Deuteronomy 14:7
However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney. [ 14:7 That is, the hyrax or rock badger ] Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you.


So

Do rabbits and coneys chew the cud? No.
Do they even produce cud to chew? No.

Should one therefore accept everything the Bible says as the absolute truth? Not if one is a rational human being.

Which brings us to

Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [1] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

Is it necessary to spell it out?

Yesterday @ 01:13 PM post located here
Minnesota:

Do rabbits and coneys chew the cud? No.
Do they even produce cud to chew? No.

Those Wascally Wabbits! ... Skeptical Crud About Cud

Summary:

So: the Hebrew word is question is NOT specific to the process of regurgitation; it is a phrase of general movement. And related to the specific issue at hand, the rabbit is an animal that does "maketh" the previously digested material to "come" out of the body (though in a different way than a ruminant does) and does thereafter does chew "predigested material"! The mistake is in our applying of the scientific terms of rumination to something that does not require it.

Today @ 07:54 AM post located here
Sher:



Those Wascally Wabbits! ... Skeptical Crud About Cud

Summary:

So: the Hebrew word is question is NOT specific to the process of regurgitation; it is a phrase of general movement. And related to the specific issue at hand, the rabbit is an animal that does "maketh" the previously digested material to "come" out of the body (though in a different way than a ruminant does) and does thereafter does chew "predigested material"! The mistake is in our applying of the scientific terms of rumination to something that does not require it.

JM: NIce try. This says something about interpreting the bible doesn't it? I thought the translations were 'God inspired' and error free. Didn't God know what cud was?

So then: partially digested food is a common element here. We therefore suggest that the Hebrew word simply refers to any partially digested food -- the process is not the issue, just the object.
"Yeah, right, Holding! So are you more of an expert in Hebrew than all those Bible scholars like Strong who decided that 'cud' was the best word to use here? Get real!!!"
More of an expert in Hebrew, no -- the problem is that those Hebrew experts aren't experts in animal biology. It's commonly noted, in a weaker defense of this verse, that rabbits look like they chew cud, such that even Linneaus was fooled by them and classified them as ruminants -- and even many modern books on rabbits have no reference to it. Everyone sees rabbits chewing and might come to the same conclusion, but few know about refection -- least of all experts in Hebrew who spend most of their days indoors out of the sight of rabbits.

JM: This is one mans interpretation of what the bible means. Surely an infallible document would need no suggestion as to its meaning. Furthermore, note that the Hebrew experts aren't experts in animal biology. I agree, and they were not experts in most facets of modern science! All of the referenced essay is nothing more than what many of us have been trying to demonstrate about the bible for a long time. It is NOT a science book! Thanks for pointing that out again.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Today @ 12:54 PM post located here
Sher:



Those Wascally Wabbits! ... Skeptical Crud About Cud

There is a major problem with that article:

First, this word [gerah, translated cud] is used nowhere in the Old Testament besides these verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We have only this context to help us decide what it means in terms of the Mosaic law. ... We therefore suggest that the Hebrew word simply refers to any partially digested food -- the process is not the issue, just the object.

The author simply assumes, with no justification except that it is necessary for his argument, that there is a mistranslation of the Hebrew, and the word actually means what he wants it to mean rather than how scholars of Hebrew define it.

He then does the same for the other relevant Hebrew word [alah], asserting that although it is only ever used for upward motion - "ascend up, carry up, cast up, fetch up, get up, recover, restore, take up, and much more" - it actually means "the moving of something to another place"

Finally he assumes that the unknown author of Leviticus would know more about rabbits than professional biologists and rabbit breeders.

The entire article reads like an attempt to shore up an already held belief - and it isn't at all convincing to someone who doesn't share that preconception.

Roy

Today @ 08:22 AM post located here
Joe Meert:

JM: NIce try. This says something about interpreting the bible doesn't it? I thought the translations were 'God inspired' and error free. Didn't God know what cud was?

Nice miss ... this says something about poor reading skills. The error is human ... Not God's.

Today @ 08:45 AM post located here
rthearle:

Perhaps you should talk to Sher, who is currently doing exactly that re the Leviitical passages on cud-chewing rabbits.

Perhaps you'd like to explain that remark. As I've just told Joe, the error is human ... Not God's ... so how is that inconsistent with the blurb you quoted there of Socratism

Time to kick some patoot --

JM: NIce try. This says something about interpreting the bible doesn't it? I thought the translations were 'God inspired' and error free. Didn't God know what cud was?

That's a bonehead comment worth ten cents! The ancients made no distinction between types of pre-digested material (Wow! Do the Eskimos have 36 words for "barf"?); so when we create the distinction, it becomes "error" when a document written BEFORE the distinction doesn't make the distinction!

Unbelievable!

JM: This is one mans interpretation of what the bible means. Surely an infallible document would need no suggestion as to its meaning.

Dodge City! There is nothing that education and infallibility can do that rampant stupidity and ignorance cannot overcome.

All of the referenced essay is nothing more than what many of us have been trying to demonstrate about the bible for a long time. It is NOT a science book!

