Don't Eat The Cleanup Crew Refuted Copyright © 2012, by Gun Lap
Clean Predator/Scavenger				Unclean Herbivore

Introduction: This article is a review of Don't Eat the Cleanup Crew, an article written by Living Church of God (LCG) author Douglas S. Winnail in 2000. For reference, a copy of the LCG article can be found on page three of this PDF file, but the article is also reproduced here, with my comments added.

The article Don't Eat the Cleanup Crew claims that certain biblically forbidden creatures are not healthy to eat because they are scavengers, bottom-dwellers, eat filthy foods, and so on. I counter that with a number of arguments. For example, I show that some Biblically permitted foods are also scavengers, bottom-dwellers and eat "filthy" foods. I also discuss other problems with the LCG article.

I am not trying to tell people what to eat. I'm trying to show that (i) the LCG is not using science, despite their attempts to act like they are, and (ii) Bible dietary laws are not a safe guide to which foods can be eaten.

Disclaimer: This article is part of a theological discussion and should only be regarded as such, not as health advice in any way. Eating the wrong foods can cause serious harm or death. I am not a health expert, and I doubt if Mr Winnail is either. If a health expert gave the advice Mr Winnail is giving, he would probably be stripped of his right to work in the health profession or be at risk of a malpractice lawsuit. I give information from what I believe are good sources, but the information I give can be no better than sources that I find. Nevertheless, I think the reader will find the article helpful and thought-provoking.

LCG article: Why did God prohibit eating certain foods? Was the Creator being capricious? Why should He be concerned?

Comment: I do not believe that the Creator was capricious. I just don't agree with the LCG teaching on this subject.

LCG article: Is there a rational, logical basis for the Scriptures dealing with which foods are fit for human consumption?

Comment: To some degree yes, but I show here that, for the most part, these laws don't make a lot of scientific sense and are far from perfect (divine).

LCG article: After dealing with edible land animals, the second major set of divine dietary instructions concerned aquatic creatures. In Leviticus we are instructed: "These you may eat of all that are in the water: whatever in the water has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers--that you may eat.... Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales--that shall be an abomination to you" (11:9, 12).

Comment: To prove that the Bible dietary laws are not such great health principles, the skeptic can show that some of the permitted foods can make people sick, or that some of the forbidden foods are healthy.

LCG article: Numerous and sometimes fanciful reasons have been proposed for these guidelines. While some Bible scholars recognize that the consumption of unclean organisms can be harmful (Expositor's Bible Commentary, 1990), others suggest that organisms without fins and scales resembled snakes and thus are abhorrent to eat (Interpreter's Bible, 1953). One source stated that scripturally "unclean," bottom-dwelling organisms were symbolic of living in sin and pollution, and that fins were symbolic of prayers that could lift us out of such situations (The Bible Commentary, Scribner, 1871). The discoveries of science, however, reveal in greater detail the wisdom and benefits of God's plain instructions about appropriate food.

Comment: I will show that many arguments put forth by the LCG are just as fanciful.

LCG article: Biblically "clean fish" are generally free swimming in bodies of water. Most "unclean" fish are either bottom dwellers or predatory scavengers.

Comment: Note that they say "generally" and "most". They seem to know that some clean fish are also bottom-dwellers and scavengers but they gloss over this important point. If scavengers and bottom-dwellers are unhealthful God could have said "don't eat scavengers and bottom-dwellers" instead of "don't eat fish without both fins and scales". Or he could have said "fish with both fins and scales are okay except for ... " and then name the exceptions. But there are exceptions (scavengers and bottom-dwellers that have fins and scales) that the Bible does not name. This indicates that the dietary laws are not perfect like God's laws are supposed to be. Another thing he could have done is just make all bottom-dwellers and scavengers scaleless or finless.

Considering that people can die from eating the Biblically permitted fish and that God could have easily avoided that, this is not a trivial point.

LCG article: The prohibition against eating scaleless fish protects against the consumption of fish that produce poisonous substances in their bodies. A U.S. Navy manual comments, "All the important fish with poisonous flesh... lack ordinary scales.... Instead, these poisonous fish are covered with bristles or spiny scales, strong sharp thorns, or spines, or are encased in a bony box-like covering. Some have naked skin, that is, no spines or scales" (Survival on Land and Sea, 1944).

