Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gumlegs

In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.

However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.


594 posted on 10/10/2005 9:54:21 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies ]


To: taxesareforever
Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.

Well, that's your interpretation of why rabbits chew cud in the Bible.

I notice you now appear to explain away the problem by saying the people at the time didn't distinguish between what cows do and what rabbits do. That's a perfectly fine explanation if you believe the Bible was written by people who didn't have today's knowledge. But haven't you said the Bible is the inerrant workd of God? How is it that God was unable to spot the difference?

You force me to side with the skeptics.

You also didn't address the "locusts with four legs" issue. What's the excuse for this -- the Hebrew word for "four" and "six" is the same? (Rhetorical question; don't bother answering).

598 posted on 10/11/2005 6:01:39 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies ]

To: taxesareforever
One would think the author of the Bible, being God and all, could've made the distinction, rather than, as it appears, have been taken in by outward appearances.

Indeed, this is one of the strongest arguments that the Bible was actually written by men, for men. Any hand God had in its inception has long since been papered over by Bronze and Iron Age editors.

635 posted on 10/12/2005 3:41:39 AM PDT by Junior (From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson