Do Christians here see the hand of god in our instestinal track and excretion?

[Deicide]

I just realized that I may have missed your point.

Was this your attempt to show a "known" error in the Bible?

If so, I'm sure you have some evidence that it did not occur. Because that would be required to rebut what the Bible says.

Here is a known error in the bible:

The Bible contains hundreds of passages that can, debatably, be pronounced erroneous.  Some of these passages are more obvious and others less. Some are so clear as to be irrefutable, even by the most experienced apologist. The book of the Old Testament known as Levitucus has many curious verses, misrepresenting the nature of certain animals.  Among these verses are statements that there are insects that crawl around on 4 legs.
This simply is not true. All insects have 6 legs. Spiders, which are not insects, but arachnids, have 8 legs. If the bible is the revealed Word of an all-knowing God, then why does it have this rather obvious and primitive error?

Some apologists have attempted to argue with me that the verses don't actually state that, but they do.  Others claim that these verses are merely a translator's error, and that other, more accurate versions of the bible have corrected for this.

Let's investigate this claim.  We will go through six major translations of the bible, and look at what's actually written in Leviticus Chapter 11.

First, the New International Version (NIV).

20  All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you.
21  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.
22  Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.
23  But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.
 

Next, the New American Standard Bible (NASB).

20   "All the winged insects* that walk on all fours are detestable to you.
21   "Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth.
22   "These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds.
23   "But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.

* Footnote with the literal translation as "Swarming things with wings".
 

Next, the Young's Literal Translation (YLT) Bible:

20   Every teeming creature which is flying, which is going on four -- an abomination it [is] to you.
21   Only -- this ye do eat of any teeming thing which is flying, which is going on four, which hath legs above its feet, to move with them on the earth;
22   these of them ye do eat: the locust after its kind, and the bald locust after its kind, and the beetle after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind;
23   and every teeming thing which is flying, which hath four feet -- an abomination it [is] to you.
 

And NEXT.... the Revised Standard Version (RSV)

20   All winged insects that go upon all fours are an abomination to you.
21   Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those which have legs above their feet, with which to leap on the earth.
22   Of them you may eat: the locust according to its kind, the bald locust according to its kind, the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind.
23   But all other winged insects which have four feet are an abomination to you.
 

And next is the Darby Version:

20   Every winged crawling thing that goeth upon all four shall be an abomination unto you.
21   Yet these shall ye eat of every winged crawling thing that goeth upon all four: those which have legs above their feet with which to leap upon the earth.
22   These shall ye eat of them: the arbeh after its kind, and the solam after its kind, and the hargol after its kind, and the hargab after its kind.
23   But every winged crawling thing that hath four feet shall be an abomination unto you.
 

And finally, the King James Version (KJV):

20   All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
21   Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
22   Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
23   But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
 

It is quite clear what they're talking about here.  Eating INSECTS.  Jehovah  told them they could eat locusts, grasshoppers, crickets, katydids, even beetles, but not any other kind of insects... especially the ficticious and non-existent 4 footed kind.  Try as they might, they could never find, never set eyes upon, an insect with four legs.  So why the prohibition against eating something that doesn't exist?

Some apologists insist that the King James Version's "fowls" implies that they are speaking about birds. But anyone can clearly see, by looking at it "in context", reading the surrounding verses, that this is not the case.  But EVEN IF they are right and the bible is talking about birds... there still aren't any birds with 4 legs.   

Someone once tried arguing with me that crickets use their front limbs for manipulation, so that those limbs could be considered "arms", therefore leaving the other four limbs to be called legs. Nice try. But crickets DON'T use their front two limbs in a way that could classify them as arms. Those front two limbs are used for locomotion, thereby making those insects go around on six legs.

In any case, what does it matter if people eat four-footed flying things, or cloven hoofed animals, or animals that chew the cud...  are you telling me that with starvation, wars, pestilence, human abuse, pain and suffering and injustice in the world.... that the All Powerful Creator and Govenor of the Universe really concerned himself with whether or not they ate rabbits and pigs? That's rather pathetic.

So, what can one conclude from this?  First of all, the bible has at least this error.  It is wrong.  No claim can henceforth be made that the bible is "inerrant", or without mistakes.  But the more one reads the bible, the more it is clear that this error is only one of countless others.

If there is a Creator God of the universe, then he must know every fact, every science, the nature of all animals and all substances.  If the bible is an inspired book, the word of God, then it must be in accord with the things we know to be true.  If it contains statements contrary to known facts, it's validity as the "Word of God" is undermined.  Even one blatant error confirms the fact that this collection of writings did not come from the mind of the creator of all things.  When the many errors get compounded with contradictions that are so numerous as to be surpassed only by the number of moral repugnancies, not only does the bible's validity become destroyed, but the book gains the epitaph of obscenity.

 

[Deicide]

Once again, instead of arguing issues that you have, figure out how you got here.

And yes, I do believe that. God, who created you and me out of nothing, could surely bring the entire population to a specific place. Questioning the abilities of an all powerful God to coordinate logistics seems silly.

