Sharon357

QUESTIONS TO EDWARD T. BABINSKI AND JP HOLDING
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&page=10&pp=16

I've asked JP Holding to explain (since Christians insist upon calling refection "chewing a cud"), why Moses said the Swine is unclean, when it consumes half digested feces like the rabbit.

The swine "chews its cud".

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga...4/4chew94.html
is in error. Rabbits do not "chew" a cud. They swallow it whole.

Hopefully Theology Web will not erase these three posts required to answer JP Holding. If they do however, I'm in the process of transferring the study here: http://www.creation-science.us/erran..._chew_cud.html

premjan

Maybe they were talking about (...oh what's that north african small mammal which looks a bit like a rabbit...)?

...hyraxen...apparently they chew cud only about 30 minutes a day. But they are more likely to have existed in biblical lands than rabbits.

Sharon357

The points I gave JP Holding are simple.
The definition they're using for "chew the cud" has already been covered here (an erroneous attempt by Norman Geisler to explain refection means "cud chewing") --JP Holding's argument was debunked at:
http://www.infidels.org/library/maga...2/2chew95.html
and
http://www.infidels.org/library/maga...4/4chew94.html

But as it turns out, according to:
http://www.aquavet.i12.com/Rabbit.htm
The rabbit does not chew at all. It swallows the pellet whole. This behavior cannot be called "chewing" the cud.

Further, the refection and coprophagia definition they're using for "cud chewing" can be extended to numerous creatures which consume their feces and vomit. Humans have been known to "chew their cud" under this erroneous Christian definition. JP Holding agreed to play along that honeybees re-ingest their own vomit (closer to ruminant cud chewing than refection) -- however, he says that Honeybees would not be considered for the Hebrew diet, because their honey was valuable.

Numerous creatures "chew the cud" under this refection definition --including swine.

The Bible is emphatic on that point. Moses specifically states:

Lv:11:7: And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
Dt:14:8: And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase. (KJV)

But it does "chew a cud" like rabbits. These creatures are commonly known to eat partially digested feces for the same reasons rabbits do it.

At that point, we can deduce Moses was not referring to refection nor related behaviors classified under Coprophagia.

Sharon357

Well . . . JP Webpologist Holding appears to have given it its best shot. He promised "Back tomorrow to give you another beating". But there's just not much left to discuss. If any skeptics have any criticism or additional thoughts, I'd appreciate it. Nobody is saying much.

-- > Your "sources" for that assumption. <--

Pigs, both domesticated and wild boars, being omnivorous are known to eat feces of certain herbivores that leave a significant amount of semidigested mater. Pigs also known to eat their own feces and even human feces as well, which is among the reasons of pork tapeworm epidemies among pigs. In certain cultures it was common to collect horse feces rich in undigested grain by poor families to feed their pigs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia

Rabbits locked in a cage may eat their droppings and they do it in the wild as well... again, just like pigs and boars.


On 8/10/2005 2:56:07 PM, ed babinski wrote:
Dismissal of Holding's explanation:
The 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/geoce...cosmology.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../1brain93.html

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/heart.html

Contains all the posts thoroughly debunking JP Holding from the rabbit "swallowing" [not chewing] its pellet, to the article on infidels.org that debunks JP's gerah/alah argument -- to the hardclad evidence, swine chew their cud, if you're going to go that route (calling refection "chewing cud")
I saved all my posts that were trimmed away... Theology Web erased them. :sneaky:
Hare Chewing Cud Refection Error
Source: http://www.creation-science.us/erran..._chew_cud.html

It's been fun and enlightening JP Holding.

----

JP Webpologist Holding's response:

"What they normally do"? --perhaps you'd provide some sources for that assumption. Swine "chew their cud". Case closed.

Try http://www.google.com --you're embarrassing yourself. There's tons of sites available on animals (rabbits, swine, dogs, elephants, etc) eating feces (coprophagy), lots of evidence (that is, if you're going to call refection "cud chewing") of swine "chewing their cud" (consuming their feces). . . domesticated and wild.

Lv:11:7: And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

Dt:14:8: And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase. (KJV)

But it does "chew a cud" like rabbits. These creatures are commonly known to eat partially digested feces for the same reasons rabbits do it.


At that point, we can deduce Moses was not referring to refection nor related behaviors classified under Coprophagia.

John A. Broussard

The answer's simple.

Back then god had the rabbits chewing their cud. Why should that be so difficult for a miracle-working deity to do? After all, god made the sun stand still when it wasn't even moving. Comparatively, it should be no problem at all to get rabbits chewing endless amount of cud.

The amazing thing is that theists find the need to redefine, regurgitate, confabulate and worry over a passage where the answer is simple. It's a miracle, period.

Sharon357

You're absolutely right. The omnipotent one who could put words into the mouths of snakes and donkeys. What's a little cud?

Your comment brought to mind the amazing miracles and personal interaction with God Almighty that was experienced during Bible times. Ironically, I was told by Christians "Jesus died for our sins so we can have a personal relationship with the Father in Heaven" . . . but I just don't see where God is working in the world or personal lives for that matter - with the way some strain in prayer you're forced to wonder - Christians say Satan is running everything. (Which is in direct contradiction with scripture: Mt:28:18: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (KJV)

Growing up I was also told, "God no longer talks directly to people but speaks to us today through Scripture." In my reasoning, that's quite the opposite of a personal relationship. I suppose that book is our consolation prize for our dead beat Dad.

John A. Broussard

I think the high point of the bible was when god mooned Moses. That could be nothing else but a skeptical writer having fun at his audience's expense.

John Kesler

Here is what some scholarly sources say about the hare.

Sharon357

That's nice and all, but getting http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...s.asp?vPrint=1 to acknowledge those facts . . .

John Kesler

The best you can do is make information available; you can't, and probably never will, get a determined inerrantist to admit to any biblical error.

In discussing this matter, I think it is better to use Deuteronomy 14 rather than Leviticus 11, because Deuteronomy lists more animals that were considered cud chewers:

The fact that the deer, ox, sheep, etc. are listed as examples of clean animals demonstrates that the ancient Israelites knew what cud chewing is. To suggest that eating feces, which the hare does, counted as cud chewing, is motivated not by logical inference but by a desire to exonerate the Bible.