In other words, people who see an error here lose. Thank you indeed!

Next victim:

Roy: The author simply assumes, with no justification except that it is necessary for his argument, that there is a mistranslation of the Hebrew, and the word actually means what he wants it to mean rather than how scholars of Hebrew define it.

I.e., you have no actual answer to the point that Hebrew translators are not experts in animal biology. Brilliant! **applause**

Finally he assumes that the unknown author of Leviticus would know more about rabbits than professional biologists and rabbit breeders.

I.e, you have no actual answer to the point that persons who lived a nomadic, pastoral lifestyle in an age when detailed observation was critical to survival, would observe said behavior, so you just bark, "nuh uh" and leave.

The entire article reads like an attempt to shore up an already held belief - and it isn't at all convincing to someone who doesn't share that preconception.

I.e., you have no answer to it. Thank you.

Strong's entries for "cud."

1625
gerah
gay-raw'
from 'garar' (1641); the cud (as scraping the throat):--cud.

SO, we look at "garar."

1641
garar
gaw-rar'
a primitive root; to drag off roughly; by implication, to bring up the cud (i.e. ruminate);

Is this what James Patrick Holding says in his piece Those Wascally Wabbits!? No. He lists the entry of "garar" as

• Two issues are at hand: the definition of "cud" and that of "chewing." Let's take a close look at the Hebrew version of both. Here is the word for "cud" according to Strong's:
  
  gerah, the cud (as scraping the throat):--cud.

So, why does Holding choose not to go to the origin of "gerah," which is "garar," (which is mentioned right up front, and begs to be referenced) and cite the definition of "garar"? Because it he doesn't want anyone to note that by implication, to bring up the cud (i.e. ruminate) is antithetical to his purpose, which enables him to concoct a wholly spurious meaning of "cud" or "gerah" as "refer[ing] to any partially digested food." How nice, just make up a new definition whenever necessary.

Holding also asserts, " First, this word is used nowhere in the Old Testament besides these verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy[Lev11:6 and deut. 14:7]." The fact is the word is used 11 times in 9 different verses.

And recall that he said, "Two issues are at hand: the definition of "cud" and that of "chewing." Let's take a close look at the Hebrew version of both Here is the word for "cud" according to Strong's:" Well, he never does "take a close look at the Hebrew version" of "chew." Wha hoppin, lapse of memory?

Even more to point, he says "(The objection is also registered against the verses mentioning the coney, or hyrax; however, the identification of this animal is uncertain -- we will assume it to be an animal that refects as well.)"

Nice assumption there, Holding!--and having conveniently dismissed the reference to the coney, we'll simply move on. But the fact is, the coney neither chews a cud nor practices refection.

Considering the above, and the other valid criticisms leveled at the article by others here, Holding is obviously out in left field, and certainly not worth listening to.

The point still stands: The Bible is simply wrong when it claims rabbits and coneys chew a cud.

Today @ 02:02 PM post located here
Sher:



Perhaps you'd like to explain that remark. As I've just told Joe, the error is human ... Not God's ... so how is that inconsistent with the blurb you quoted there of Socratism

Is it? There's nothing in the article you linked to show that the words were mistranslated. The author simply assumes they were because that helps his case.

Roy

- You guys are SO wrong. The hebrew word blagna actually means "Archon is right no matter what you think, so just sit down and nod quietly from now on." It's not MY fault you guys don't know enough about ancient cultures to understand this. Ha! See? I win!

- Seriously folks... everywhere I see a biblical error I instantly see "hebrew" and "ancient cultures" pop up a dozen times. Isn't it a shame how flawed our modern bibles really are? You guys should be leading a campaign to FIX them! Thou shalt not murder! Rabbits regurgitate! (now and then) They aren't slaves, they're indentured servants who should be happy they got anything at all, those filthy spoils-of-war!

Yesterday @ 01:13 PM post located here
Minnesota:

Which brings us to

Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [1] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

Is it necessary to spell it out?

Spell out what? That you miss the obvious connection of what the Light is ... as evidenced in the correlation to other Scripture? Nope, I think we got that.

Scripture Verse:

Rev 21:23 The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light.

Or did you have something else in mind?

Today @ 10:50 AM post located here
rthearle:

Is it? There's nothing in the article you linked to show that the words were mistranslated. The author simply assumes they were because that helps his case.

Roy

You still don't show how it is inconsistant with the idea behind Socratism's remark.

Nice miss ... this says something about poor reading skills. The error is human ... Not God's.

JM: Do you have anything of substance to say or is an ad-hom the best you can do?

Cheers

Joe Meert

Today @ 04:20 PM post located here
Sher:



You still don't show how it is inconsistant with the idea behind Socratism's remark.

Socratism was commenting upon people who reinterpret Genesis to mean 'ages' instead of 'days' - the article you provided reinterprets Leviticus to mean 'eats dung' instead of 'chews cud'.

They look like the same approach to me. Both are rewriting the bible to match current knowledge.*

Roy

*Yes I know your author thinks the ancients had that knowledge, but he hasn't provided any evidence, and what evidence there is tends in the other direction.

