Leviticus 11:20-32 and the number of feet on a grasshopper

[Turtle]

I think the orginal question got lost back in the thread, so i have reposted it for Goku:)

 

Mmmmm...that's not the original question & the only help Goku deserves is out the door. :evil: Honestly people, this is the 21st frickin' century! This kind of tripe is still getting serious discussion? :doh: Give me a break. :naughty:

 

Since the rules don't seem to matter, I'll go with some KJ Bible verse myself. The original insect post was made by Modest in post #190 where he quoted Leviticus. Never mind that whatever KJ Bible he used doesn't match word-for-word the online version I'm using. :naughty:

 

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.

 

Here's an expansion of the verse & context:

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.

24: And for these ye shall be unclean: whosoever toucheth the carcase of them shall be unclean until the even.

25: And whosoever beareth ought of the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.

26: The carcases of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them shall be unclean.

27: And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even.

28: And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: they are unclean unto you.

29: These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,

 

I see I'm unclean! :hyper: But enough of the humor. Goku, man up and answer the direct questions put to you, or get out. :fly:

[goku]

Jesus Christ goku, surely you have heard of him?

 

 

No goku, no insect has 100 legs, I would think that you, being the farmer you claim to be, would know more about insects than you seem to.

 

i reckon our deffinitions of liberal are different :naughty:

 

sorry i really don't know that much about insects :naughty: i know how to kill them

[Pyrotex]

And again you avoid the questions, goku.

 

You really don't like admitting that your "holy" book has errors in it, do you?

 

BTW, "Jesus of Nazereth" was the greatest liberal who ever lived.

[CraigD]

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.

This perplexing bit of scripture has been on my mind since I read it days ago in this thread.

It’s incredible to me – not in the sense of amazing, but in the sense that I can’t believe it’s true – that the original authors of Leviticus and subsequent generations of Jewish and Christian scribes and translators were unaware that grasshoppers have 6, not 4, legs. I could see how someone might, looking at an insect with large antennae, count 8 legs instead of 6, but missing a pair of legs seems to me impossible. Yet nearly every English translation of the above verse includes something similar to “all flying insects that walk on all fours” - a check of the 20 versions available at biblegateway.com shows only 2, New Living Translation (NLT) Contemporary English Version (CEV), both fairly new (1995, 1996) versions, that have eliminated the “four legs” reference (see BibleGateway.com - PassageLookup: Leviticus 11:20-23;)

 

I can think of a few of explanations:

1. An ancient or medieval miscopying or mistranslation. Perhaps the original text read “six”, but someone miscopied to ancient Hebrew or mistranslated to another language “six” to “four”. With the intention of avoiding any change to what is considered a perfectly copied and/or infallibly translated text, future copiers and translators were unwilling to correct the mistake.
   
2. A strange and poorly documented difference in the way the authors and/or early translators counted things, vs. modern people. Perhaps the four refer to the legs not mentioned in the next phrase of the text about the (implied) “jointed legs for hopping”
   
3. A secret code. Perhaps “four” is an intentional error intended to be used to show that a person had read a particular document, or heard particular oral account, allowing ancient priests to identify one another as belonging to a secret sect, etc, via a password exchange (eg: Aaron: “How many legs on a grasshopper?” Benjamin: “Four” Aaron: “Welcome, brother ...”)
   

All of these seem more likely to me than that the explanation that the authors of Leviticus couldn’t count the legs on a grasshopper.

 

Leviticus was written by over a period of more than 100 years by 6th Century BC priests, and only believed to have become traditionally part of the Torah about 150 years after its first writings. Over 500 years passed before other written sources, primarily the Talmud, “locked in” the Torah to a form most believe has changed little since then. A document or oral tradition can be put to many uses and subjected to many changes over such a time.

[Turtle]

I've experienced your frustration as well, Turtle the "Unclean." But I've come to the realization that the greatest benefit to continually debunking goku's misstatements and non-scientific positions in these threads is the sheer number of people out there that think and form their beliefs just like he does. These types of logical fallacies can't be identified and corrected if they are not allowed to be stated.

 

I know it's good for business in a bass-ackwards sort of way :D and in the best spirit of helpfullness, I'm always ready to accomodate a martyr wanna be in the most colorful manner possible. Seems there is never a shortage, know what I mean Clem?

 

It’s incredible to me – not in the sense of amazing, but in the sense that I can’t believe it’s true – that the original authors of Leviticus and subsequent generations of Jewish and Christian scribes and translators were unaware that grasshoppers have 6, not 4, legs. I could see how someone might, looking at an insect with large antennae, count 8 legs instead of 6, but missing a pair of legs seems to me impossible. Yet nearly every English translation of the above verse includes something similar to “all flying insects that walk on all fours” - a check of the 20 versions available at biblegateway.com shows only 2, New Living Translation (NLT) Contemporary English Version (CEV), both fairly new (1995, 1996) versions, that have eliminated the “four legs” reference.

