Skip to main content

Bad Science, Bad Theology, and Grasshoppers

Unbelievers often look for any excuse to mock the Bible, thinking that if they can find a meaningful error, the entire Bible is wrong. (That is the fallacy of composition.) One of these alleged errors is when Moses wrote that grasshoppers were four-legged insects. Waitaminnit!

Scoffers claim the Bible has errors, often misquoting verses or taking them out of context. One claim is that Moses said grasshoppers have four legs.
Credit: Unsplash / Natália Dudás
Scoffers as well as honest enquirers find something that seems wrong at first glance, but resourceful people tend to dig deeper instead of using superficial readings to "settle" the matter. (Skeptics try to find alleged contradictions, but those are easily dispatched.) Sometimes it's a matter of the scoffer misquoting a verse.

We have frequently considered context here, and there are several ways consider that:
  • The immediate context of the verses above and below the one in questions
  • Larger context, including chapters
  • Context including other books of the Bible
  • Historical and cultural contexts
  • Linguistic context
  • Science (some owlhoots have complained about the Bible not using scientific classifications that would not be invented for centuries)
Most people should be able to take care of things by checking if a verse is quoted accurately (including the wording of the King James compared to modern translations). Commentaries and online searches from reliable Bible-believing sites can help a great deal.

In the matter of Moses allegedly writing in Leviticus 11:20-23 that a grasshopper has four legs, well, no. A closer reading, plus a basic knowledge of science, is helpful. Grasshoppers have six legs, but the condition is based on how they use their main four legs.
The secular world blasts and bombards students everywhere—as it does all of us—with the false claim that science (an all-too-often-misrepresented term) somehow proves the holy Bible is unreliable on scientific topics. Trumpeting such disparagements, secular platforms taunt Bible believers. No surprise there—this is what Peter and Paul predicted: “scoffing” by ungodly unbelievers (2 Peter 3:3) and “science falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20, KJV).

But how do you face and fend off pseudo-intellectual bluff-and-bluster bullying? By carefully studying what God actually said in Scripture (Acts 17:11). So-called clashes between Scripture and science routinely reduce to sloppy science, sloppy theology, or both.

You can read the full article after the jump (heh!) at "Grasshopper Apologetics: No Need to Get Jumpy".

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley, Frank Turek, and Bad Theology

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Andy Stanley has been disappointing some people, and causing quite a few to be alarmed by his opposition to the authority of Scripture. (Note: Do not be confused.  Charles  Stanley is his father, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, and heard on In Touch Ministries . I've found most of his teachings to be doctrinally sound, and he upholds the inerrancy and authority of the Bible.) Unfortunately, megachurch director Andy Stanley has been saying things that are destructive to the truth, including recommending the false teaching of theistic evolution. Gray wolf image credit: US National Park Service While shooting from the hip can be a good thing, someone claiming the title of pastor should reign himself in . Stanley was disrespectful of small churches, then apologized later . In another instance, " What  did he just say?", Stanley may have used a very bad word in a sermon. When the segment was legally posted on YouTube

Disappointment with Young Earth Creation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  First, a note for anyone who is curious. The usual format: introduction with some of my thoughts plus links for useful information, excerpts of featured articles, then links to keep reading. I put my name on it and call it an article when I have more to say. This one will be different. I will reference older articles, then add some thoughts that I hope will prove helpful. There is more following the excerpt and link. So, does anyone remember Ken Keathley? Medal image manufactured at Custom Medal Maker Several years ago, Ken Keathley renounced young earth creationism to accept an old earth view. Apparently, he was disappointed by people in the young earth community. No kidding? Taking Friendly Fire This is where I'm going to open up and get personal with both of my readers. Ken Keathley is not the only one who has been disappointed, and in addition, I've been deeply hurt by the young earth community. Things I have posted on social(ist) media have been &qu

Evaluating Truth Claims in Genesis

Some people try to dismiss Genesis as myth containing spiritual truth using elements from the pagan neighbors of the Hebrews. Others say it is misunderstood, as if the Creator of the universe was unable to communicate with us. With closer inspection, we see that Genesis is a historical narrative. Credit: RGBStock /  Billy Frank Alexander The idea that the early chapters of Genesis are mythological should not be accepted by professing Christians, as there are serious problems that result. (One of these is that Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others referred to these chapters as literal history, so by denying this, one is calling them liars!) Also, there are repercussions with the gospel message. Read some classical mythology, then come back to Genesis and see the difference. Myths are vague and have a different flow, but the Bible is precise. Indeed, even the sequence of creation days is specific — a day itself is defined. Interestingly, many translations have in Genesis 1:5 less accurate by us