Does the rabbit chew the cud? Bible inerrancy supported!

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

randman - "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."--Excuse me, PSEUDO-CHEWING -- The rabbit chews nothing...(you meant pseudo-rumination, not pseudo-chewing)... and scholars, translators acknowledge this -- that it was the language of the time. Scripture means "chew", not "swallow whole" -- AGAIN --just like those who still defend the refection argument, you are confusing cud with rumination. Rumination is a process of digestion (involving food regurgitated and rechewed)... a cud is a wad that's chewed including tobacco. Now please tell me what does chewing tobacco and rumination have in common? NOTHING. I'll get to "appearances of chewing" in a second...Look up cud (the Old English definition for the Bible. It was a wad that is chewed or the wad brought up and chewed in rumination.) Whether there's a second pass of food has NOTHING to do with cud chewing. That is rumination --not cud chewing. You're confusing two different things, as the same thing.Take a look at the Hebrew meaning:
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
"of them that chew" ([05927] `alah) -- "for they chew"Point blank, a cud is not rumination.
I was amazed when JP Holding (so called Apologist) stooped to denying "chew" is implied in the ORIGINAL HEBREW scripture. Oh boy it sure is, twice in fact. He is a liar.Let's take a look at what Dr. Norman Geisler had to say (below). The funny thing is, JP Holding, Dr. Sarfati, and Professor Brand will have more trouble dealing with Dr. Geisler's rejection of literal cud-chewing, than skeptics will.) Dr. Geisler has the guts to say "No, it does not literally chew a cud." But Sarfati, Brand, Holding and other fundies consigned themselves to outer darkness when they swore vehemently, without full investigation, "the rabbit chews a cud, now convert!" -- now, upon seeing the error of their way, they can't take their word back. Just like scripture is unchanging, so are their errors. Their stubborness is their downfall. Fundies are getting their panties in a wad . . sorry, but refection is not cud chewing (by the Hebrew definition nor the Old English or modern one).The Bible is very scientific in this regard. Moses made the very same error Linnaeus made.--On 8/18/2005 8:10:52 PM, ...@ses.edu wrote:
Sharon: Thanks for your note. If you read my article [When Critics Ask (page 89-90) under the entry on Leviticus 11:5-6], 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--------No disrespect intended for Dr. Geisler, but there is no Hebrew word in that scripture that indicates "appearances" of cud chewing either. It states emphatically "bringing up" a cud. (And we should ask "brings up" a "gerah" --what's a gerah, other than something that's Hebrew 'alah . . . a wad no doubt. (Why didn't the Hebrew omit that noun, gerah if it merely meant "appearances" of chewing.. to use the word chew was enough, wasn't it? Why include gerah or cud, the wad?)the cud, [01625] gerah
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter BibleTranslators and scholars have been very clear --they feel Moses made an observation the rabbit appears to chew a cud --and some express simply, he made an error in observation.---
"I'm not surprised at all when Fundies claim the rabbit chews a cud, afterall they're the ones who also claim rabbits lay eggs."This message has been edited by Sharon357, 08-28-2005 01:27 AM