Does the rabbit chew the cud? Bible inerrancy supported!

To Yaro:Here is a more precise answer:The Arab word for hare is arnab. The Hebrew word is arnebeth. Very similar. For reasons I cannot get into I think the arnebeth is the hare. I suggest reading my endnoted reference of Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia if you want more assurance it is the hare. Also, if you review my essay there are a lot of other indications the other animal is the hyrax. Plus I think your article shows it is the hyrax (the one you cited).But here is a even better answer:3: Belief and Action: Criteria for Responsible Decision « Living up to The Truth « Ohr Somayach
(Jewish site, I am a Christian not a Jew but I think it is a great article)[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 01-22-2004][This message has been edited by kendemyer, 01-22-2004]

The Bible is a big book.I have limited time. I have no interest in discussing general Bible inerrancy. Please go to the helpful posting on that subject inside this post should you want sources to go to.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 01-22-2004][This message has been edited by kendemyer, 01-22-2004]

Dear Yaro:If you want to correspond about general questions I am willing to correspond via email. I cannot promise to be timely but I can promise to get back to you.Sincerely,Ken

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]

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]

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

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]

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]