Comment: The LCG article greatly oversimplifies the question of which fish are safe and which are poisonous.

Please read the Navy manual quote carefully. It says the poisonous fish "lack ordinary scales" not "lack scales". It says "Instead, these poisonous fish are covered with bristles or spiny scales..." So some poisonous fish do have scales. Let's be honest. Spiny scales are scales (assuming the Navy manual knows what constitutes a scale).

Also note that it says "All the important [presumably this means the most common species] fish with poisonous flesh ... lack ordinary scales..." In other words, there are poisonous fish that do have "ordinary scales" but the author thinks they are not "important." But if someone ate the wrong fish and died it would be important to them and their grieving relatives.

No doubt the Navy manual, as the title, Survival on Land and Sea, suggests, was written for navy seals who had to survive in an emergency situation. This does not mean it is an appropriate guide to safe eating practices for civilians.

Here is a quote from a paper by Dr. Halstead, who was the world's leading authority on poisonous fishes. The paper is somewhat old (1958) but is more recent than the 1944 Navy manual quoted by the LCG. I cite this because it is readily available in PDF form for the reader's convenience.

Judging from the public health and toxicological reports that have appeared to date, any marine [saltwater] fish can under certain circumstances become poisonous as a result of its food habits. Toxicity is not species specific, except possibly in puffers or tetraodontoid fishes.... Most poisonous fishes are shore forms rather than oceanic inhabitants. Fishes captured in deep waters far from shore are generally safe to eat. ["Poisonous Fishes", Public Health Reports, Vol. 73, No. 4, April 1958]

Note that "any marine fish can under certain circumstances become poisonous as a result of its food habits." In other words, there is no guarantee that Biblically clean species of fish are safe.

Furthermore, Dr. Halstead says, "toxicity is not species specific, except possibly in puffers or tetraodontoid fishes." In other words, the entire concept of some species being inherently safe (clean) and other species being inherently unsafe (unclean) is largely untrue. Whether or not a fish is safe to eat depends on "its food habits".

As I understand it, this is saying that where the fish is caught (near the shore or in deep waters far from shore) is a major factor in fish food safety. It's not just a simple matter that some species are safe and others are not. Fish nearer to shore are more likely to ingest toxic foods.

The Wikipedia article (as of Nov 8, 2010) on ciguatera, a type of sickness from eating fish, said:

Ciguatera is a foodborne illness caused by eating certain reef fishes whose flesh is contaminated with toxins originally produced by dinoflagellates [microorganisms, mostly plankton] such as Gambierdiscus toxicus which lives in tropical and subtropical waters. These dinoflagellates adhere to coral, algae and seaweed, where they are eaten by herbivorous [plant-eating] fish who in turn are eaten by larger carnivorous [flesh-eating] fish. In this way the toxins move up the foodchain and bioaccumulate. [The poisonous microorganism] Gambierdiscus toxicus is the primary dinoflagellate [microorganism] responsible for the production of a number of similar toxins that cause ciguatera [a certain type of food poisoning]. .... Predator species near the top of the food chain in tropical and subtropical waters, such as barracudas, snapper, moray eels, parrotfishes, groupers, triggerfishes and amberjacks, are most likely to cause ciguatera poisoning, although many other species cause occasional outbreaks of toxicity.

Some of the fish "most likely to cause ciguatera poisoning" are on the Wikipedia list of kosher (clean) fish here. These include barracudas, parrotfish, groupers, and amberjacks. Groupers are also listed as clean fish on page seven of Herbert Armstrong's article, Is All Animal Flesh Good Food? See here for a copy of his article.

The reader is probably aware that clean fish, such as tuna, can be poisonous from mercury in the fish and that this mercury can come from man. This might lead some people to believe that man is responsible for all cases of poisonous clean fish. But note that these toxins which cause ciguatera poisoning are not man-made but naturally occurring. In other words, clean fish can be naturally dangerous to eat.

The LCG article seems to give the impression that all clean fish are safe when it says, "The prohibition against eating scaleless fish protects against the consumption of fish that produce poisonous substances in their bodies." Considering that someone, perhaps a member in the church of God, could get sick (or presumably even die) from eating poisonous clean fish, it is irresponsible to gloss over the dangers of eating clean fish. The COG members are very trusting of their own publications. That could kill someone. Does the LCG take advantage of that trust? Are they unwilling to correct their teaching on clean fish because they do not want to admit error and lose members?