In other words, magic powers...snap and poof...

Faith, not Knowledge...quite different aren't they.

[Butterbean]

I assumed he meant all of the earth's population.

I'm not sure?   


Trapezkerl, what did you mean exactly when you said "the entire biosphere of the planet?"

[Deicide]

I'm not sure?   


Trapezkerl, what did you mean exactly when you said "the entire biosphere of the planet?"

2 of every species, including the 350,000 plus beetles, the koalas from Australia, the polar bears, the dinosaurs which allegedly lived with human beings  ::)etc.

Of course if you simply invoke the magic powers of your local Semitic deity then no real discussion is possible.

[The Freakshow]

Here is a known error in the bible:
 

First of all, regardless of what others may have told you, there is NO proof that there was NOT a four legged insect over thousands of years ago. I'm not an expert on insects by any stretch of the imagination. However, there was a specific law written to prohibit the eating of these insects for a reason. They obviously existed. The people of that time obviously knew what they what the writer was referring too. Creating a law to not do something that is impossible to do is like me telling you, "don't eat a Spanish speaking, one legged, fish, that has one wing and chews bubble gum". You'd be like, okay, no problem in me ever breaking that law.

This is a futile attempt to point out something that cannot be argued. You do realize that some species do become extinct. Have you seen any dinosaurs running around lately?

[Deicide]

First of all, regardless of what others may have told you, there is NO proof that there was NOT a four legged insect over thousands of years ago. I'm not an expert on insects by any stretch of the imagination. However, there was a specific law written to prohibit the eating of these insects for a reason. They obviously existed. The people of that time obviously knew what they what the writer was referring too. Creating a law to not do something that is impossible to do is like me telling you, "don't eat a Spanish speaking, one legged, fish, that has one wing and chews bubble gum". You'd be like, okay, no problem in me ever breaking that law.

This is a futile attempt to point out something that cannot be argued. You do realize that some species do become extinct. Have you seen any dinosaurs running around lately?

 

[Butterbean]

Interesting question and answer from www.torahlearningcenter. com


KOSHER LOCUSTS

Question:
Someone recently told me that they heard that there are only a few species of locusts which are Kosher, but that there are several species which live in Israel. While I don't plan on travelling to Israel to eat locusts, nor do I anticipate trying to import Kosher edible locusts, I did tell this person that I would try to find out the answer. Then I found out about your list. Esoteric, trivial bit of information that it is, can you help? Which locusts are Kosher and which aren't?

Answer:
I can't promise that this is going to be appetizing, but here it is.
The Torah in Vayikra/ Leviticus ch 11: verses 20-23 says: "Every flying insect that uses four legs for walking shall be avoided by you. The only flying insects with four walking legs that you may eat are those which have knees extending above their feet, [using these longer legs] to hop on the ground. Among these you may only eat members of the red locust family, the yellow locust family, the spotted gray locust family and the white locust family. All other flying insects with four feet [for walking] must be avoided by you."

The four types of locusts stated in the Torah are known according to Yemenite tradition to be the following: The "red locust" ["Arbeh" in Hebrew] is called "Grad" in Arabic. The yellow locust ["Sa'lam" in Hebrew] is "Rashona" in Arabic. The spotted gray locust ["Chargol" in Hebrew] is "Chartziyiya" in Arabic. The white locust ["Chagav" in Hebrew] is called "Gandav" in Arabic.
According to Yemenite tradition as recorded in the work Arichat Hashulchan, the locust called "Al j'rad" is Kosher, and has three Kosher sub-species all known by that name.

The Halachah/ Jewish Law regarding locusts is that one is allowed to eat a specific type of locust only if there is a "continuous tradition" that affirms that it is Kosher. It is not enough that the locust seems to conform to the criteria mentioned in the Torah. This does not mean that one must possess a 'personal tradition' in order to eat locusts. If one travels to a place where the people do have a tradition, the new arrival would also be allowed to eat them. Interestingly, the author of the Arichat Hashulchan points out that locusts were never really considered a 'delicacy' -- rather they were generally food for the impoverished.

Someone may be wondering: "How does one actually eat locusts?" Locusts do not require ritual slaughter. The Midrash in Shemot Rabba hints that the preferred way to eat locusts was to pickle them:

Sources:
The Living Torah - translated by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Moznaim Publication Corporation.
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan - The living Torah, p. 320, footnotes.
Rabbi Shlomo Korach - Arichat Hashulchan, vol. 3, pp.
136-141.

[Deicide]

Interesting question and answer from www.torahlearningcenter. com


KOSHER LOCUSTS

Question:
Someone recently told me that they heard that there are only a few species of locusts which are Kosher, but that there are several species which live in Israel. While I don't plan on travelling to Israel to eat locusts, nor do I anticipate trying to import Kosher edible locusts, I did tell this person that I would try to find out the answer. Then I found out about your list. Esoteric, trivial bit of information that it is, can you help? Which locusts are Kosher and which aren't?

