Does the rabbit chew the cud? Bible inerrancy supported!

Nah, it's cool.I rather talk smack in the furums I like it better. I now understand that you weren't looking to actually deffend your essay, but rather a formal criticizim of it. In that respect, I must admit that it is well researched, and quite interesting. You made a good case, but I am not entirely sure of all your sources.Perhapse if you could track down some Biology books, or studies of Lagomorphs by specialists, it would lend more credibility to your work. I would suggest more current sources as well.Also, I think you should explore the points that contradict your findings in your essay. Like the ones brought up by me and Abshalom.Finaly, I think 'Proof' is to strong a word for your paper. Perhapse 'finding' or 'theory' or 'hypothesis', but I don't think you can call it proof yet.Cheers!

Dear Yaro:I realize that the hyrax peer reviewed study by Hendrichs is just one study. I also realized that those who oppose my study can offer nothing better. I would say this, however, that it did show diligence for Hendrichs to study the Hyrax for continuous 24 hour period. I realize my hare data is using inference and a dead expert on Ruminants statement (Ruetimeyer - that the hare chews the cud is not new to me.....). I also realize that the language issues are difficult and have been obscured through time. But I like the non-"chew the cud" translations better and due to time constrictions I cannot say why now.As far as defending my essay I am going to update that 40 questions questionaire to make it even more apparent nobody can claim a contradiction. Stay tuned for update questionaire. I raise some very important points.I gave a very cursory comment to absolom (correct spelling?) because I felt he did not read my essay or subsequent post carefullly but I thought you spent more time reviewing it.So I am read to defend my essay. I will be posting a link where I defend my essay vigorously in the near future (the site is being revamped totally and is down now. I have to run now and go to work now right now.Sincerely,Ken DeMyer[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 01-23-2004][This message has been edited by kendemyer, 01-23-2004][This message has been edited by kendemyer, 01-23-2004]

Ken: "Please read though my 40 something question survey."Ab: You got to be friggin' kiddin' me?Ken: "You do not have to write down your answers."Ab: Whew!Ken: "Just go through it. it will answer your questions."Ab: What questions? I have no questions about rabbits and cud. Rabbits eat poop is all the answer I need.Ken: "Also, I do not think you read my essay."Ab: Damn, Ken ... and on the very first guess, too! You're good. Of course the chances of a correct first guess were 50/50 anyway.Ken: "I also think you did not read my first post."Ab: Yeah, and I also read three other posts which you swore were your terminal posts.Ken: Please read my essay first.Ab: Hey, man, it's Friday afternoon ... MILLER TIME!Ken: "Then post to the string."Ab: Even if I get home tonight half soused?Ken: "I just ask for informed criticism."Ab: Oh, am I invading sacred turf here? Phfffffft.

Ken,To lend more credance to your essay, see if you can scrounge up suportive work from scientists who specialize in Lagomorphs, and Hyrax'.It's nice that you have an expert on Rumanants that supports your view, but in one sense he is out of his field. If you can find a lagomorph expert that coroborates the other's findings, your essay will be more persuasive.Best of luck.

Dear Yaro:I realize that getting clarification from a current ruminant/hare specialists would help. I think Hendrichs is sufficient (nobody has better data than Hyrax in terms of diligence of study and it was published in a peer reviewed journal).[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 01-28-2004]

Link wasn't loading. Ill take a look at it soon.But something else occured to me. If the hebrew word for "che the cud" has a varied interpretation, then why did the writter of Leviticus feel the need to qualify his statement by saying "...though the rabbit has no split hoof" etc.Certainly, then he ment the kind of cud chewing we are all talking about. Which is the Ruminant kind. That is hornd, Hoofed, Fourc chamberd stomach.I think at this point it would require us to streatch the meaning of the verse a bit dont you think?