Since the fins and scales are regarded as divine markers (labels) which tell us which fish we can eat, why did God, the fish Maker, mislabel the fish? If a company deliberately (or even accidentally) put the wrong label on a food product and people died, the company could probably be successfully sued.

In the section of the article on epidemiology (the science of disease transmission and control) the Wikipedia article helps us understand how fish become dangerous to eat (at least as far as this particular type of fish poisoning is concerned). Basically, the fish that live where the poisonous microorganisms live take in more of the poisons. The organisms that contain the poison typically live near reefs in warm waters.

Due to the limited habitats of ciguatoxin-producing microorganisms, ciguatera is common in only subtropical and tropical waters, particularly the Pacific and Caribbean, and usually is associated with fish caught in tropical reef waters. Ciguatoxin is found in over 400 species of reef fish. Avoiding consumption of all reef fish (any fish living in warm tropical waters) is the only sure way to avoid exposure. Imported fish served in restaurants may contain the toxin and to produce illness which often goes unexplained by physicians unfamiliar with the symptoms of a tropical toxin. Ciguatoxin can also occur in farm-raised salmon [a clean species].

The accepted science is not always correct. Scientists make mistakes. Sometimes they lie. Like everyone else, they are frequently biased. But the accepted science (if my sources do indeed reflect the accepted science) seems to be saying that the Bible regulations on clean and unclean fish are only partially correct. The Bible regulations do not seem to be divine in origin. If the LCG wants to believe the Bible instead of (what seems to be) the accepted science, it is their right to do so. They do explain, in other publications, why they believe in the Bible in the first place. But if the accepted science is different than the Bible, they should either show us why they think the accepted science is wrong, or they should simply admit they would rather believe the Bible than the accepted science. That would be a more honest approach. Pretending that the Bible and the accepted science agree is not an honest approach. Going through material to pick out only those things that agree with the Bible is not honest either. Is that what the LCG is doing?

LCG article: Many sea creatures listed as venomous (four sharks, 58 stingrays, 47 catfish, 57 scorpion fish, 15 toadfish, etc.) do not have true scales (Caras, Venomous Animals of the World, 1974). Eels--nocturnal predatory scavengers that eat "almost any kind of food, dead or alive"--would also be considered unclean (International Wildlife Encyclopedia, 1990). Eel blood contains a toxic substance "which can be dangerous if it comes "into contact with eyes or another mucous membrane" (Encyclopedia of Aquatic Life, 1988).

Comment: It sounds like it is a good idea to avoid eating these creatures. But that does not mean that all clean foods are healthful and all unclean foods are unhealthful.

I also question the definition of "true scales". Who decides what is a "true scale"? This sounds like an issue that would have been made more clear if God had really inspired the Bible or designed fish with the Bible rules in mind.

Also, note that it says "Many sea creatures listed as venomous ... do not have true scales ...." In other words, even some venomous fish do have "true scales". Why does the LCG gloss over that issue? Were they just hoping the reader would not notice that?

LCG article: The biblical guidelines were designed to point people to the safest kinds of fish to eat. However, care must be taken--even clean fish should be adequately cooked before eaten. Raw fish (such as sushi or sashimi) or poorly cooked fish can transmit several kinds of parasitic tapeworms and flukes (Black, Microbiology, 1993).

Comment: According to the Wikipedia article on ciguatera, "Ciguatoxin is very heat-resistant, so ciguatoxin-laden fish cannot be detoxified by conventional cooking." That means that there is more to the story than the LCG is telling us. The LCG leaves the impression that if we just cook the clean fish "adequately" all will be well.

On the subject of eating raw fish, notice an example in the Bible where Jesus cooked some fish for the disciples in John 21:9, "As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread." Unless there is a Bible example of eating raw fish, one would think that this example of Jesus ought to be followed. Yet some COGs let their members eat sushi (rice with raw fish wrapped in seaweed). Do these churches really use the Bible as their guide?

