Does the rabbit chew the cud? Bible inerrancy supported!

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!

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.

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.

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.

I have demonstrated it. I have used the primary Hebrew text of that era that is available and have shown, in Hebrew, that hare cud chewing is used in the most authoritative and primary text we have from that area. You can call it circular if you want. I don't care. The fact is in Hebrew usage, the hare is right there chewing the cud.

My basis is Hebrew and since the Torah is in itself strong evidence for how the Hebrew at the time was used, and I have no other documents that date from that era, the Torah itself is satisfactory evidence, and thus even if you claim the argument is circular, the nature of the question indicates the usage in the Torah is more definitive than the definitions used in modern English defined by modern science.Are you guys creating a circular argument in using a definition of your choosing, created in modern times?Sure you are, except your argument is not valid because modern biology is not a good indicator of definitions of words for ancient languages.There's nothing more to be said, imo.

The more relevant question is what is a cud in the Hebrew of the time the Torah went into effect?I know of no other document from that time, although there may be, that is written in Hebrew or is considered to have stemmed from oral traditions even from that time, besides the Torah.The Torah is thus the standard for how Hebrew was used, and if the Torah's definition of chewing the cud included hares, then that is the definition in Hebrew from that time period.There is no other standard for evidence I know of. Certainly not biology, nor even later Hebrew, nor Aramaic or other languages.It's like finding an old English dictionary that says to be "gay" means to be "happy" or of a pleasant demeanor, and then trying to argue the old dictionary is wrong. It's an absurd argument on the face of it, and a waste of time.

There were documents at the time and a spoken language, and so the meaning was passed down via tradition held by scribes and religious authorities.

I think the KJV is probably as good a translation as there is for "chewing the cud."But that doesn't change the fact that "chewing the cud" in the Hebrew can be broader and evidently include the pseudo-chewing that hares do than what the term means in modern English.Perhaps a footnote in a modern translation could help, but Hebrew and English are not analogous in all respects. They are different languages. Indeed, old English and modern English are not the same either.If you have a better term than chewing the cud, then by all means propose it, but it works. It only doesn't work for people that think languages should have a word for word translation.Take the word for "fowl" or "bird." In Hebrew, the word can be include bats, but modern science would not categorize bats in with birds as "fowl."Does that make Hebrew wrong?No. Language cannot be wrong in such instances. Language words are what they are, and defined by what they are. If a language uses the same word that can lumps bats and birds together, the language is not wrong. It is just not based on current taxonomy and biology.

No, I think "chewing the cud" is perfectly fine and appropiate.In layman's terms, they appear to chew the cud. The fact that scientists insist now it is not chewing the cud is an issue for scientists, not anyone else.If the translator wants, they can insert a footnote that the hare engages on pseudo-chewing the cud, but even that is unnecessary.I mean some things don't need to be harped on. You can pick up the meaning while keeping the same terms. For example, when the Bible speaks of a man "knowing his wife" or "laid with her", we don't really need to retranslate the term and say, "had sex", do we?That is not faithful to the original wording. We know what it means, and anyone can see what the Torah is talking about in terms of chewing the cud, although it's interesting that this is an exception, meaning God sets the hare apart.It could even be God is saying even though, to you, the hare appears to chew the cud. It doesn't matter because the Hebrews used the term to apply to the hare so the phrase is equated with what hares do, even if they are technically not ruminants.

Sharon, I am not sure of your point. Are you saying a rabbit chews the cud but does not ruminate?If so, it appears we are in agreement in the sense of the biblical term being correct.