 

A big 10-4 Brother Craig. ;) Rest assured, dear readers, that Goku will ignore, obfuscate, dodge, jibe, and in any and every other way avoid admitting his precious book is spoilt & wrong, and not the least thing wrong with that behavior is that it is against our rules. Frankly, I wouldn't trust Gulu to take a splinter out of a rat's neck. Render to Caesar what is Caesar's, isn't Jebus sposed to have said?

 

Bleh, bleh, bleh, yada, yad, yada, religious crapery everywhere ya step. :hihi:

[modest]

This perplexing bit of scripture has been on my mind since I read it days ago in this thread.

 

I’ve studied this in some depth (and debated it a couple times), so I will offer my opinion.

 

It’s incredible to me – not in the sense of amazing, but in the sense that I can’t believe it’s true – that the original authors of Leviticus and subsequent generations of Jewish and Christian scribes and translators were unaware that grasshoppers have 6, not 4, legs. I could see how someone might, looking at an insect with large antennae, count 8 legs instead of 6, but missing a pair of legs seems to me impossible. Yet nearly every English translation of the above verse includes something similar to “all flying insects that walk on all fours” - a check of the 20 versions available at biblegateway.com shows only 2, New Living Translation (NLT) Contemporary English Version (CEV), both fairly new (1995, 1996) versions, that have eliminated the “four legs” reference (see BibleGateway.com - PassageLookup: Leviticus 11:20-23;)

 

The passage is in regards to flying animals. It distinguishes between birds and insects in a taxonomy kind of way which is necessary in ancient Hebrew because the word ‘owph (translated “fowl” in KJV) means flying animal or winged animal which can refer to birds, bats, and flying insects. The chapter discusses all 3 and must therefore distinguish between them without the easily accessible vocabulary we have today. One way it does this is by saying “four legs” (referring to insects) as opposed to birds and bats which have 2.

 

I can think of a few of explanations:

1. An ancient or medieval miscopying or mistranslation. Perhaps the original text read “six”, but someone miscopied to ancient Hebrew or mistranslated to another language “six” to “four”. With the intention of avoiding any change to what is considered a perfectly copied and/or infallibly translated text, future copiers and translators were unwilling to correct the mistake.

 

The most common transcription errors are those of numerals. Notice 1 Kings 4:26 says “40 thousand” while 2 Chronicles 9:25 says “4 thousand” referring to the same thing. Clearly one of the books was transcribed in error and there are quite a few other examples like that. But, I believe this is doubtful in the case being discussed. Transcription errors are usually powers of 10. That’s not always the case (e.g. 2 Kings 25:8 & Jer. 52:12 has “tenth day” and “seventh day”) but there is the possibility that the one counterexample is not an error of transcription, but some other error.

 

A transcription error seems most unlikely because the word “four” is written 3 times in 2 different ways in Lev.11:20-23:

“upon [all] fours”

 

“four feet”

 

It seems like a lot for a scribe to mess up.

 

2. A strange and poorly documented difference in the way the authors and/or early translators counted things, vs. modern people. Perhaps the four refer to the legs not mentioned in the next phrase of the text about the (implied) “jointed legs for hopping”

 

I think the language of vs. 20 and 23 would rule this out.

 

A secret code. Perhaps “four” is an intentional error intended to be used to show that a person had read a particular document, or heard particular oral account, allowing ancient priests to identify one another as belonging to a secret sect, etc, via a password exchange (eg: Aaron: “How many legs on a grasshopper?” Benjamin: “Four” Aaron: “Welcome, brother ...”)

All of these seem more likely to me than that the explanation that the authors of Leviticus couldn’t count the legs on a grasshopper.

 

I think the passage is straightforward as far as honestly trying to describe what is kosher. As far as what I think the most likely explanation for the error is...

 

Animals that would have been commonly seen and envisioned by an ancient author such as horses and sheep have 4 legs. I would not assume (although it may be possible) that the original author actually went out and found some flying insects to examine and actually counted appendages. Nor do I think most people (even today) know that grasshoppers and similar insects have 6 legs.

 

I also think it’s quite important that ancient Hebrew people did not have the same zoological taxonomy we have today. Where the KJV says “creeping/swarming thing” the Hebrew is “sherets” which is a broad term including rodents, small reptiles, insects, and worms. Where modern people think reptiles are very different from a locust, that appears not to be the case when this was written. So, it does not seem unreasonable that the authorship got it wrong by simply envisioning these little critters incorrectly.

 

One might wonder how Aristotle thought objects fell to the ground with a velocity proportional to their mass when all he had to do was drop a couple things to learn otherwise.

 

The other explanation that might be fitting is that people of the time assumed insects walked on four legs and had two arms which weren't used for walking, but were rather used for arm and hand like things. This view would find some support in Prov. 30:28 which KJV has "The spider taketh hold with her hands...", but, as the link shows, that verse can just as well mean something else.

 

Whatever the explanation, I hope Goku follows the moral of the story: Biology has much-improved in the last 3000 years, and ancient books of mythology are not a good basis for rejecting that improved understanding.

 

~modest

[HydrogenBond]

The holy books were/are considered sacred and therefore one was/is not allowed to tamper, even if it was not consistent. This shows the honest intent in terms of accurate preservation. If it had been a con, it would have been modified with the times. I look at it sort of like classical literature in the sense there are many things that are dated to that time. But it is classical in the sense there are many things that step out of time.