LCG article: Shellfish, lacking both fins and scales, are clearly excluded by the biblical dietary laws. But why would lobsters, crabs, crayfish and shrimp, which are considered delicacies in many parts of the world, be prohibited? The answer lies in understanding the role they were designed to play in nature.

Comment: Not so. The answer lies in proving they are unsafe by using empirical science (science derived from experiment and observation rather than theory). "Understanding the role they were designed to play in nature" is merely theory. It does not prove their flesh is unsafe to eat. The graveyards of science are overflowing with dead theories that really sounded good to their proponents.

LCG article: Lobsters are "nocturnal" foragers (Encyclopedia Americana, 1993). They are "bottom walkers" and "predatory scavengers" Encyclopedia of Aquatic Life) that "scavenge for dead animals" and other bottom-dwelling organisms and debris (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1995). They are usually caught in lobster pots "baited with dead fish." Lobsters have long antennae and tiny hair-like sensors all over their bodies "that can detect specific chemical molecules in the environment (released by decaying organisms), which can help the lobster identify and locate food"--even in the dark (New Standard Encyclopedia, 1993)! Lobsters have been observed to bury a dead fish and then dig it up later, at intervals, to eat a bit more of it (International Wildlife Encyclopedia).

Comment: As we learned above, creatures at the top of the food chain, whether clean or not, consume greater amounts of the toxins which accumulate in the flesh as one goes up the food chain. Creatures that scavenge for dead animals are at the top of the food chain. This does not mean that these scavengers are inherently unsafe and that clean fish are always safe.

Note that the LCG quotes four different encyclopedias in just the last paragraph. It sounds like they have been doing a lot of research on seafoods. This leads us to believe that they are knowingly glossing over some vital points. If they are doing so much research they should know the issues are not nearly as clear-cut as they make it sound and that clean fish can kill. So why don't they say that plainly? If they knowingly mislead people and someone gets sick or dies following their advice the church should be sued (if possible).

The last LCG paragraph shows that they don't like scavengers. But are scavengers really unhealthful? The Wikipedia article "barracuda" says "barracudas are scavengers..." Barracuda are clean fish.

LCG article: Crabs are referred to as "professional garbage hunters" and as "scavengers" that eat almost anything. The edible crab prefers dead fish, but will eat any carrion [dead, putrefying flesh]" (International Wildlife Encyclopedia). Common shrimp, a small, delicate relative of crabs and lobsters, live by day in the mud or sandy bottoms of bays and estuaries all over the world. However, they become active at night as predatory scavengers and are "bottom dwelling detritus feeders eating dead and decaying matter" (Encyclopedia of Aquatic Life).

Comment: Once again, this just means these creatures are at the top of the food chain. This would be a logical reason why the Israelites did not eat them. Like the Egyptians in the days of the Pharaohs, they probably noticed that people who ate certain species were more likely to get sick. But that does not mean that all scavengers are unhealthful or that all clean fish are always healthful. It probably depends on how much toxins are consumed by the bottom-dweller. If the dead carrion is toxin-free, perhaps the lobsters and crabs can be eaten safely.

Once again, quoting from Dr. Halstead,

The origin of ichthyosarcotoxins [toxins in fish] in nature has been the subject of much speculation and folklore. Numerous theories have been propounded, but few have any scientific basis. It is certain, with the single exception of scombroid poison, the poisons are not bacterial in origin. Putrefactive processes do not play a part in the production of fish poisons. There is no evidence of any relationship between the presence of ichthyosarcotoxins [toxins in fish] and radioactive substances in the water. It is believed that most of these poisons are derived from the food which the fish eats. (p. 305).

Note that "putrefactive processes do not play a part in the production of fish poisons". Presumably this means that if the bottom-dwellers get toxins from carrion they would get just as much toxins if they ate the same creature before it died. If that is the case, why does the LCG think that the "putrefying flesh" in the bottom-dweller's diet makes the bottom-dweller unfit for human consumption?

The diet of a bottom-dweller sounds disgusting, but what has that got to do with it? The LCG article has not made a scientific case explaining why the "putrefying flesh" itself, even after consumed, digested, and assimilated by the bottom-dweller is dangerous to humans who eat the bottom-dweller. Humans can't eat grass but they can eat the cattle that eat the grass. Not many people would want to eat a worm but they would eat the fish that swallows the dead worm on their fish hook. The Bible permits eating chicken even though a wild chicken will eat insects, young mice or small lizards, which are all unclean (except for a few insects).

LCG article: These organisms were all created for a very important ecological purpose. They are, in essence, the "garbage collectors" or the "cleanup crew" for the bottoms of lakes, rivers, beaches, bays and oceans. They were not intended to be food for human beings. That is also why the consumption of raw, pickled or under-cooked crabs, crayfish, snails and shrimp carries a significant risk of parasitic infections like liver flukes, which infect up to 80 percent of some rural populations in Southeast Asia (Black).

Comment: It is not surprising that raw or under-cooked flesh, whether clean or unclean, cause illness. The LCG keeps trying to prove that unclean foods are unhealthy by looking at the effects of eating them raw. They must know that properly cooked unclean foods are far safer. This leads us to wonder if they are even trying to cover this subject honestly. Perhaps they can't find much evidence that properly cooked unclean foods are really bad for us.

LCG article: There are also important and logical reasons why God created and then clearly labeled clams, oysters, mussels and scallops as unclean and inappropriate for human consumption. These creatures are found in lakes, streams and coastal areas around the world where they perform specialized roles. As stationary filter-feeding mollusks, they pump large amounts of water over their mucus-covered gills, trapping tiny pieces of food (silt, plant debris, bacteria, viruses) which they then eat (Encyclopedia Americana, "Mollusks"). As a result, "mussels and other animals feeding on microscopic particles are the ultimate scavengers of the sea" (International Wildlife Encyclopedia). Filter-feeding organisms are the "vacuum cleaners" for aquatic environments. Their role is to purify the water.

Comment: There seems to be no basis for the claim that the role the animal plays is a reliable guide to whether it is clean or unclean. Rabbits and deer both play the role of a prey species, and yet the Bible specifically forbids eating rabbits and permits eating deer. Groupers and cats are both predators yet groupers are clean and cats are unclean. Chickens and bears are both omnivores but only chickens are clean. Barracuda and mollusks are both scavengers yet only barracuda are clean.

LCG article: Once you understand the purpose for which God created shellfish, the reason they are unclean should become obvious.

Comment: The "obvious" reason is only opinion or at best theory. Neither opinion or theory are scientific fact. Scientific fact is established by experiment and observation. Opinion and theory are only guides as to which experiments ought to be conducted.

LCG article: Just as you would be reluctant to make a meal out of the contents of your vacuum cleaner bag or the material that collects on your furnace filter or in your septic tank, the decision to eat shellfish should also be considered carefully!

Comment: This is the "obvious" reason? Comparing eating shellfish to eating the contents of a septic tank is just trying to gross people out. Does the Living Church of God really believe that eating shellfish is like eating feces? Just because a shellfish eats disgusting things does not mean that shellfish are unhealthy to eat. Since their bodies are designed for that purpose they should be fully capable of processing those disgusting things.

Cattle swallow their own saliva and then humans eat the cattle. Does that mean we are eating that disgusting cattle saliva?

LCG article: Because their method of feeding is "ideal for concentrating bacteria in sewage," in addition to collecting and concentrating pathogenic viruses, heavy metals and nerve toxins produced by plankton, these shellfish present a serious health hazard to consumers (International Wildlife Encyclopedia, Black).

Comment: Clean fish can contain heavy metals and toxins also. And if man did not dump garbage into the environment, there would perhaps be no heavy metals in our food to begin with.

If the "serious health hazard" refers to properly cooked flesh (see below), the LCG might be right that shellfish are often unsafe to eat. But that does not mean they are always unsafe or that all bottom-dwellers are unsafe. The Bible does contain many valid health principles and no doubt this is part of the reason for some of the dietary laws. But the dietary laws in the Bible are not very advanced and we have seen no scientific evidence these laws were so advanced that divine revelation was needed to come up with any them. People in those days could easily have observed a few general patterns that had health benefits and arrived at some health laws that were highly flawed but still much better than nothing.

The Wikipedia article Grouper says they "habitually eat fish, octopus, crab, and lobster." Groupers are clean fish. If the bottom-dwellers are bad then groupers must be as bad or worse because they are themselves bottom-dwellers that eat other bottom-dwellers. They dig caves (shelters) in the sand under big rocks where they "lie in wait, rather than chasing in open water."

