Does the rabbit chew the cud? Bible inerrancy supported!

Hyrax' aren't rabitts. They aren't even rodents. They are more closely related to elephants.Hares aren't rabitts, they are in the same family, but they are not rabitts. Also, their "foodball" behaviour is very diffrent from cud chewing. One of the prerequisits to cud chewing, is a four chamberd stomach, ruminants use the first chamber to store the food like a 'gullet', then they rechew and process the food from there. The other chambers poor the acids, and bile on the stuff.Can you show me evidence that Hares have this?[This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-20-2004]

kendemyre? Any response?[This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-20-2004]

well, here are some links in case your interested. First some show and tell:Rabbit: Hyrax: Hare: http://www.accdc.com/products/profiles/arctichare.htmlIt talks about the arctic hare. But it illustrates the distinction between hares and rabbits. http://www.americazoo.com/goto/index/mammals/hyracoidea.htm So you see, these are very distinct creatures. None of which, chew their cud.[This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-20-2004]

Hmmm... while we are at it Let's look at the dictionary deffinition of cud: A regurgitated food pellet is not cud. As it neither comes from a ruminant, an animal with a multi-chamberd stomach, nor is it passed into the mouth for rechewing. What we have here, is vomit

And finaly,All the relevant sources in your essay, are around 1975. Anything recent?Because from everything I read, the information I have posted is accurate. You site old sources, you get old info. Not to mention the fact that you site several non-scientific, non-peer reviewd sources.Few which even sound meritorious:Investigator Magazine? With an anonymous auther no less!Library jurnal? Engelder, Verbal Inspiration ?Heck, even Engelders article is from 1941!!!Pu-leeez![This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-20-2004]

I did read your post. And I fail to see the link between hyrax's and the rabitts mentiond in leviticus. Hyraxes look nothing like rabbits, and aren't even related. Where does it say Hyrax?I realize that you mention contaversy concerning the translation of the words weather hare or hyrax. But "probably", as your essay states, is not good enugh!I could say, it's a rabbit! And I would be just as supported. Question is, which is it, hare, rabbit, or Hyrax?Meaning if anything, the bible is unclear. Infact, another apologetic I read made the asertion that the word for rabbit in the bible was an "unknown animal".So how the heck do you get from that to Hyrax? Or hare for that matter? This is simply not acceptable proof. Either the bible says what it means, or it dosn't. You can't just put a hyrax in where it says rabbit. So which is it then? Rabbit, hare, Hyrax, unknown animal?How can you have proof for something you arent even sure of. If anything you have a hypothesis, with some supportive speculation. But nothing definative.After all, you and I both seem to agree that if anything Leviticus is either wrong, or unclear. To the contrary, it is easy to argue that they are not. Here is the classification of a ruminant: So, rabitts aren't hoofed, nor even toed, are never hornd (less you belive in Jackalopes), they don't FOUR chambers, and they don't belong to the suborder ruminentia. But they don't and they never did. The case you make is based on superficial apearance. These animals spit things up and chew it again. Refaction, I think it's calld. Dogs do this to. Ever seen a dog come back to it's vomit?This is a very diffrent process, from the process known as rumination. In which we have an animal with a FOUR chamberd stomach. Which regurgitates into it's own MOUTH. Not on the floor, as a pellet, etc.Rumination is a very specific action. As stated above, he is missnaming an observed behavior. Just because they may do something SIMILAR, does not mean they are doing the actual thing. WikipediaSeems pretty clear!Not only that, even your statement here again pleads to ambiguity! "not all scientists agree if the hyrax is a ruminant or not..."How is this proof?As far as I know the taxanomic description of a ruminant is as follows: RABBITTS ARE NOT RUMINANTS! THE DON'T HAVE FOUR STOMACHS!They are about as much ruminants as dogs are. Stated. Chewing the cud requires a four chamberd stomach, a special digestive process, the actual SPECIFIC fetures that make an animal a ruminant.By your definition anything that eats what it regurgitates is a ruminant which is simply not true. Are dogs, or wild cats ruminants? Same answer as above. Again, see above. Food pellets, or regergitation does not necisseraly classify as cud. It is answerd. Hares do not do cud chewing.Now, if you feel that the translated word has a more ambigious meaning, fine. But you are then left with a very unclear passage that basicaly boils down to this (according to your argument): How is this a clear passage? And how does this prove your hyrax hypothisis?My quandry is not weather or not the bible authors thought the creature in question chewd its cud. Obviously they did think so. Yet it is even more painfully obvious that these authers had little knowledge of what cud chewing really entaild or they wouldn't have calld it such.So my question for you is, how is this passage right? Anyway you slice it, it is ambigious, and demonstrates a lack of understanding concerning anatomy and the nature of certain difgestive processes. The writters obviously saw a similar action, and classified it similarly to another they saw, though in truth they are not equivilant actions at all.[This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-20-2004]

here is a nice little article at talk origins :The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: January 2000The fellow here follows your hyrax hypothesis. He makes the case that it confused the bible authers due to their constant mouth movements.A much more plausible theory than yours.

Anyone else out there want a bite at this bait?

Dear Kendemyer,I read your last post and would like to assure you that I have raised some interesting issues which I think merit further discussion. I would be glad to go thrugh them with you further.Best Regards,
Yaro

I understand this forum is not your life Kendemyre. Take all the time you need. I have been looking thrugh your matterial. And my last post does adress much of this issue.I hope to see a reply to them from you at some point.No pressure of cource.

I think what I am trying to say is, what does this prove? How does this whole issue support inerrancy?1) We aren't sure what the animal is, a Hare, Hyrax, Rabbit, or something else entirely.2) The animals above do not ruminate. They may do something which superficialy resembles rumination, but they lacks the necissery anatomy to actualy chew cud.So, how does this prove inerrancy? It proves ambiguity, and a lack of anotomical understanding, but deffinetly not inerrancy.[This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-21-2004]

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!

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.

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?