Does the rabbit chew the cud? Bible inerrancy supported!

I have been requested by Ken to post the following information, as his new mod, requested by Percy. This is simply to update his topical information for the readers, and pending admin's permission - Ken will be able to take part in this topic shortly;Kendemyer writes:I have been studying other Bible issues as of late. I do plan on reading the afore mentioned Rabbi Slosson book and making any apppropriate commentary based on the new information.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-12-2004 08:40 PM

MikeAre you asking for this to get moved to the bootcamp?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

AdminNed has now laid out the instructions for Ken. If Ken is willing to accept the forum rules and show an effort of good attitude, then they will let him out of bootcamp - So I guess if he wants to continue this thread (Ken) - he'll have to request it be moved to bootcamp - or try and get out of bootcamp to come over here.Lucky I stopped by this site one more time today.

Jar, my personal opinion is the Ken has lots to work on. I don't think we need to move all threads that he wants into boot camp. It would overload anyone trying to monitor his behavior.Once he's cleaned up his act he can get out of BC and have a go at this one.

Works for me.

---

How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

The standard (and erroneous) claim located here :
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.aspWhy does the Bible refer to rabbits as cud chewers in Leviticus 11:6:
"The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you." (New International Version)?--Rabbit Chews the Cud?
14 Aug 2005
No. A rabbit does not chew a cud.SOURCE: Dictionary.com:
What is the definition of cud? Tobacco chew qualifies as cud.DEF #1
cud ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kd)
n.
Food regurgitated from the first stomach to the mouth of a ruminant and chewed again.
Something held in the mouth and chewed, such as a quid of tobacco.
[Middle English, from Old English cudu.]DEF #2
Main Entry: cud
Pronunciation: 'k&d, 'kud
Function: noun
: food brought up into the mouth by a ruminating animal from its first stomach to be chewed againDEF #3
cud
n 1: food of a ruminant regurgitated to be chewed again [syn: rechewed food] 2: a wad of something chewable as tobacco [syn: chew, chaw, quid, plug, wad]
Cud Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.comThe rabbit's "caecal pellet" which is in controversy, is not chewed but rather, it is swallowed whole. To qualify as cud, a wad must be chewed.THREE REFERENCES VERIFYING RABBITS DO NOT "CHEW" THIS CUD OR FECES PELLET:
"Arrival of the caecotrophs at the anus triggers a reflex licking of the anus and ingestion of the caecotrophs, which are swallowed whole and not chewed."
http://www.aquavet.i12.com/Rabbit.htm"Griffiths and Davies assert that the soft pellets are found whole in the stomach and therefore must be swallowed whole."
Account SuspendedA Christian website containing numerous links on the digestive system of Rabbits.
http://www.gw.org/Rabbit.htm quotes
"Rabbits are sometimes called "pseudo-ruminants"... The rhythmic cycle of coprophagy of pure cecal contents practiced by all rabbits allows utilization of microbial protein and fermentation products, as well as recycling of certain minerals. Whereas the feces commonly seen excreted by rabbits are fairly large, dry and ovoid, excreted singly, and consist of fibrous plant material, cecotrophs are about half that size, occur in moist bundles stuck together with mucus, and are very fine textured and odiferous. They are seldom seen, as the rabbit plucks them directly from the anus as they are passed and swallows them whole. Normal rabbits do not allow cecotrophs to drop to the floor or ground, and their presence there indicates a mechanical problem or illness in the rabbit.
microvet.arizona.edu/Courses/MIC443/notes/rabbits.htmand* Biblical Scholars speak on the question:Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, page 525:
The OT...refers to the hare only to indicate that it is an unclean animal, but its assertion that the hare is a ruminant is contrary to fact. Probably, as in the case of the hyrax...some movements of the mouth and jaws have been erroneously interpreted as cud-chewing.International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 616:
This animal is mentioned only in the lists of unclean animals in Leviticus and Deuteronomy...The hare and the coney are not ruminants, but might be supposed to be from their habit of almost continuously moving their jaws.Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 2000 edition, page 552:
Because it "chews the cud" but "does not have divided hoofs," the hare is classified as an unclean animal (Lev. 11:6; Deut. 14:7). Actually, it is not a ruminant but may have appeared as such to ancient obervers because of its constant chewing movements.
*Credit to John KeslerCREATIONISTS WERE MISTAKINGLY ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RABBITS AND RUMINATION, NOT RABBITS AND "CUD-CHEWING".