LCG article: How serious is the threat of disease? The American Food and Drug Administration has stated that "raw oysters, clams and mussels--so savored by gourmets--account for 85 percent of all the illnesses caused by eating seafood" (FDA Consumer, June 1991).

Comment: Note that the FDA said "raw oysters, clams and mussels ... account for 85 percent of all the illnesses caused by eating seafood". In other words, the FDA seems to be saying that the main problem -- by far -- is not eating these foods but eating these foods raw. It is very misleading to ignore that key point. It is totally unfair and meaningless to use statistics on raw foods to argue that those foods should not be eaten at all, even if cooked. If people were in the habit of eating raw hamburger, there would be a lot more sickness and death resulting from beef. But who eats raw beef?

Does the Bible even order us to cook all the flesh we eat? Even if so, does it tell us how to properly cook food? This is much more important for health than whether a sea creature has fins and scales. If the Bible is perfect, can it omit this important point that so many people don't seem to be aware of?

Now consider the next bit of data the LCG uses to "prove" their point.

LCG article: Outbreaks of cholera, typhoid, hepatitis A, Norwalk virus, salmonella and paralytic shellfish poisoning are just some of the health problems frequently linked to the consumption of these mollusks (U. C. Berkeley Wellness Letter Feb. 1994).

Comment: This second quote does not tell us if these mollusks were eaten raw or not. Given the previous quote, they probably were. Also, this does not give us any information whatsoever on the likelihood of the illness, only that it is "frequent" (but perhaps only if eaten raw). Also, this does not compare the danger of eating these foods to other foods.

A person can probably get most or all of these illnesses from clean foods also. For example, the Wikipedia article on salmonella says "Poultry, cattle, and sheep [all clean animals] frequently being agents of contamination, salmonella can be found in food, particularly meats and eggs."

Why does the article not mention things like that? Isn't the LCG article one-sided?

LCG article: Notices have been published that pregnant women, the elderly and "individuals with immune systems weakened by certain diseases (cancer, diabetes and AIDS) should... avoid eating or handling uncooked shellfish" (Consumer Research, July 1993). These dangerous and potentially life-threatening situations can be avoided by understanding and following the biblical dietary laws that prohibit eating marine organisms that lack fins and scales.

Comment: And once again, the real issue is "uncooked shellfish", not shellfish. Of course, if simply handling uncooked shellfish is dangerous for certain people, those people should avoid it. But does the "perfect" Bible tell us not to touch shellfish? Touching it when raw might be more dangerous than eating it when properly cooked.

Further, if a person has cancer, diabetes or AIDS, the real problem is why they got that in the first place. Cutting out shellfish is treating the effect, not the cause.

LCG article: The final groups of organisms covered by the biblical code are birds, insects and reptiles. Essentially all the excluded fowl are either birds of prey or scavengers like vultures and seagulls (Leviticus 11:13-19; Illustrated Bible Dictionary, vol. 1, 1980). Carnivorous birds are important in controlling populations of other animals. Their dietary habits of eating the flesh and blood of their prey--carrion--make these birds potential agents for transmitting disease. Predatory fish-eating birds tend to accumulate high levels of toxic chemicals in their bodies. Most of these birds are not important food sources for humans.

Comment: Ducks are clean but they are also carnivorous, at least part of the time. In addition to grass, their diet includes fish, worms, insects, molluscs, and amphibians. Wild turkeys are also clean and they are are also omnivorous. In addition to nuts, seeds, and berries, their diet can include insects, amphibians, lizards and snakes. The seagull is not entirely a scavenger or predator. They also eat seeds and fruit.

LCG article: Reptiles are also among the animals listed as unclean for human food (Leviticus 11:29-30; 42-43).

Comment: Why? The LCG article spends a fair bit of space discussing unclean seafoods but barely mentions reptiles and says nothing about why reptiles are forbidden. Could it be that they don't have any scientific explanation for why reptiles are forbidden?

