There is an interesting discussion going on in comments at TWA, more cut-and-pastes of Atheists’ supposedly debunking the bible because it’s unscientific. What’s apparent to me is their apparent ignorance of real science (similar to the lack of scientific evidence for the victorian-age myth; the Theory of Evolution). I already lifted one of my responses, now I’m lifting the other.

There are four items that Islamists and their Atheist buddies use to proclaim that the Bible is not factual or ’scientific’.

• Rabbits do not chew their cud LEV 11:6
• The bat is not a bird LEV 11:19
• Insects do NOT have four feet LEV 11:21
• Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt GEN 3:14

Let’s take them one at a time.

*Rabbits do not chew their cud LEV 11:6

Leviticus 11:6And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. - King James Version

Actually what is at issue is Lev 11:5-6.

Leviticus 11:5-6⁵And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.  ⁶And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.   - King James Version

Another translation:

(Lev. 11:5-6) - “‘Likewise, the rock badger, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you.”

In 11:6, In this verse, the animal is a hare. The hare is auto-coprophagous, which can be seen as a form of cud-chewing, where the cud “ferments” externally.

In 11:5, the animal is the rock badger, or hyrax. “The English authoritative literature (Biological Abstracts) did not state that Hyraxes regurgitated and rechewed their food until 1967.” (Source)

To further this notation, is interesting information at
Christian-Forum.net:

In 1964 Zoologist Hubert Hendrichs observed hyraxes at the Munich zoo in Germany and noticed swallowing movements…..he observed a Hyrax making swallowing movements although not eating….He subsequently investigated more closely. Further observation showed that the Hyraxes chew the cud mainly at night for about an hour…..

The reason the Hyrax’s cud chewing behavior remained unconfirmed so long is that the animal chews the cud as little as 30 minutes a day and usually at night. Unless hyraxes are held in captivity their cud chewing would not be noticeable.

Some people might raise the objection that the hyrax is not classified as a ruminant according to some science reference sources. Such an objection, while understandable, is not valid and is due to a misunderstanding. Specifically, in 1970 the Bible-Science Newsletter stated the following:

“Pasche quotes Friedrich Bettex, who in turn cites the distinguished authority on ruminants, Prof. Ruetimeyer of Basel:

“…I would call attention to the circumstances that in today’s anatomical and embryological classification the practice of rumination is not decisive by itself. In other words, an animal may chew the cud and yet not be classified among the ruminantia.”

Now lets be very practical. Would God tell the ancient Israelites to eat or not eat a food based on the animals embryological classification? Common sense would tell you that such a methodology would be wholly inappropriate. So it would fair to say that a reasonable person cannot raise the objection that a hyrax is not considered by all to be a ruminant according to zoological classification system where a true ruminant has a four chambered stomach and a ruminant can have a three chambered stomach. In addition, according to the zoological standard an animal must also plus meet anatomical and embryological criteria! Incidentally, the hyrax has a fermentation chamber in addition to its having a stomach.

SYMBIOSIS WITHIN THE VERTEBRATE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM

Bacterial Digestion of Cellulose Within Animals - Vertebrates lack enzymes to digest plant material. Some bacteria can do so and are harbored by animals… Rats and rabbits redigest cellulose another way. [They] eat feces and literally redigest them a second time. Efficiency approaches that of ruminants.

In a more detailed version, Margert “Casey” Kilcullen-Steiner, (M.S., L.A.Tg) writes:

Rabbits are sometimes called “pseudo-ruminants”… The rhythmic cycle of coprophagy of pure cecal contents practiced by all rabbits allows utilization of microbial protein and fermentation products, as well as recycling of certain minerals. Whereas the feces commonly seen excreted by rabbits are fairly large, dry and ovoid, excreted singly, and consist of fibrous plant material, cecotrophs are about half that size, occur in moist bundles stuck together with mucus, and are very fine textured and odiferous. They are seldom seen, as the rabbit plucks them directly from the anus as they are passed. Normal rabbits do not allow cecotrophs to drop to the floor or ground, and their presence there indicates a mechanical problem or illness in the rabbit.

Cud can come from either end and rabbits chew it again. Knowing this, would you still want to eat a rabbit/hare/hyrax?

Once again, the Bible is right and the skeptics are wrong.