Where the Creationists went wrong was assuming "cud" necessarily was "a second pass of food, as in rumination." They never knew to question the rabbit (refection) merely consists of swallowing the pellet -- they erroneously assumed it chewed the pellet... but more than this, even IF the rabbit had chewed up that pellet and swallowed --that in itself would only qualify as (in a pseudo kind of way) "pseudo-ruminant", --but if the rabbit did not chew on that pellet at length, it still wasn't cud. They did not understand the definition of cud. It (cud) has nothing to do with eating or digestion.For complete Biblical scriptures that indicate "cud" + "chewing", further resources on this issue, they were compiled at this link & Collective Thread: Oops! We ran into some problems. | Internet Infidels Discussion BoardTHROUGH THE EYES OF ANCIENT OBSERVERS
by Edward T. Babinski
August 10, 2005The ancients probably saw rabbits and cows eating grass and both chewed the grass for a while before swallowing it. They also probably noted the way that cows regurgitate the bolus of food from their stomachs and chewed it some more, and probably assumed that rabbits did the same. They didn't know a lot about biology or how to divide creatures. They had few names for animals in the Bible period and the very word translated as rabbit might mean rock badger as well. What I find least likely is that the same ancient Hebrews who spoke of the serpent as "eating dust" [sic] also knew about "excrement eating," i.e., "refection" in hares (and/or coneys).Recall that when the Bible mentions excrement, even cow's excrement (that Yahweh allowed Ezekiel to use instead of human excrement to bake bread over) the mention of the "excrement" coupled with disgust is quite evident. If an ancient Hebrew had seen animals eating their own excrement they would probably have mentioned that fact rather than disquising it as merely "chewing the cud" [sic]. And likewise I doubt that the Hebrews studied hares or rock badgers/coneys so carefully and employed such a wide definition of "chewing the cud/regurgitation in the Hebrew" as to include eating one's own defecation. Odds are, as I said, they probably simply assumed that rabbits, like cows, chewed their grassy meals and "brought them up again" (isn't that the meaning of the Hebrew?) to chew them some more.Of course the same folks who want to claim that they have discovered a modern "scientific" way to re-interpret such passages as "rabbits/coneys chew the cud" are also the same ones who spend their time trying to explain away the Bible's "heart/blood/bowel" focus on human life and behavior (without mentioning the most vital organ that holds the most vital part of one's "life" and "direction," i.e., the brain and nervous system), and they are also the same folks who spend their time trying to explain away the Bible's flat earth and geocentric assumptions concerning the cosmos and the firmament and the order of creation:
http://www.creation-science.us/geocentrism/cosmology.htmlThe Skeptical Review » Internet Infidelshttp://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/heart.htmlRELATED LINK
Lengthy conversation with Webpologist JP Holding and Christian Professor Leonard Brand, Loma Linda University on refection in rabbits and "cud" chewing.
http://www.creation-science.us/errancy/hare_chew_cud.htmlSource: Do Rabbits Chew A Cud?I ENQUIRED OF DR. NORMAN GEISLER ON THIS QUESTION.
This was his response:From: Sharon Mooney
To: ... @ses.edu
Cc: Edward T. Babinski
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 8:17 PMOn 8/18/2005 8:10:52 PM, ... @ses.edu wrote:

​

Sharon:

​

Thanks for your note. If you read my article, then you know I don't believe the rabbit chews the cud in the modern technical sense. It simply makes a chewing motion that from an observational point of view can be associated with other animals that do chew the cud in the technical sense.

​

Norm Geisler---Sharon: Dearest Dr. Geisler and staff,I have no problem with the explanation you've given.
I have not seen the article you speak of. Rather, I have read where others have referred to articles they claim were written by you. My apologies if there has been a misunderstanding.Where may I locate the article on the web, magazine or in which book? I do have a copy of your "Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics" on hand. . . .I am interested in following up on this issue. Other writers have given me a misleading representation of what your view is on this issue. I think that it is important this is clarified.Thank you for your time and patience,
Sharon MooneyThis message has been edited by Sharon357, 08-18-2005 10:39 PM

It doesn't matter if you think based on modern scientific standards whether or not the hare or whatever chews the cud. You concede a process called pseudo-chewing occurs.If that is the case, or Ken's claims are correct, either way the Bible is supported because some sort of an appearance of chewing the cud occurs, and the Bible refers to animals chewing the cud, not from a modern perspective, but the perspective of people back then, and if these animals seemed to be chewing the cud, well by golly, saying they were "chewing the cud" is just fine since the terminology back then was not based on modern science, but based on superficial appearances.Capische?Geez!