Answer:
I can't promise that this is going to be appetizing, but here it is.
The Torah in Vayikra/ Leviticus ch 11: verses 20-23 says: "Every flying insect that uses four legs for walking shall be avoided by you. The only flying insects with four walking legs that you may eat are those which have knees extending above their feet, [using these longer legs] to hop on the ground. Among these you may only eat members of the red locust family, the yellow locust family, the spotted gray locust family and the white locust family. All other flying insects with four feet [for walking] must be avoided by you."

The four types of locusts stated in the Torah are known according to Yemenite tradition to be the following: The "red locust" ["Arbeh" in Hebrew] is called "Grad" in Arabic. The yellow locust ["Sa'lam" in Hebrew] is "Rashona" in Arabic. The spotted gray locust ["Chargol" in Hebrew] is "Chartziyiya" in Arabic. The white locust ["Chagav" in Hebrew] is called "Gandav" in Arabic.
According to Yemenite tradition as recorded in the work Arichat Hashulchan, the locust called "Al j'rad" is Kosher, and has three Kosher sub-species all known by that name.

The Halachah/ Jewish Law regarding locusts is that one is allowed to eat a specific type of locust only if there is a "continuous tradition" that affirms that it is Kosher. It is not enough that the locust seems to conform to the criteria mentioned in the Torah. This does not mean that one must possess a 'personal tradition' in order to eat locusts. If one travels to a place where the people do have a tradition, the new arrival would also be allowed to eat them. Interestingly, the author of the Arichat Hashulchan points out that locusts were never really considered a 'delicacy' -- rather they were generally food for the impoverished.

Someone may be wondering: "How does one actually eat locusts?" Locusts do not require ritual slaughter. The Midrash in Shemot Rabba hints that the preferred way to eat locusts was to pickle them:

Sources:
The Living Torah - translated by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Moznaim Publication Corporation.
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan - The living Torah, p. 320, footnotes.
Rabbi Shlomo Korach - Arichat Hashulchan, vol. 3, pp.
136-141.

Trying to get out of it; four legged insects...adding a superfluous (for walking) to cover the mistake...

[OzmO]

Trying to get out of it; four legged insects...adding a superfluous (for walking) to cover the mistake...

this a classic MO when it comes to explaining the many contradictions and falsities of the Bible

[Deicide]

this a classic MO when it comes to explaining the many contradictions and falsities of the Bible

The mistakes in the bible are as clear as day...it takes a clouded mind indeed to overlook them...

[The Freakshow]

I should have guessed that "rolling eyes" would be the only response I would get to FACTS.

It's interesting that everyone wants to chime in with all kinds of post modern speculations and what ifs, but when rebutted with TRUTH they change the subject or go running.

Seek the TRUTH my friend and the TRUTH will set you free.

[Deicide]

I should have guessed that "rolling eyes" would be the only response I would get to FACTS.

It's interesting that everyone wants to chime in with all kinds of post modern speculations and what ifs, but when rebutted with TRUTH they change the subject or go running.

Seek the TRUTH my friend and the TRUTH will set you free.

Right... 4 legged insects...keep on smoking Jebus....

[pumpher]

The mistakes in the bible are as clear as day...it takes a clouded mind indeed to overlook them...

If I'm not mistaken, the Bible (and it's many versions) were written by men?
So I would expect many mistakes.

[The Freakshow]

Right... 4 legged insects...keep on smoking Jebus....

Okay Grissom

[Deicide]

If I'm not mistaken, the Bible (and it's many versions) were written by men?
So I would expect many mistakes.

Tell that to these fundy nutters here!

[loco]

Trying to get out of it; four legged insects...adding a superfluous (for walking) to cover the mistake...

Trapezkerl, do you really believe that the Israelites closed their eyes as they ate these insects raw and didn't see that they had six legs?  Or do you believe that they couldn't count?  Obviously, this is a case of semantics.

"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."
http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BBiology95.htm

"Although these legs are used to walk (even as the grasshopper's can be and are), in function and appearance they are clearly, vastly different. It does not take "mind-reading" to get the point that the Hebrews were just as able (and by extension of the same scheme used with grasshoppers, katydids, etc) to regard the back legs of other types of flying insects as being of a different order, of being something different, so that only the first four were called plain old "feet" as only the first four on the hoppers, etc. were called feet, while the others were given a differing name such as "legs above their feet"."
http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.html

"Today, locusts are considered migratory grasshoppers. They all have two large hind legs, quite different in appearance, size, and function from the front four legs. Their front legs are used for "crawling, clinging, and climbing," while their back legs rest "above" their front legs and feet, and are used for "jumping.""
http://www.icr.org/article/1844/

[plutonianman]

I didn't really believe in God until I started to experience events that most would refer to as "supernatural". But then again, I'm blessed to have some psychic gifts.

[The Freakshow]

I didn't really believe in God until I started to experience events that most would refer to as "supernatural". But then again, I'm blessed to have some psychic gifts.

The people on this board that are arguing against the Bible leave NO room for the 'Supernatural', only natural that they can "explain" with there finite minds. However, the can't explain how they "Supernaturally" came to exist.