Sharon357

MORE QUESTIONS:

Great. You admit then Cud is not chewed by rabbits and to say rabbits chew a cud is a bold face lie. That's all I came for.

Then again, the question remains. How do any of you know what Moses intended by the Hebrew? Were you a Hebrew, living 3500 years ago to know in what exact context he spoke "Gerah".

You have one more problem. Not only did Biblical translators use the word "chew" in their translation, but they used the word "cud" as well. Chewing was twice emphasized as in "(1)chew the (2)cud".


---

They're saying now "cud" is not really "cud". Yet all the fanciful research conducted in the name of refection=cud chewing was based entirely upon the belief "Gerah" meant "cud". Isn't that what they said "refection" was initially? They believed the rabbit chewed that pellet.

Now, everything has changed. They say, they never really were sure about the meaning of either alah gerah. But for people who admit uncertainty, they sure are certain at telling us "what alah gerah is not"!

Funny how their beliefs change according to every new discrepancy a Skeptic points out to them.

Take cud (as in the wad brought up in the process of rumination) out of the scripture and you are left with nuttin' to go on for what Moses means by "Gerah". They're consigning themselves to outer darkness --digging themselves into a hole, trying to reconcile inerrancy against the blindingly obvious. It clearly means "to bring up" "the cud". Strange how it no longer means neither of these. Just the other day, it was so obvious the rabbit "brought around" "the cud" into its mouth, and ridiculing Skeptics for refusing to accept these "Clear proofs of God's one, true inspired word"... and today, it's not even a cud, but a mysterious "gerah".

--

These people do not cease to amaze me.

They say it is God's Inerrant, Inspired Word.
They swear "The Bible means what it literally says!, The Earth was created in Six Days, we know this, because the Bible says so."

They swore "The Rabbit Chews a Cud, here is your proof!"
Then they turn right around and telling you, "Cud is to gerah like apple is to fruit.", "Then it is indeed a very good thing that there is no word corresponding to "chewing" in the Hebrew", "Translators would have zero knowledge of any of the biological issues of the sort needed. (And Moses, living thousands of years back, with even less access to scientific knowledge than the translators who interpreted what the scribes had preserved, mysteriously knew more about biology than translators? ) All you're telling me is that translators fouled up, not Moses. ( How would we even know what the Hebrew says, if not for aid of the scribes and translators? How arrogant! ), and "The fact is, neither word literally means to chew."

Also, how do we know the Hebrew really mean six literal days? Perhaps it doesn't literally mean we have to believe in Jesus or be saved. Perhaps it does not literally mean Holy Ghost when it says Holy Ghost. Perhaps it does not literally mean we have to fear God or obey commandments.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

It seems I misunderstood you, I meant no instance of "garar," not "alah."

Well, there does seem to be! "Alah" is quite a bit broader, and for "garar," the two dictionaries I checked (TWOT, BDB) listed only "drag, drag away" as meanings, so this seems to make any specific interpretation less certain in this context of "what happens to food."

Certainly, that is the English, modern biological definition. But we need to discuss the Hebrew, and there, it is not quite so clear.

Well, it does seem to be true that no such verb expressing directly the idea "to chew" is present there. "Chew" is also present in the verb "to eat," so then must every reference to eating require chewing, too?

Genesis 18:8 He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree.

Presumably, they must have chewed their milk!

Some sentences are, however, rather clear.

"It's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I do understand" (Mark Twain).

Regards,
Lee

Sharon357

It's not that simple. The English word needs to be fully understood as well as the Hebrew. If you have "a wad" it is only a "wad" --if you chew on that wad, it becomes a "cud". Some cuds are chewed and then swallowed (as in rumination), other cuds are chewed and spit out (tobacco) or disposed of (gum). This is very important to understand what the translators of the Hebrew word "gerah" were thinking when they chose the word "cud".

Mistakingly, most people became convinced "cud" was limited to digestion. Actually, digestion (specifically rumination) is incidental to what Moses was speaking of. He used this "chewable wad" to define ruminants. Yet, rumination does not define cud.

MORE CONVERSATION WITH CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST.
They emailed requesting I answer their original email to me.

--------------------

From: Sharon Mooney
To: thestewarts/canada.com
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 11:24 PM
Subject: Your Original Response on Cuds and Rabbits

On 8/12/2005 3:05:54 PM, thestewarts/canada.com wrote:

There is no disagreement on whether cattle chew the cud. Both Bible believers and those who oppose the Bible can agree on this.