So in matters of science we shouldn't read the Bible word for word literally since it was aimed at people who didn't have the knowledge that we have now. It is, in other words, simplified for them and, while correct by the knowledge of the time, wrong based on our much better understanding of the world.There is, of course, only the appearance of cud chewing. It is not cud chewing, it is not pseudo cud chewing, it isn't something a non ruminant can do.

I don't know if it's cud chewing by modern definitions of what constitutes cud chewing or not, and I don't care. Ken may be right. I read about half of his long OP.My point is not even that the Bible is watering it down for people back then. On the contrary, I think it is mere arrogance for people today to redefine something according to their own standards, and then have the gall to say the Bible, based on the language and standards of that time, is wrong.If there was pseudo-cud chewing or scientifically defined cud chewing, it matters not either way because it's likely the term cud chewing back then referred to both.

The original premise of the post was that the bible was not in error. That the hare, or rabbit or however you want to translate it, chews its cud. Ken was very adament in his original post. It is obvious that this is wrong. The discussion is - is the the bible accurate and inerrant?. Obviously this shows it is not. Fundies cannot have it both ways. They can not say that it is the actual word of a god and the turn around and say that back in the day the bible was written it seemed to the people that wrote the bible that the rabbit or hare or whatever it was, chewed its cud.This completely destroys the premise of inerrancy. How could a god get it wrong if that god created the animal in question. Did this god get confused? If so does that make the god non-omnipotent.

First, I have not seen anyone refute the OP. So you are wrong to claim that the hare clearly does not chew the cud. In fact, it appears Ken may be right.The best case scenario, for your side, is that the hare does indeed chew the cud if the term is defined loosely, but defined by modern scientific standards, the hare may not.Your argument is thus absurd. It's pure semantics. Let's say the Bible says "the man acted in a queer mannner" and proceeds to detail some odd behaviour, or that "the man was gay."You come along and say, look here, the Bible is clearly wrong because everyone knows the terms, queer and gay, refer to homosexuality, and the man was a heterosexual or some such.We have to discuss words and phrases according to the language of the time, and heck, if the Torah refers to the hare "chewing the cud" but modern science distinquishes between pseodo-chewing and chewing, who the heck cares? To pretend that a modern definition has any authority at all in the argument is quite absurd.

What the hell does this have to do with the conversation?Your motto should be "dont confuse me witht he facts my mind is made up"Your posts have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Either the bible is inerrant or not. Or are you trying to say the original is inerrant but translations are not? Either it is inerrant or not. Time has nothing to do with inerrancy.
Are you saying god used the word cud, because people thought they were ruminants and just felt it was easier than try to use something that was accurate? This god purposefully said cud even though he knew it was wrong? How nice to know the motives and thought processes of god.

You throw out semantics like it is a bad thing.
Semantics - The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form:When discussing inerrancy semantics is very important. We have to get to what the word truly means. I think posters have shown clearly what the meaning of chew cud means. You can not argue that it has a different meaning than what it meaning is. We know its meaning. Its meaning is different from what a rabbit does. That is a given.
Now you have to show justification of how this could be in the bible and still claim it is inerrant. Then again the OP was arguing that a rabbit does chew its cud, not that the bible was inerrant with this obvious error.

Wrong, you define chewing the cud based on modern scientific definitions of the term. Hebrew and the Torah do not use those definitions since they predate those definitions.Show me that the Torah's term of chewing the cud does not refer to a hare, and maybe you could have a point, but since the Torah does refer to a hare chewing the cud, you do not.

No, I am saying it's perfectly accurate, and you are wrong to apply a scientific definition of cud based on scientific classifications of ruminants when clearly Hebrew and the Torah predate the classification of ruminants based on modern biology.Specifically, if the Torah says what the hare is doing is chewing the cud, then that's exactly what, in the Hebrew, the hare is doing. The Torah's definition of cud, and your definition of cud are 2 different things.