In rides Minnesota, with a purple helmet in his hand,

garar gaw-rar' a primitive root; to drag off roughly; by implication, to bring up the cud (i.e. ruminate);

Hey, it's the Viking game of shift the goalposts! Minnesota brings up a definition that ALSO uses the modern, technical word "cud" and so commits the same mistake already refuted! Whonk whonk!

Hey, here are some other uses of "garar" according to my interlinear:

1 Kings 7:9 All these were of costly stones, according to the measures of hewed stones, sawed with saws, within and without, even from the foundation unto the coping, and so on the outside toward the great court.

Prov. 21:7 7 The robbery of the wicked shall destroy them; because they refuse to do judgment.

Sure sounds like a technical term for refection, huh!

Holding also asserts, " First, this word is used nowhere in the Old Testament besides these verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy[Lev11:6 and deut. 14:7]." The fact is the word is used 11 times in 9 different verses.

Uh, liar liar pants on fire! You added in [Lev 11:6 and Deut. 14:7] as your OWN "clarification" of what you THINK I wrote. Tell the nice people WHERE the other 9 times are found. *ahem*

Well, he never does "take a close look at the Hebrew version" of "chew." Wha hoppin, lapse of memory?

HUH? What's all that about 'alah I wrote? Hello?

Nice assumption there, Holding!--and having conveniently dismissed the reference to the coney

What's your probem, Viking? You don't like it when I assume an argument that actually makes my argument HARDER???? Some try to argue that the animals were non-refectors. I chose to take the hard route and assume that they all were.

we'll simply move on. But the fact is, the coney neither chews a cud nor practices refection.

Source, please? And what process if any does it pursue as a hobby?

Considering the above, and the other valid criticisms leveled at the article by others here, Holding is obviously out in left field, and certainly not worth listening to.

Translation: "I need an excuse to cut my losses."

Now for the other:

You know this how? Are you an expert in ancient languages?

I.e, you have no actual answer showing that a technical distinction made in the modern era existed in 1400 BC, disappeared, then re-appeared. Thank you.

What point? They don't need to be experts in animal biology. They just need to know what gerah means.

PFFFT!!! How do they know what gerah COULD mean unless they know enough about the biology of the animals in question to make a match??? Bonehead comment of desperation #2.

Would they? Do shepherds spend a lot of time watching rabbits after dark?

YO! Read it again -- why do we not see refection happen more often? Hello? Yes, shepherds spend a LOT of time watching their environment. If you watch for signs from smaller animals you can get a clue when a predator is on the way. Think, man, think! This is not New York City!

And if they did, would they tell the priests what they saw?

Excuse me? Leviticus was authored among a pastoral people! "Priests" don't need to be singled out. You're getting desperate.

Does the same level of knowledge exist in, say, African cattle herder shamans?

It likely would if you wanted to survive.

And how critical to survival is rabbit-watching anyway?

Rabbits can hear a lot better than we can -- you think a bolting rabbit might give shepherds a clue to be on their guard? Eh?

Apart from which, if knowledge of this sort of thing was essential for survival, how come they didn't have words to describe it?

They DID have words, you just don't like that it doesn't match western techinical precision.

If you manage to come up with anything substantial, then maybe I'd need to answer it, but so far there isn't a point at all, just a lot of unsupported assertions based on a pre-existing bias.

I.e., you have no actual answer, so resort to desperate counter-strokes and sound bites like the above. Thank you!

My answer is that the article is uninformed opinion

I.e., you have a sound bite.

which (i) goes counter to expert knowledge

I.e., not expert knowledge in the relevant field.

(ii) has no actual evidence or data to support its assertions

Has plenty, but you just don't like it.

and (iii) is obviously intended to bolster a pre-conceived idea


Like, "It's an error!" is?

Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

Did so. Next?

Seriously folks... everywhere I see a biblical error I instantly see "hebrew" and "ancient cultures" pop up a dozen times. Isn't it a shame how flawed our modern bibles really are? You guys should be leading a campaign to FIX them!

Whatcha think I'm doing, Archon?

Time to kick some patoot --

JM: From what I've read, your 'patoot kicking' is about as effective as Detroit Tiger pitching the past 2 years.

That's a bonehead comment worth ten cents! The ancients made no distinction between types of pre-digested material (Wow! Do the Eskimos have 36 words for "barf"?); so when we create the distinction, it becomes "error" when a document written BEFORE the distinction doesn't make the distinction!

JM: Exactly, glad to see you agree. The Bible is not, was not and will not be accurate as a scientific document.

Unbelievable!

JM:Yes, it is unbelievable that people try to argue the scientific veracity of a book that was not written about science.

Dodge City! There is nothing that education and infallibility can do that rampant stupidity and ignorance cannot overcome.

JM: Your example is noted.

In other words, people who see an error here lose. Thank you indeed!

JM: No, people who rely on the bible for their science lessons, lose big time.

Next victim:

JM: I suppose the next victim is anyone who you manage to brainwash with your 'the bible is science' garbage.

Cheers

Joe Meert