Agreed.

-------------------

The hare seems to be a hairy issue though. Why does Moses say that the hare chews the cud, but the swine does not? What makes the two different?
The rabbit consumes it's own feces for nutritional benefit; the pig (an omnivore) eats the feces of herbivores for nutritional benefit. No mention is made in the article you quoted of any nutritional benefit derived for the pig from consuming it's own feces.

This is where Christian apologists have went astray on the definition of "cud" or "chew the cud". Cud itself has nothing to do with digestion. It is merely a wad that is chewed upon, which includes, but not limited to, inedible substances, like chewing gum and chewing tobacco. If the wad fails to be chewed, it is not defined as a "cud". It has nothing to do with whether or not rumination is involved. Rumination is incidental.

-------------------

Could it be that Moses' phrase "'alah gerah" (rendered in English as "chew the cud") involves the collection of nutrients by a second digestion, whether it be the regurgitation process used by cattle or coprophagia, used by rabbits? In both cases, the animal is redigesting it's own food for nutritional benefit. It may be that our modern thought of what it means to "chew the cud" is different than what "'alah gerah" is.

Again, digestion has nothing to do with what cud means.
Common sense tells us the swine gets nutrition (in the same manner as the rabbit) when it eats semi-digested droppings. Just as the rabbit, the material is already partially broken down, making it that much easier to finish digesting.

Speaking of Omnivores, I've heard said there's always an exception to every rule.

"In some tests, animals are put on a diet that may be far beyond their range of natural diets, e.g., putting a natural vegetarian (like a rabbit) on a diet of, say, cooked bacon. As the gut morphology of a rabbit is not adapted to a pure meat diet, the results of such tests must be interpreted with caution."
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-8c.shtml

So a rabbit is not "absolutely" herbivore.

Posted by Bryan on February 15, 2004
In Reply to: Rabbits can eat more efficiency on August 29, 2003

My rabbit loves to eat chicken. And I don't know why?
answer me this question. He doesn't seem too vegetarian too me.
I dunno what to think of it.
E-mail me back.
Peace
Bryan

Posted by Beth on April 12, 2005
In Reply to: MY RABBIT IS A OMNIVORE posted by Bryan on February 15, 2004

My rabbit is also an Omnivore. She likes eating beef. We discovered this when my cat was on the floor with our left- overs. My rabbit just went right over and started to eat it too. If you have other pets maybe it learned it from them. My rabbit also eats strange things like kraftdinner. Anyways I can't really answer your question but I just wanted to share that information.
http://www.ecolivingcenter.com/board...sages/163.html


-------------------------

You mentioned that the rabbit does not chew at all, but rather swallows the pellet whole. This argument is based upon the assumption that "chew the cud" is an adequate rendering of "'alah gerah".

If the words "chew" "cud" are used in scripture, one can take it as literally meaning "a cud chewed". Translators were emphatic, using not once, but twice, terms which imply chewing.

The fact is, neither word literally means to chew. "'Alah" has a variety of uses, but generally means to raise up or bring up. But in addition, it can mean to recover or restore. The rabbit surely is recovering or restoring it's food in the coprophagia process.

We both understand now, "cud" has nothing to do with digestion processes, and it has yet to be demonstrated from Hebrew, digestion had anything to do with what Moses was speaking of. We are certain however, Moses was speaking of the "chewable wad", known as "cud". (Yet cud in itself has nothing to do with digestion. Digestion is incidental. Chewing tobacco is cud. Chewing gum is cud. It is incidental that ruminants "bring up" a wad that is chewed on.) Moses used this "chewable wad" to define ruminants. Yet, rumination does not define cud.


It would seem that translators considered "chew the cud" to best accommodate Moses' meaning, though it seems to fall short in fully expressing what "'alah gerah" means.

Again, my simple question. If it is not "cud", then what is the equivalent English word for Gerah?
The translators are emphatically clear, as they twice chose words implying "chew" (1)Chew the (2)Cud.

And, according to one post I read this evening, there are Hebrew words emphatically implying chewing (in the Hebrew):

--- Lee Merrill ---
Hi everyone,
Well, I checked verse 7, and it doesn't actually have the Hebrew word for
"chew," though verse 8 does. So I think my point here still stands.