Dear Yaro:Because it was a 2 part decision tree:1. Chew the cud
2. Split hoofIf 1 and 2 are true then the animal is clean for the animals the Torah was referring to in that section.The website is up now and the link is working. My last post was a killer for the opposition in the debate. It also gives context to the debate. I should have mentioned it earlier.I appreciate you implying you will look at the debate and critique me.Sincerely,Ken

Dear Readers:I am expecting to get some more information regarding this topic because it is currently under peer review and I believe they are doing additional research.Sincerely,Ken

Dude...you need to get out more.I was a Philosophy Major and I can tell you that those questions you are asking has nothing to do with the Socratic method. It is closer to obfuscation. It allows you to not directly answer reasonable criticism aimed at you.

Hi Sailman and welcome to the forum. If you think this thread is bad you have to check out Ken's 'Jonah and the Whale- It Happened' thread!And yes, he is serious.Brian.

To: Sailmaven:I regret you do not like my questions. I believe they are valid questions to ask, however, and that is why they were asked.To Brian:I did more Jonah research in terms of the science/history. I added a lot more info. You are commenting on Jonah here because I "busted you" in the Jonah thread. I can understand your reticence to post to the Jonah string again.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-16-2004]

Dear Readers:I recently was informed the Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia has taken various positions regarding whether or not the hyrax chews the cud. I am going to write them to find out why they have held two views regarding this issue. I will be posting an update after I hear from the people at the Grzimek Animal LIfe Encyclopedia.I also found out there is a lot of additional information regarding the whole hare/hyrax/cud issue that is in a recently published book called "The Camel, The Hare, And The Hyrax" by Rabbi Nosson Slifkin.
For example, Rabbi Slifkin in his book discusses a behavior called merycism which is different than refection and normal cud chewing but still involves regurgitation and it appears some scientists suspect hyraxes may do this type of behavior (perhaps hares may practice merycism to a fairly large degree too. Rabbi Slifkin does cite Professor Hume who states that perhaps mercyism may be widespread among mammals. Rabbi Slifkin also mentions that mercyism may be practiced in various degrees in various animals. I do not really know much about hares and mercyism because I have not yet read Rabbi Slifkin's book or researched the matter of hares possibly practicing mercyism myself yet). Here is the link to the book and there is one online chapter (Chapter 6) that discusses what I have briefly mentioned:http://zootorah.com/hyrax/mainframe.htmI plan on getting this book in the near future so I can investigate further but for now I offer you the online chapter.I have not ordered the book but given the quality of the chapter I read online I would say that it is likely there is some excellent information regarding the issue of hare cud chewing as well.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 04-06-2004]

Ken: Be that as it may or may not, it remains that the rabbit does not chew cud to begin with. The rabbit eats unfinished poop. Poop-chewing may appear similar to or the same as cud-chewing to the unscientific observer. I often thought as a child that tobacco chewers were poop-eaters until my dad pointed out they were simply semi-toothless, spittle-drewling crackers. However, it remains the fact that it's unsafe to eat rabbits during warm weather due to a specific blood disease they suffer. So since Egypt and the Sinai is usually a warm place, the prohibition regarding eating rabbits remains a good thing whether or not they chew cud and walk on furry toes rather than cloven hooves. Peace in the Polk Patch.

To: AbshalomI asked in post #33 if you had read my 40 plus questions. You expressed no interest in doing so. I do not believe you read the first post's information either. For example, if you read the first post you would know the animal in question is not the rabbit but the hare. I am guessing at this point you also could not answer the question "Can a animal ruminate and still not be declared a ruminant according to the modern classification system?" I doubt you read the most recent link in post #42 regarding merycism which also involves regurgitation.If someone like Percy had raised a legitimate question based on reading my post I would gladly respond but I am sad to say you seem to repeatedly want to rebutt what you never read in the first place. In short, please study the material presented before you post.Lastly, I already know and stated in my first post that at least some kinds of hares practice refection (eat special pellets from anus).Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 04-05-2004]

Ken, you continue to post out of your FFA topics.Please stop or I will suspend you again.It makes you seem very passive/aggressive when you ignore direct statements from administration.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe