Leviticus 11.13-19,
Deuteronomy 14.11-18,
Jonah 1.17,
Matthew 12.40
During a talk with a fellow Christian, we went off on a bit of a tangent.
- ME. “…Like when Jonah got swallowed by the whale…”
- HE. “Sea creature.”
- ME. “Whale. How’re you getting ‘sea creature’ from kítus?”
- HE. “From what?”
- HE. “Kítus. The Greek word for ‘whale.’ The word Jesus used when he talked about Jonah being in the whale’s belly three days and nights.
Mt 12.40 It’s the word we get our adjective ‘cetacean’ from, which refers to whales, dolphins, porpoises, and other marine mammals.” - HE. [confused; betcha he didn’t expect me to know what I was talking about] “But Jonah said he was swallowed by a great fish.”
Jh 1.17 - ME. “Sure.”
- HE. “Well a whale’s not a fish.”
- ME. “But it was a fish in Jesus’s day.”
- HE. “Whales used to be fish…?”
- HE. “Because the ancients classified them as fish. They figured if it lives in the sea, it’s a fish. Then somebody eventually realized some of these ‘fishes’ have lungs, and decided if you have lungs you’re not a fish, and humanity redefined ‘fish.’ Well, bible’s still using the old definition. So in the bible, whales are big fish.”
- HE. [still confused] “But whales aren’t fish.”
- ME. “Aren’t fish anymore. They were fish back in Jesus and Jonah’s day.”
- HE. “So are you saying the bible’s wrong, or we are?”
- ME. “Neither. The bible doesn’t define fish; it explains God. We define fish. You remember Adam got to name the animals.
Ge 2.19-20 We get to decide what’s a fish and what’s not. And if we redefine fish, we can do that; it doesn’t violate the bible to do that. The only problem is when we try to update the bible to fit our definition of fish, and make the bible look inconsistent when it’s really not.”
This very issue came up again this weekend. My pastor had a little quiz about bible literacy, and I pointed out to him Jesus said Jonah was swallowed by a
Matthew 12.40 KJV - For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
It’s right there in red and white. Well, unless you’re reading a more recent translation which renders kítus as “sea creature” or “big fish.”
- Amplified, LSB, NASB, NRSV: “sea monster”
- CEV, GNT: “big fish”
- CSV, NET, NIV: “huge fish”
- ESV, MEV, NKJV: “great fish”
- ISV: “sea creature”
But I remind you: None of these translations are accurate. None. They’re all conforming to the
Jonah 1.17 KJV - The L
ORD arranged for a great fish to swallow Jonah. - Jonah was in the fish’s bowels three days and three nights.
But to Jesus’s mind (at the time) a whale was a great fish. And isn’t Jesus in a position to know which species of “fish” swallowed Jonah? He said kítus, “whale”; so it was a whale.
My point is, if you know your history, there’s not actually a bible difficulty here! The problem is people don’t know history, and think there’s a difficulty if Jesus says “whale”… so y’notice a fair number of bible translators have changed the Lord Jesus’s words so that there’s no difficulty anymore. Which reveals all sorts of disturbing things about them. Namely a bothersome amount of intellectual dishonesty.
Bats and birds.
I’ll give you another example from the scriptures; one which bible translators haven’t bothered to hide. Although give ’em time; someday they might.
Leviticus 11.13-19 KWL 13 “Of the birds, shun these.- Don’t eat them. They’re abominations.
- Eagles. Vultures. Black kites.
14 Red kites. Any species of falcon.15 Any species of raven.16 Ostriches. Nighthawks. Seagulls.- Any species of hawk.
17 Small owls. Cormorants. Eagle owls.18 Ibises. Pelicans. Carrion vultures.19 Storks. Any species of heron.- Hoopoes. Bats.”
Deuteronomy 14.11-18 KWL 11 “Eat all ritually clean birds.- 12 Don’t eat these birds:
- Eagles. Vultures. Black kites.
13 Red kites. Any species of falcon.14 Any species of raven.15 Ostriches. Nighthawks. Seagulls.- Any species of hawk.
16 Small owls. Cormorants. Eagle owls.17 Ibises. Pelicans. Carrion vultures.18 Storks. Any species of heron.- Hoopoes. Bats.”
Bats? Yep; an
Again: In Moses’s day, bats were birds. Birds were winged creatures, larger than insects, so they were counted as birds. It was only later that humans decided birds are defined as winged feathered creatures, which leaves out bats. (And now that we’ve discovered dinosaurs had feathers, scientists are likely gonna make a further distinction between pteranodons and birds.) When God was spelling out what to eat and what not to, he used human language and human definitions. We’re the ones who changed the categories. As we have every right to do.
The
(And yeah, I know many Christians in the present day figure we don’t need to follow these lists anymore, ’cause
Young-earth creationists and biology.
Various Christians, who imagine
Bluntly, this is pure speculation on young-earth creationists’ part. And it’s not all that consistent with the bible. Fr’instance some of ’em claim donkeys and horses are the same “kind” of animal. They’re not just physically similar; they’re so genetically similar, you can crossbreed ’em and produce mules.
Thing is, in the Law the L
Leviticus 19.19 KWL - “Guard my rulings. Don’t make different seeds of your animals breed.
- Don’t sow different seeds in your fields.
- Don’t put clothes of different seeds on yourselves.”
Various young-earthers insist this command can’t possibly be about mules, ’cause there were still mules in the bible. Even King David owned a mule,
I’m not entirely certain why God made this a command. My guess is he didn’t want ranchers experimenting to see what kind of interesting animals they could create by getting their animals to commingle. Put a sheep and horse together and get a woolly horse? Put a cow and goat together and see what kind of milk this weird new creature would make? Not that any of these animals would naturally breed; nor would you even get results. But you can get mules by crossing a horse and donkey, and mules are useful. Still, it’s a bad precedent. (And a little pervy.)
And an indicator young-earth creationists aren’t sticking to the bible as closely as they claim when it comes to their theories of creation.
The authors of the bible weren’t even trying to teach us science and natural history. They were trying to teach us God and salvation history. The bible’s about who God is, not about how the world works. About how God cures the sin problem, not about other ailments and their treatment (unless of course we turn to God for some supernatural healing). About how to follow him and do good works, not how to interpret nature. About the fact God created everything, not how. How God did it is for us humans to figure out—and if our theories are inconsistent with the bible, it’s nearly always because we’re expecting more of the bible than is its proper, stated purpose.
Got that?