 

For example, in modern times, we have our own list of unclean foods, which if used in moderation, would not bother you. But some humans are impulsive, so you have to use a preemptive approach to address the group.

 

If you are a vegetation, any legged animal is unclean to eat. Some will go through ritual cleaning after they touch animals or meat. There are also many plants that are unclean. Tobacco is an unclean plant. If you consume it in the workplace, you may be required to cleanse yourself in a therapy temple. There are unclean plants that can cause you to go to jail for even holding them. Even transporting otherwise clean plants across certain state lines is considered unclean in some states or countries. Some things don't change, just the names change.

 

But some of the rules both then and now have a practical common sense. For example, eating pigs were considered unclean. In modern times, we know enough to cook pork fully because of parasites. Back then people may have liked their meat on the rare side. To protect them from themselves, everyone has to make the sacrifice even if it didn't apply to you. Shellfish was also unclean. They didn't have refrigeration, so one could see an accident waiting to happen. Relative to insects, some are good for the garden, like the preying mantis, but locust were not, so you could eat them. Making the preying mantis unclean to even touch protected them.

[goku]

And again you avoid the questions, goku.

 

You really don't like admitting that your "holy" book has errors in it, do you?

 

my Bible doesn't say that grasshoppers have four legs

what i found interesting was the mention of a fowl that has four legs :(

[freeztar]

what i found interesting was the mention of a fowl that has four legs :(

 

Now that's just silly. Everyone knows that a foul is four balls. :Alien:

[goku]

Now that's just silly. Everyone knows that a foul is four balls. :(

 

:Alien:

[Moontanman]

my Bible doesn't say that grasshoppers have four legs

what i found interesting was the mention of a fowl that has four legs :(

 

So you are saying everyone was lying about the quotes from the bible that said insects had four legs? :Alien:

[modest]

my Bible doesn't say that grasshoppers have four legs

what i found interesting was the mention of a fowl that has four legs :(

 

The Hebrew word that gets translated into "foul" is "`owph". It means:

flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds

a) fowl, birds

:Alien: winged insects

 

-source

 

So, what you're saying is not only wrong (notice the quote below), it also doesn't make logical sense.

 

"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; 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. But all other flying creeping things,

which have four feet

, shall be an abomination unto you."

 

They say the five stages of dealing with loss is denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.... "Denial"... Humm....

 

~modest

[CraigD]

my Bible doesn't say that grasshoppers have four legs

Goku, quote your bible’s Leviticus 11:20-23, and its version (eg: King James).

 

As I noted in post #232, of the 20 English language Bibles available in a popular online source, only 2, both versions written in the mid 1990s, lack the text about grasshoppers having four legs. There are many more than 20 English language Bibles, and give the apparent rarity of older one lacking the “four legs” reference, I’m curious to know what one yours is.

 

As Modest notes in post #235, the Hebrew Torah’s Leviticus has the “four legs” reference. Wycliffe’s Bible, generally considered the first complete English (not quite modern, but understandable to most modern English speakers) one, has the “foure feet” reference

Leviticus 11:20-23, Wycliffe’s Bible

20 Al thing of foulis that goith on foure feet, schal be abhomynable to you;

21 sotheli what euer thing goith on foure feet, but hath lengere hipis bihynde, bi whiche it skippith on the erthe, ye schulen ete;

22 as is a bruke in his kynde, and acatus, and opymacus, and a locuste, alle bi her kynde.

23 Forsothe what euer thing of briddis hath foure feet oneli, it schal be abhomynable to you;

So it’s pretty certain that any English Bible that lacks it has purposefully removed it, or is copied or translated from a version that purposefully removed it.

[goku]

turtle's quote of the Bible in post 227 is the same as my Bible.

it says "even these of them ye may eat"

"these" meaning grasshoppers, locust

"them" meaning flying insects, bugs, crittors

 

my Bible is a center column reference edition, the scipture it shows for a reference to locust is Matthew 3:4 "And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.

 

showing that it was okay to eat grasshoppers, the people of the time understood what the sciptures meant

[modest]

turtle's quote of the Bible in post 227 is the same as my Bible.

it says "even these of them ye may eat"

"these" meaning grasshoppers, locust

"them" meaning flying insects, bugs, crittors

 

Grasshoppers, locusts, and beetles are flying insects. The author didn't get that wrong, it was the 4 legged part. Can you support your statement "my Bible doesn't say that grasshoppers have four legs"?

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

I'm amazed that goku can say "my bible" I thought that technically there was only one bible. If there is more than one bible then you have to ask which one is correct, Wow, no wonder there are so many agnostics much less atheists. If the religions themselves cannot agree on who's bible is correct then why believe any of them?

[REASON]

Now that's just silly. Everyone knows that a foul is four balls. :)

 

Now that's even sillier. Everyone knows that four balls isn't a foul or a fowl. Four balls is a walk. And everyone knows that whenever there's a walk, it's done on two legs, not on all fours.