Proctors_Gambit

The apologist reply that I am aware of is thus.
The chewing of the cud refers to the process of ruminating ones food. The precise meaning of gerah, rendered “chewing the cud” in most versions, is uncertain. Many orthodox Jews consider it simply to mean a second mastication, or the semblance of chewing.

Rumination does not necessarily involve a compartmentalized stomach system. One definition of “ruminate” is simply “to chew again that which has been swallowed”.

Though the hare does not have a multi-chambered stomach—which is characteristic of most ruminants—it does chew its food a second time.

The way it does this is by re-digestion of some of its own fecal matter. In addition to normal waste, rabbits pass a second type of pellet known as a caecotroph. The very instant the caecotroph is passed, it is grabbed and chewed again

This is, in most cases, the way your standard christian apologist will explain the apparent scientific inconsistancie in Leviticus.

The other way is to hold fast on the idea that Moses is talking about an animal that is now extinct, but this train of thought is more rare.

Hope this has helped.

-gambit

lpetrich

"Legalism" is clearly a convenient way of dismissing awkward parts of the Bible, like what Jeremy Pallant had mentioned. Is Radorth indirectly conceding Biblical errancy here?

And although the number of legs a grasshopper has might seem rather trivial, there are lots of bigger errors and contradictions in the Bible, like the two creation stories and the four resurrection accounts.

Jeremy Pallant

Absolutely. Your point?

Seriously, though. Vanderzyden claims, that the Bible is without error, or appears to. So, to counter that, I thought to provide a few example where it is in error. If he hadn't, in a previous thread, asked for evidence of Biblical errors, I wouldn't have responded. Or is it your contention that when Christians make statements, they should not be asked to defend them?

Is it your contention that the Bible is without error?

I notice you can't resist an appeal to popularity. Surely you realize that the truth isn't determined by popularity, but by its own merits. Based on your appeal, we would probably still believe (as some Christians still do) that the sun orbits the Earth.

Vanderzyden

Jeremy,

Why don't you acknowledge what Proctors wrote?

Vanderzyden

Jeremy Pallant

John,

Why don't you acknowledge what other people write to you? For what it's worth, I am doing my usual practice of three things at once. In this instance surfing the net, playing Tribes: Aerial Assault online, and watching a movie. Pauses in any one activity are not unusual.

Okay, for what it's worth, the Bible doesn't say "ruminate", it says "chews the cud." Chewing the cud is the mastication of regurgitated, previously swallowed food, in this case grass. Cattle, for example, chew the cud, hares do not. They practise what I think is called refection.

Proctors_Gambit

The Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’.

Rabbits and hares practice refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’.

Is it not possible that the english phrase "chewing the cud" has a more restrictive meaning than it did 4000 odd years ago?

-gambit

Jeremy Pallant

If the Hebrew phrase means what you say, and I'll take your word for it, then it is an accurate description of what cattle do, regurgitation, and not an accurate description of what rabbits and hares do. From a distance, I suppose they could have seen a hare chewing, and assumed it was chewing the cud, but they were technically wrong. It's an understandable mistake, but it's still a mistake.

It is possible that our expression "chewing the cud" is more restrictive than that it was 4,000 years ago, but from your explanation of the phrase, it doesn't really seem to be, and instead seems to be a precise description of the regurgitation of the bolus.

Risiko

As far as I know hares do not chew the cud. Rabbits do, hares don't.

I've heard somewhere that the hebrew word translated to "hare" in the OT means hyrax. Does anyone know if this is true?

Hyraxes also doesn't chew the cud.

Jack the Bodiless

Posted by Mageth, October 19, 2002 03:04 PM:
Posted by Vanderzyden, October 19, 2002 03:05 PM:
Now, admittedly that was posted one minute later, so Vanderzyden probably didn't see it in time. But he should already be aware of the fact that the Genesis creation sequence is completely wrong, therefore the Bible contains falsehood right from the start.

...So why use a phrase like "bring it on"?

Vanderzyden, surely you KNOW that we can "bring it on"? Surely you KNOW that at least some of the Bible is bunk?

Unless you're a complete idiot, you cannot possibly believe that the Bible is inerrant. So where are you going with this?

Why struggle on to resolve an issue about one particular passage? Why fight on when the war is lost?

Baidarka

Radorth
You wrote “IMO you are simply being legalistic, holding us to every jot and tittle, while ignoring the weightier matters- much like the worst religious people. The very fact that God used imperfect and illiterate people to write the world's all time bestseller is in itself proof, for greater minds than yours I'm sure.”
Matthew 5
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Why you are quoting Jesus to belittle the very jots and tittles that he seems to value?