--- John Kesler ---
What reference work did you use? Each source that I consulted shows that not only is there a Hebrew word rendered "chew" in Deuteronomy 14:7, but it is there twice. It is verse 8 that doesn't have a Hebrew word for "chew." See here (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...67-6063.html#7) for proof.

And to reiterate, as comparison between Leviticus 11:3 and 7 reveals, there is no substantive difference between alah and garar. See this post
(http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...23#post2627923)

> In His Service,
> William J. Stewart
> Kingston, Ontario

SHORT FOOTNOTE TO W. STEWART
Short and long of it: Rabbits do not "bring up" (or around, for that matter) a "chewable wad".

They "swallow whole" -- a non-chewable (thus, non-cud) feces pellet.

You guys are going to have to find another word for gerah, than "cud".
It is in total contradiction with refection.

If the word was anything other than "cud" there would likely be no problem. True.. they've discovered similarities between the ruminants and pseudo-ruminants (rabbits) -- yet, this has no bearing upon the definition of cud. The rabbits consumes the pellet, but it does not chew it --chewing defines a cud. If the rabbit chewed on the pellet at length, (as in tobacco, or the length of time people chew on chewing gum) it would most certainly be a "cud".

The example of the swine -- it may chew up semi-digested feces (like the rabbit) but it does not chew at length (explains why Moses excluded it from the cud-chewers), and as in chewing gum or tobacco (human cud chewing). Yes, humans chew a lot of cuds. From Red-Man Plug to Wrigley's Spearmint.

John Kesler

As I mentioned previously, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates says that Leviticus 11:7 is an example of garar meaning "chew the cud" and "ruminate." This is what the swine doesn't do which makes it unclean. Leviticus 11:3 says that "clean" animals are supposed to allah the cud, so in the context of clean/unclean animals, allah and garar meant nearly the same thing. I have to wonder if you gave fair consideration to what I'm saying since you refer to BDB, TWOT's definitions without commenting on the fact that the context of Leviticus 11 shows the two words are used interchangeably. See also here which shows that "to chew the cud" is one of garar's definitions.

I think that I have provided ample evidence for my position, and I feel that I am repeating myself, so this will be my last post in this thread.

John A. Broussard

There's a rather unique quality to the arguments of people such as you who believe the bible is literally true in every respect.

First, you decide what the bible is really saying. Then you insist that the language in which you are reading the bible (in this instance, English) is innacurate if it doesn't fit with your interpretation. You then go back to what you consider to be the originally, divinely-inspired writings. From there, it's easy to twist the meaning to suit.

That approach is a strange way to achieve understanding. Deciding, a priori, what answer you want, and then making the data fit that answer, is just about as weird an approach to understanding as one can imagine.

Sharon357

EXACTLY.

They may try to deny scripture says "cud" / "chew"


In alt.atheism Jim07D5 wrote:
Are there 'Cuddites' and "Anticuddites'?
--- Jim07D5


Nope.

Quote: Originally posted by lee_merrill
Another thought on this, farther down, we read that insects that walk "on all fours" are not to be eaten either, with some exceptions (Lev. 11:20-22). Only those insects (locusts etc.) have six legs! So what are we to conclude?

Either they could not count, or else their biological terminology was different than we would expect, in this instance, and thus probably also, in the description of the rabbits, whose stomachs they could no doubt examine.

Blessings,
Lee

Sharon: Shall we rent a time-machine and go back and personally ask Moses what "gerah" means? (With the way you are having trouble comprehending the English definition of "cud", it will be certainly far more difficult for you to grasp the definition of "gerah".) Point blank, "cud" has nothing to do with "digestion" --why do you bring up the rabbit's stomach?

Question: What does digestion have to do with cud?

Answer: Nothing.

The only vague relationship between cud and digestion is when Moses said the ruminants "bring up" this "chewable wad". Moses defined rumination by the presence of cud (wad), but he did not define cud by rumination. No matter what they find in a rabbit's stomach, will have zero bearing upon the English definition of cud. It is unchanging (confusion over the word, does not change its meaning) --it is a noun, a wad that is chewed. If the wad is not chewed, it is not "cud".

If the word translators used was anything other than "cud" there would likely be no problem. True.. they've discovered similarities between the ruminants and pseudo-ruminants (rabbits) -- yet, this has no bearing upon the definition of cud. The rabbits consumes the pellet, but it does not chew it --chewing defines a cud. If the rabbit chewed on the pellet at length, (as in tobacco, or the length of time people chew on chewing gum) it would most certainly be a "cud".