* The bat is not a bird LEV 11:19

Leviticus 11:19And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. - King James Version

From Biology and the Bible:

Atheists and their Islamic friends want to make this a case for biological classification but it is really one 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.

*Insects do NOT have four feet LEV 11:21

This makes the broad assumption that the “…flying creeping things…” must be insects, and is false. The Hebrew word translated “flying” in verses 21 & 23 is also translated as “fowl” in verses 13 & 20. The word is neither specific to birds nor to insects, but simply refers to flying creatures.

Leviticus 11:20-23²⁰All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.  ²¹Yet 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;  ²²Even 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.  ²³But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.   - King James Version

Lev. 11:20-23 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. 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.

The contextual subject is not insects, but flying creatures, as mentioned previously. The writer speaks of several ‘flying creatures’ (birds) which could not be eaten (v 13-19).

Leviticus 11:13-19¹³And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the osprey,  ¹⁴And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;  ¹⁵Every raven after his kind;  ¹⁶And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after his kind,  ¹⁷And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,  ¹⁸And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,  ¹⁹And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.   - King James Version

At the end of these, the bat is mentioned (also refer June 3, 2001), which fits the description given in verse 20, “…fowls (flying creatures) that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.” There are several varieties of bats (all flying creatures that creep, going upon all four), none of which could be eaten.

The writer then mentions that some “…flying creeping thing(s) that goeth upon all four…” can be eaten. Among those that can be eaten, the locust is mentioned. Incidentally, locust sport 4 common legs which are above the 2 large jumping legs.

Notice the differentiation between the four feet and the “legs above their feet”. The large legs on insects such as the locust, grasshopper, cricket (beetle) etc., are considered legs, but they are different than the other legs which are called “feet” in every instance here. You can add the four feet (legs) to the legs above their feet (legs) and get 6 legs if you like, however, the Hebrews chose to differentiate between the regular legs on the insects described here and the large legs used for jumping or lifting off to take flight.

Again, no contradiction.

* Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt GEN 3:14

Genesis 3:14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: - King James Version

The curse spoken by the Lord in Genesis 3:14 doesn’t condemn the serpent to a life of eating dirt. Though the serpent slithers upon the dirt, and thus could possibly inadvertantly ingest dust, the text bears a more symbolic/figurative meaning. It is a statement signifying the detestable nature and low esteem that the serpent now has. Snakes (for te most part) are branded as disgusting and avoided with horror.

In Micah 7:16-17 we read, “The nations shall see and be confounded at all their might: they shall lay their hands upon their mouth, their ears shall be deaf. They shall lick the dust like a serpent, they shall move out of their holes like worms of the earth: they shall be afraid of the LORD our God, and shall fear because of thee.”

Are we to understand that these people will literally eat dust just as serpents literally eat dust? No, rather, they shall be detestable and despised, even as the serpent is (also see Isaiah 65:25).

From Bible Contradictions Answered:

There are two ways of looking at this. First, snakes use their tongues as their sense of smell, and do indeed ingest dirt as they flick the ground with their tongues. However, it’s more likely that this was meant figuratively. Being brought low, and eating dirt are used several times in the Bible to indicate abject humiliation.

Ps. 72:9 They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust.

Is. 49:23 And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet.

Mic. 7:17 They shall lick the dust like a serpent.

This verse in Genesis is simply a way of saying that Satan would be cursed and humiliated. It does not mean that the serpent literally subsists on dirt as it’s main food source.

These points demonstrate how some people pull out retreads that might have worked in the past. Let it be known that they don’t work at TWA, and they won’t work here. Anyone confronted with this BS is free to lift this post with the attribution for the sources.

The more I read and take in information, the more I think that you have to be ignorant to fall for these things…either that, or be like Meatbrain; someone whose vision is extremely limited in conceptualizing ideas; cannot understand abstract concepts (like poetry, lyrical or other types of comparisons for example); and must adhere to narrow methodologies which fit within a particular worldview. Someone like that is disconnected from reason, rational thought and reality; things are filtered through an overly simplistic one-dimensional view; through strictly linear thinking, taking things literally and demonstrates an incapability of connecting the dots.

If Islamists or muslims believe Christianity is a ’sister’ religion, then why are people like Keith Ellison joining forces with Atheists to discredit people of the Christian faith? The Koran says that people who forget the law of Moses, in particular the ten Commandments, will burn in Hell forever.

Here are the ten commandments in the Koran.