NOT EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS THE TRUTH

[OneWay]

COME DEBATE ME.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #19]

"Rabbits are also known to constantly move their mouths, in a motion that looks extremely similar to the chewing motion of cows and other ruminants. What’s described in Leviticus 11:6 is meant for simple identification, not detailed scientific analysis."

A convenient assumption but, since rabbits aren't ruminants, it isn't an "identification"----it's a misidentification.

https://bunnyhorde.com/rabbit-nose-twitch/

In the article you cite, your source makes another logical error:

"The key phrase, in Hebrew, is alah gerahh. Alah is used extensively in the Old Testament, and means “to restore, take up, collect, recover, or regurgitate.” It’s used to describe the handling of money, swords, and even the Ark of the Covenant, so it doesn’t have to mean something biologically specific."

In this instance it absolutely does have to refer to something biologically specific, since it's referring specifically to something animals do. Rabbits don't handle money, swords or the Ark of the Covenant, so the expression has no other reasonable meaning in this context.

Your source also states:

"Gerah is only used in Leviticus 11, so, it’s more difficult to know exactly what it means."

This is also false. It appears 11 times in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, always referring to the same thing:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/ ... rimary_0_1

[1213]

[Replying to 1213 in post #19]

"Rabbits are also known to constantly move their mouths, in a motion that looks extremely similar to the chewing motion of cows and other ruminants. What’s described in Leviticus 11:6 is meant for simple identification, not detailed scientific analysis."

A convenient assumption but, since rabbits aren't ruminants, it isn't an "identification"----it's a misidentification.
...

The key question in this case is, do rabbits re-digesting food after it passes out of the body? If yes, then what the Bible tells can be seen as correct.

[Miles]

[Replying to 1213 in post #19]

"Rabbits are also known to constantly move their mouths, in a motion that looks extremely similar to the chewing motion of cows and other ruminants. What’s described in Leviticus 11:6 is meant for simple identification, not detailed scientific analysis."

A convenient assumption but, since rabbits aren't ruminants, it isn't an "identification"----it's a misidentification.
...

The key question in this case is, do rabbits re-digesting food after it passes out of the body? If yes, then what the Bible tells can be seen as correct.

Err . . . . "do rabbits re-digesting food after it passes out of the body?" isn't even a question. Could you have meant "do rabbits re-digest food after it passes out of the body?"?

And no,this isn't any kind of key question because it doesn't mention the object of the verse, "cud," the crucial element in the mistaken sentence.

Deuteronomy 14:7
7 But don’t eat camels, rabbits, or rock badgers. These animals chew the cud, but they don’t have split hooves. So these animals are not a clean food for you.

If you're looking for a key question it would be, "Do rabbits and hares produce cud to chew?" And the answer is, "No, they do not." And they don't chew the cud of any other animal as well.

.

[1213]

...If you're looking for a key question it would be, "Do rabbits and hares produce cud to chew?" And the answer is, "No, they do not."...

By modern definition. Apparently by Biblical definition they produce cud, not just the same way as modern people think.

[Athetotheist]

...If you're looking for a key question it would be, "Do rabbits and hares produce cud to chew?" And the answer is, "No, they do not."...

By modern definition. Apparently by Biblical definition they produce cud, not just the same way as modern people think.

Or perhaps Bible-era people saw rabbits making a motion which looked like cud-chewing and thought that was what it was. That would explain why no distinction is made in the text between the action in "clean" and "unclean" animals.

[Miles]

...If you're looking for a key question it would be, "Do rabbits and hares produce cud to chew?" And the answer is, "No, they do not."...

By modern definition. Apparently by Biblical definition they produce cud, not just the same way as modern people think.

Or perhaps Bible-era people saw rabbits making a motion which looked like cud-chewing and thought that was what it was. That would explain why no distinction is made in the text between the action in "clean" and "unclean" animals.

But as we know, All scripture is from god

2 Timothy 3:16-17
"All Scripture is given by God. And all Scripture is useful for teaching and for showing people what is wrong in their lives. "

and that

Proverbs 30:5-6
"Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar. "

So "cud," as we understand it, has to be correct, yet NOT EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS THE TRUTH.


.

[1213]

...If you're looking for a key question it would be, "Do rabbits and hares produce cud to chew?" And the answer is, "No, they do not."...

By modern definition. Apparently by Biblical definition they produce cud, not just the same way as modern people think.

Or perhaps Bible-era people saw rabbits making a motion which looked like cud-chewing and thought that was what it was. That would explain why no distinction is made in the text between the action in "clean" and "unclean" animals.

Maybe. What I think is certain is that they didn't have the modern definition for "cud". It doesn't make it wrong, if they had own older definition for the word.

[Miles]

...If you're looking for a key question it would be, "Do rabbits and hares produce cud to chew?" And the answer is, "No, they do not."...

By modern definition. Apparently by Biblical definition they produce cud, not just the same way as modern people think.

Or perhaps Bible-era people saw rabbits making a motion which looked like cud-chewing and thought that was what it was. That would explain why no distinction is made in the text between the action in "clean" and "unclean" animals.

Maybe. What I think is certain is that they didn't have the modern definition for "cud". It doesn't make it wrong, if they had own older definition for the word.

"STRONGS H1625: גֵּרָה (gērâ) CUD
† I. גֵּרָה noun feminine cud (Arabic bdb017603, so called from sound of rumination) —"
source

Know what rumination is? Here:

ru·mi·na·tion
/ˌro͞oməˈnāSHən/
noun: rumination; plural noun: ruminations

the action of chewing the cud.
"cows slow down their rumination"
source:Oxford Dictionary

And

rumination
noun
ru·​mi·​na·​tion ˌrü-mə-ˈnā-shən 
: the act or process of ruminating:
: the act or process of regurgitating and chewing again previously swallowed food
source: Merriam Webster Dictionary

.

[Athetotheist]

...If you're looking for a key question it would be, "Do rabbits and hares produce cud to chew?" And the answer is, "No, they do not."...

By modern definition. Apparently by Biblical definition they produce cud, not just the same way as modern people think.

Or perhaps Bible-era people saw rabbits making a motion which looked like cud-chewing and thought that was what it was. That would explain why no distinction is made in the text between the action in "clean" and "unclean" animals.

Maybe. What I think is certain is that they didn't have the modern definition for "cud". It doesn't make it wrong, if they had own older definition for the word.

"STRONGS H1625: גֵּרָה (gērâ) CUD
† I. גֵּרָה noun feminine cud (Arabic bdb017603, so called from sound of rumination) —"
source

Know what rumination is? Here:

ru·mi·na·tion
/ˌro͞oməˈnāSHən/
noun: rumination; plural noun: ruminations

the action of chewing the cud.
"cows slow down their rumination"
source:Oxford Dictionary

And

rumination
noun
ru·​mi·​na·​tion ˌrü-mə-ˈnā-shən 
: the act or process of ruminating:
: the act or process of regurgitating and chewing again previously swallowed food
source: Merriam Webster Dictionary

.

Also from the Blue Letter Bible:

"Strong’s Definitions
גֵּרָה gêrâh, gay-raw'; from H1641; the cud (as scraping the throat):—cud"
(bolding mine)

Again, the indication is regurgitation.

[1213]

...

rumination
noun
ru·​mi·​na·​tion ˌrü-mə-ˈnā-shən 
: the act or process of ruminating:
: the act or process of regurgitating and chewing again previously swallowed food
source: Merriam Webster Dictionary

.

And by what I know, rabbits chew again what has come out of their digestive system, which is why it was apparently said they chew their cud.