Science & The Bible(was First human)

D. T. Billings tod@fermi.physics.ualr.edu
Tue, 31 Mar 1998 02:48:47 -0600 (CST) (00891355727, Pine.SGI.3.91.980331024042.26281B-100000@fermi) 


On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, J. Michael McGill wrote:


> >MCGILL

> >" The bible is not meant to be a scientific book, but when it

> >touches on matters of science it has proven to be accurate" --Terry W. 

> >Dawson

> >

> >The Bible says the bat is a bird (Lev. 11:13,19), hares chew the cud 

> >(Lev. 11:5-6), and some fowl (Lev. 11:20-21) and insects (Lev.11:22-23) 

> >have four legs.

> 

> DICK JONES

> This is semantics, not science. On the insects, the writer assumed

> with some logic that insects have four legs and two arms.


TOD
Where is the logic in concluding that insects have four legs and two 
arms, considering that they utilize all six to walk around?  That is were 
Lev. 11:21-23 errs, not when it says that "have" four legs, but when it 
says that they "goeth upon four feet."  While your explanation might 
have, altough it would be little, even you must admit that, some merit in 
the question of whether they "have" four legs,  it is useless in the 
question of whether they "goeth upon four feet."  Whether or not the 
Hebrews considered the insects to have four or six legs, it can no way be 
correct to say that they go upon fours, they all utilize all six legs for 
manueveuring. 

I may consider a lion's front paws "hands" (since it uses its paws in 
some instances as we do our hands), but I would then be forced to 
conclude that he goes on his hands and feet, because it is unquestionable 
that he "goeth upon" all four legs, nevermind what I want to call the 
front ones.  It would be incorrect to say that the lion "goeth upon" two 
feet, because it still utilizes what I might call "hands" to "goeth upon."