The example of the swine -- it may chew up semi-digested feces (like the rabbit) but it does not chew at length (explains why Moses excluded it from the cud-chewers), and as in chewing gum or tobacco (human cud chewing). Yes, humans chew a lot of cuds. From Red-Man Plug to Wrigley's Spearmint.

The best you are given by translators in English is "cud" for "gerah", and there are no refunds or exchanges, and cud means what cud means -- a wad of something chewable. As for the Hebrew -- well, that's for Sarfati and Geisler and all those guys to duke out.

------------

Sharon: "You have one more problem. Not only did Biblical translators use the word "chew" in their translation, but they used the word "cud" as well. Chewing was twice emphasized as in "(1)chew the (2)cud".

Johnny EC wrote: "That might have something to do with "Cud" being the closest thing in the English language to gerah. Not all words perfectly translate from one language to the next. I reccomend you do some linguistic study beforehand. Instead of basing an argument for Biblical errancy on an English translation of the Bible."

Sharon: Deny as you may, that "cud" doesn't really mean "cud", you can redefine alah, gerar, Gerah to your heart's content, but you cannot redefine cud. Translators used the word "cud" for a reason. And you know what I think that reason was? The reason I think translators used "cud", was because Moses meant "cud". What is this "mystery word" you're looking for... typically languages evolve from the need for a word. Funny that in the thousands of years, no better word than "cud" evolved in the languages for translators to find that "better word" than cud for Gerah.

BTW, just a note here. All the linguistic study that needed to be done on this topic was done by John Kesler on iidb:


Originally Posted by lee_merrill
Hi everyone,
Well, I checked verse 7, and it doesn't actually have the Hebrew word for "chew," though verse 8 does. So I think my point here still stands.

Kesler: What reference work did you use? Each source that I consulted shows that not only is there a Hebrew word rendered "chew" in Deuteronomy 14:7, but it is there twice. It is verse 8 that doesn't have a Hebrew word for "chew." See here
(http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...67-6063.html#7) for proof.

And to reiterate, as comparison between Leviticus 11:3 and 7 reveals, there is no substantive difference between alah and garar. See this post.
(http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...23#post2627923)

-----------

Originally Posted by lee_merrill
Hi everyone,
Well, there does seem to be! "Alah" is quite a bit broader, and for "garar," the two dictionaries I checked (TWOT, BDB) listed only "drag, drag away" as meanings, so this seems to make any specific interpretation less certain in this context of "what happens to food."

Kesler: "As I mentioned previously, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates says that Leviticus 11:7 is an example of garar meaning "chew the cud" and "ruminate." This is what the swine doesn't do which makes it unclean. Leviticus 11:3 says that "clean" animals are supposed to allah the cud, so in the context of clean/unclean animals, allah and garar meant nearly the same thing. I have to wonder if you gave fair consideration to what I'm saying since you refer to BDB, TWOT's definitions without commenting on the fact that the context of Leviticus 11 shows the two words are used interchangeably. See also here (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...3883-4881.html) which shows that "to chew the cud" is one of garar's definitions.

I think that I have provided ample evidence for my position, and I feel that
I am repeating myself, so this will be my last post in this thread."

From:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...56#post2632156
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...07#post2633207

Definition became clouded by Creation Scientists
I myself am guilty of believing some days ago it was an error to say "Fecal pellets can not be cud." They can be, if they are chewed on at length. I was thinking myself, cud necessarily had to be vomit (like cow regurgitation from its stomach) --I was thinking it absurd that a turd could qualify as edible cud. But it is true. The definition of cud can include a turd which is held in the mouth and chewed on.

Somehow, everyone got confused on the definition of cud. They mistakingly assumed it was limited to "something that is re-chewed a second time through the system, strictly as in digestion". However, as soon as a Hillbilly opens a pack of Red Man Chaw and sticks a wad in his jaw, and chomping away for three or four minutes --it's cud. (It has nothing to do with digestion). If the rabbit `chewed at length' on that turd --it's cud. (But it does not chew on the pellet, and that is why it is not cud). If the cow spews up a wad from its first stomach, and rechews at length --it's cud.

And the Creationists were arguing `alah did not literally mean "bring up" -- gumby apologetics --stretched and skewed in whatever direction is necessary to make the facts fit scripture. So they said "`alah" meant "bring around from the backside to the mouth". The Skeptics have said that's not true, `alah specifically means brings up or to bring up.