Also, the LCG says verses 29-30 and 42-43 of Lev 11 forbid all reptiles. However, the only reptiles that these verses forbid are the tortoise, the chameleon, the lizard (v. 29-30) and probably the snake ("whatsoever goeth upon the belly", v. 42-43, and is a "creeping thing", v.41-42). They forbid all "creeping things" but we cannot assume that this means reptiles. In verses 29-30 some mammals (the weasel, mouse, ferret, and mole) are called "creeping things". The way animals are classifed today (mammals, reptiles, amphibians, etc) is very different from ancient times. Until the 1700's "the terms 'reptile' and 'amphibian' were largely interchangeable" (Wikipedia article on Reptile on Nov 9, 2010).

What about amphibians? Some people eat frog legs. Is that forbidden? Did God just forget to cover this entire class of animals?

LCG article: Regarding Insects, only those from the locust/grasshopper family are permissible as food (vv. 21-23). These creatures are distinguished by having "strong hind legs for springing" (Expositor's Bible Dictionary) and have been used, historically, as a food source in the Middle East.

Comment: Why do they gloss over any scientific discussion of the relative health benefits of various insects? Is there any evidence grasshoppers are healthier than other insects? Do they have to be cooked? Just because they have been used historically as food does not make them safe.

LCG article: The biblical dietary laws are simple, rational, practical and profound.

Comment: That statement is preposterous. They neither simple nor rational (see our other articles on this topic). If the LCG says these laws are simple and rational, the LCG should be able to explain a logical reason for each and every one of them. Where is the explanation?

LCG article: Long before human beings knew the details of disease-causing microorganisms, life cycles of parasites or global ecology, God revealed powerful principles that would protect the environment, provide safe, healthful food and prevent the spread of disease for anyone who would be willing to follow these instructions. The intent and benefits of these biblical guidelines have been acknowledged periodically in history. One scholar observed recently that "most of the laws can be clearly seen to tend toward public health... the laws were wonderfully fashioned by God for the general health of the nation" (Expositor's Bible Commentary, 1990, pp. 529, 569).

Comment: The LCG has not shown how these laws "protect the environment". Some commentaries are very conservative and will say just about anything to defend the Bible. So what if some scholar thinks "most" of these laws protect health? Is this scholar a scientist or just a Bible apologist? What is his area of expertise? What did he base that on? Also, the question here is whether specific foods are fit for consumption.

LCG article: But if these laws are so logical and beneficial to mankind, where did the idea come from that they have been abolished? Why do Bible-believing Christians seem to be in the forefront of promoting this notion? The answer is found in interpretations that are read into scriptures found in Mark 7 and Acts 10. Studying the "evidence" is instructive.

Comment: The LCG seems to imply that they would never read into scripture, yet I have shown that they do. For example they said all reptiles are prohibitied but they seem to be reading that into Leviticus 11. Leviticus 11 does not say "reptiles".

LCG article: In Mark 7, Jesus addressed a question about why His disciples ate without washing their hands according to ceremonial traditions followed by the Pharisees.

Comment: Washing hands IS important to good health, it is not just a mere ceremonial tradition. The Pharisees seem to have known more about good health than Jesus, whom Christians believe was the Creator who gave perfect health laws! If the Bible was inspired it would have said to wash hands often. (See our list of vital health laws not found in the Bible). Note how the LCG casually brushes washing aside as one of the "ceremonial traditions followed by the Pharisees." The LCG discounts a very important health principle as merely tradition. How many lives would have been saved if everyone washed their hands?

LCG article: Some Bible translations add words to Jesus' answer in verse 19, suggesting that He did away with the dietary laws. However, these added words are not found in the preserved Greek texts. The translators put words into Jesus' mouth that He did not say.

Comment: I will skip the next few paragraphs because they merely attempt to prove that the dietary laws were not done away with in the New Testament. In this article I am not discussing whether Jesus did or did not abolish the dietary laws. I am only interested in whether these laws are scientific.

LCG article: One of the unfortunate consequences of the aversion to the dietary laws, spawned in the turmoil of the second century AD, has been that millions of people have suffered and died of diseases they contracted by eating food that God never intended people to eat.

Comment: Can they prove that? Is the LCG trying to say that millions are dying today from not following these laws? How many died from not washing hands?

The Churches of God talk as if people who follow them will be healthier. While these churches generally promote some good health practices (limit alcohol, eat whole grains, limit intake of sugar, exercise, don't smoke, etc) these are not the full story to good health, and anyone with basic health knowledge would know these things. In some ways, these churches are dangerous.