. The original cells, that divided and multiplied to form a human baby, die and are replaced. Similarly in plants. The original cells of seeds die as cell-multiplication progresses and the plant grows, and at some stage the original seed is dead. SERPENTS AND DEADLY THINGS Cable writes: it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. Many Christians have come to regret ever having taken this verse seriously. However, the supreme irony here is that the last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) are a recognized forgery. Here Cable has
answered
himself. A few deceitful
copyists, several centuries after Christianity began, added stuff when
copying earlier manuscripts and the additions made it into the King
James
Bible. When such "forgeries" are exposed newer Bible translations
either
omit them or indicate them. When investigating the accuracy of the
Bible
we're concerned with the accuracy of the original, not of the forged
additions.
SNAILS Some critics query Psalm 58 regarding the snail: the direct rays of the sun. If, however, a snail be long exposed to the sun, it will be dried up in its shell. (1902, T & T Clark, Volume 4, p. 556) WOMAN TO PILLAR OF SALT Cable writes: Alleged miracles such as this violate the most fundamental laws of science. Probably we're
dealing
here with a metaphor:
King David wrote, "I am a worm and not a man." Here "worm" is a metaphor to denote David's low status at the time. Similarly, I overheard one person say to another, "You made a pig of yourself tonight." This did not mean that the person changed into another species but referred to some behavior of his – perhaps he ate his food in a sloppy manner. Metaphors are not taken literally. Instead we would ask, "In what sense?" or "How?" For example, "In what sense was he a pig?" and "How did the ship spread its wings?" The Bible uses metaphors in hundreds of verses. With Lot's wife we would ask, "In what sense did she become a pillar of salt?" A probable answer is that she lagged behind and was hit and covered by flying or falling debris and so resembled rocky/salty boulders and pillars in the area. Scientific
answers to skeptics querying the The Bible:
https://ed5015.tripod.com/ https://investigatormagazine.net |