I am thinking the Hebrew may be identical to English in that regard -- Moses, thinking "humans also chew on wads" and are "cud chewers" -- there may be other examples of cud chewing that are not coming to mind right now, -- but to eliminate all the other forms of cud chewing and narrowing it down to ruminants, he specified "bring up - the wad" (rumination was defined). Humans can chew a cud, but they do not "bring it up" as in rumination.

I believe the Hebrew literally means "brings up the cud".

The Christians may be confused on the definition of cud, now, but Moses did not appear to be confused. He appears to be very definitive between "bring up" = "ruminant".

And, he simply made an error of observation -Rabbits appear to bring up a wad and chew.

CREATIONISTS 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" they're called, 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 has nothing to do with eating or digestion.

Sharon357

COMMENTS FROM CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS

Dearest Professor Brand,

I hope you do not take this information "personally". It's merely dissemination of information. The truth is all that matters. I hope the following excerpts, help to better clarify the difference between "cud", "refection" and "rumination".
Thanks, Sharon Mooney

On 8/15/2005 2:33:16 PM, Brand, Leonard (LLU) (lbrand/.edu) wrote:

Sharon

I do not take such things personally. We can agree to disagree on some things.
Leonard Brand

Sharon: I am pleased that you feel no need for personal animosity on this issue. Personally, just as a note, I am a Deist, and I hold a strong belief in the existence of God. That is where we differ on world views. My belief in God, is that God is beyond the Bible (errant or inerrant scripture, it has no effect on God's existence), --the Bible is not "a life support system" for God. If God relied upon the Bible for his one, true proof --it gives no explanation why people believed in the existence of God long before the Bible was written, and even now, -- many world religions exist outside of Christianity. They believe, not due to scripture.

Nonetheless, I wish you luck in any further studies on the issue of rabbits.

Best Regards, Sharon Mooney

---

On 8/15/2005 5:16:12 PM, thestewarts/canada.com wrote:

Sharon,

I am confident that Moses knew what he was writing. If he wrote that cows "alah gerah", and that rabbits also "alah gerah", but that swine do not "alah gerah", then I am satified that it is so.

Am I smarter than the translators? No, of course not. However, I might suggest that perhaps they were not as smart at times as they and others give them credit for. The original text was inspired by God. Thus, I affirm that Moses wrote what is truthful. Translations are not inspired by God. There is potential for translation errors. If Moses says that both the cow and the hare "alah gerah", but the swine does not, then it appears that "chew the cud" was not a completely accurate rendering of what Moses said. Perhaps the translators thought it closely conveyed in the English what the Hebrew text said. I guess not closely enough for you. Can't say that I have lost any sleep over it.

It's sad that atheists and liberal Bible theologians get so tied up with things like the eating habits of rabbits and cows, that they miss the entire point of the Bible.

William J. Stewart
Kingston, Ontario
www.lookinguntojesus.net

----

Hello Mr. Stewart,

Your answer appears bold, from the heart, and my intention is not to destroy anyone's faith.
Actually Biblical issues are quite interesting to me, as I myself, grew up in a very religious home and atmosphere. As a Deist, it's in my blood -- I love the Bible, in my own peculiar way.

My best regards,
Sharon Mooney

---

On 8/15/2005 5:40:22 PM, thestewarts/canada.com wrote:

Sharon,

May I correctly assume then, that your beef here (didn't intent to make a pun with the cow, but anyhow) is not with what Moses said, but with what the translators have given us?

I fully admit that man is fallible. I understand that what we have in our English language is a translation which has been comprised from copies of copies (and translations of copies of copies) of the original texts. I do not affirm that any English translation of the Scriptures is without error. I have not seen one yet. However, the translation errors and transcription errors which are present are minute and insignificant when it comes to basing one's faith upon the Bible.

Had the translators been more careful and a bit wordier, then maybe they would have supplied an English phrase for "alah gerah" which adequately describes what Moses meant. It appears that maybe they did not. I still don't plan to lose any sleep over it, and could I suggest that you not employ too much of your time pursuing it. In the greater scheme of things, it is a very, very, very small issue.

William J. Stewart
Kingston, Ontario
www.lookinguntojesus.net

Sharon: That is an adequate enough description. I simply brought awareness to the technical definition of "cud" vs. "rumination". I am interested in how the Christian Apologist will explain this "discrepancy" (that is the word Evangelist / Biblical Apoligist R.C. Sproul prefers to use).

Best, Sharon

---

On 8/15/2005 7:18:00 PM, ed babinski (ed.babinski/furman.edu) wrote:
My two cents to add to the case you have built.
Great job continuing the discussion and asking plenty of questions. The question of "certainty" is of course a central one. How do you get anyone to honestly admit their uncertainties? And if they can't be sure about just how "scientifically true" and/or precise/imprecise the origial Hebrew is about "cud chewing," or whether the ancient Hebrews might not have simply noted the APPEARANCE of "cud chewing" in rabbits (and then modern fundamentalists try to stretch the meanings of words to suit a more "scientifically true" explanation), then that opens the question for discussing many other uncertainties as well. Heck, the Hebrew term for RABBIT remains uncertain, since that same word could also be referring to a coney or rock badger, and might even be referring to BOTH a rabbit and a coney, another embarrassing possibility for inerrantists to consider, since neither of those two Middle Eastern animals "chews the cud" and ONLY ONE of those two even "refects." So there's that further uncertainty as well.

There is far from being any airtight case concerning the Bible's infallibility or inspiration or inerrancy. At most, Biblical "Evangelicals" are ever-attempting to save face, and posit certainties where there are none. Let me quote something concerning such failed Evangelical attempts:

"As James Barr perceptively concluded in his 1977 book, Fundamentalism, the fundamentalist is no literal reader of the Bible. Rather, he will use every logical or factual means at his disposal to avoid what the Bible literally says in order to harmonize what he thinks to be its meaning with what he thinks to be logical, factual, or historical reality. This he does in obedience to his belief in what he calls biblical inerrancy, or infallibility." [Bruce Vawter in an essay in the book, Is God a Creationist?, ed. Roland Mushat Frye]

"Once the defender of the inerrancy of the Bible allows himself to meet the critic on critical grounds and not on grounds of a priori principle, he is lost. He finds himself involved in more and more complicated and improbable conjectures in order to save the Bible's inerrancy, and he is vulnerable at so many points, that he is caught, one might say, in a Ptolemaic system of spicycles and yet more epicycles. It can hardly be a coincidence that the fundamentalist tradition has not produced one biblical commentator of sufficient status as to be recognized throughout the scholarly world." [R. P. C. and A. T. Hanson, The Bible Without Illusions]

---

On 8/16/2005 12:21:43 PM, ed babinski (ed.babinski/furman.edu) wrote:
I find it ridiculous that he even believes with such surity "Moses" wrote the whole Pentateuch, and equally ridiculous that this fellow "knows what was meant" by the ancient Hebrew phrase (that clearly mentions bringing something "up"), his own translation of course is inerrant in all cases, and he is certain that the obscure Hebrew term for those animals refers to "rabbits" alone (rather that to coneys, or rather than to both rabbits and coneys, both alternative translations of which would drive a nail through any inerrancy argument) and "refaction" (as though the ancient Hebrews were such careful naturalists, but not so careful as to speak of serpents eating dust or insects having four legs or cattle being born with stripes simply by looking at striped sticks or the heart and bowels directing a man), all in the service of Biblical "inerrancy."
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/creati...abbit_cud.html

The information in this thread really needs to be turned into an article to accompany the two articles "Jeff Justice" wrote for the Secular Web about Norman Geisler and the `Hare Chewing a Cud.'

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Yes, and it seems they were choosing the English word which fit best, as translators do. Only in this case, the fit may not have been exact.

Well, yes, but TWOT and BDB are the more standard references, so I would prefer their comments on these words.

I would say that they are not equivalent, though, nor are they clear, in this context.

I appreciate the discussion!

Well, if that were the case, we need to show how the meaning of "alah" and "gerah" is quite clear here! And we can't point to an English dictionary.

That would be helpful! In lieu of that, we examine the evidence we do have, and then do what we can, by way of assigning meanings.

Because a ruminant in the modern "chewing the cud" sense has several stomachs.

Well, there have been differences in such technical terms that became clearer as people learned more! We now know better what "tetrarch" (Lk. 3:1) means, for instance, than they did back in King James' days.

Regards,
Lee

Peter Kirby

Sharon,

Why not write all this up here?

best wishes,
Peter Kirby