Does the rabbit chew the cud? Bible inerrancy supported!

Just a bare assertion. You haven't demonstrated that Hebrew does define cud-chewing the way you want it to.Also, circular reasoning: What rabbits do is cud-chewing because the Torah says so. Therefore, when the Torah says that rabbits chew the cud, it is correct.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I have demonstrated it. I have used the primary Hebrew text of that era that is available and have shown, in Hebrew, that hare cud chewing is used in the most authoritative and primary text we have from that area. You can call it circular if you want. I don't care. The fact is in Hebrew usage, the hare is right there chewing the cud.

In other words your basis for claiming that the Bible is not in error on this point is that the translation is misleading.And your basis for claiming that the translation is misleading is because if it is correct then the Bible would be in error.

My basis is Hebrew and since the Torah is in itself strong evidence for how the Hebrew at the time was used, and I have no other documents that date from that era, the Torah itself is satisfactory evidence, and thus even if you claim the argument is circular, the nature of the question indicates the usage in the Torah is more definitive than the definitions used in modern English defined by modern science.Are you guys creating a circular argument in using a definition of your choosing, created in modern times?Sure you are, except your argument is not valid because modern biology is not a good indicator of definitions of words for ancient languages.There's nothing more to be said, imo.

so what exactly is a cud, in Hebrew?PE

No, your basis is not Hebrew. You've not appealed to any Hebrew source or any authority on the Hebrew language. You've simply assumed that the Bible can't be wrong.So your argument is circular.On the other hand your idea that "chewing the cud" is a "modern" idea is on the face of it silly. The phrase was hardly new when the KJV was translated.So it would seem that if you have a point then there is a lot more to be said.

The more relevant question is what is a cud in the Hebrew of the time the Torah went into effect?I know of no other document from that time, although there may be, that is written in Hebrew or is considered to have stemmed from oral traditions even from that time, besides the Torah.The Torah is thus the standard for how Hebrew was used, and if the Torah's definition of chewing the cud included hares, then that is the definition in Hebrew from that time period.There is no other standard for evidence I know of. Certainly not biology, nor even later Hebrew, nor Aramaic or other languages.It's like finding an old English dictionary that says to be "gay" means to be "happy" or of a pleasant demeanor, and then trying to argue the old dictionary is wrong. It's an absurd argument on the face of it, and a waste of time.

If there were no other extant Hebrew documents, how did they manage to translate into the phrase "chewing the cud" at all?PE

On the other hand, ancient hebrew is not English at all. To assume that the enlish phrase and the ancient hebrew phrase meant the exact same thing is too much of an assumption.

There were documents at the time and a spoken language, and so the meaning was passed down via tradition held by scribes and religious authorities.

More importantly it is too much of an assumption to assume that they are so different that the Hebrew would include the hare's behaviour.Simply making chewing motions of the mouth is distinct from actually chewing the cud. Certainly "chews the cud" can't simply refer to chewing - otherwise it would include practically every animal with teeth. So we do need to see some indication of the meaning and it needs to be based on more than the question-begging claim that the Bible has to be correct.(On a more amusing note I saw a KJV-inerrantist try that line only to suddenly reverse himself when it was pointed out that the KJV certainly did say "chew the cud" in English).

Sorry for the quickfire questions, I'm wondering how you think the phrase "chewing the cud" got into the KJV in the first place. Once I understand you, I'll leave you alone.In your view, was this a translation error, and if so, what should the Hebrew correctly translate to in modern language?PE

I think the KJV is probably as good a translation as there is for "chewing the cud."But that doesn't change the fact that "chewing the cud" in the Hebrew can be broader and evidently include the pseudo-chewing that hares do than what the term means in modern English.Perhaps a footnote in a modern translation could help, but Hebrew and English are not analogous in all respects. They are different languages. Indeed, old English and modern English are not the same either.If you have a better term than chewing the cud, then by all means propose it, but it works. It only doesn't work for people that think languages should have a word for word translation.Take the word for "fowl" or "bird." In Hebrew, the word can be include bats, but modern science would not categorize bats in with birds as "fowl."Does that make Hebrew wrong?No. Language cannot be wrong in such instances. Language words are what they are, and defined by what they are. If a language uses the same word that can lumps bats and birds together, the language is not wrong. It is just not based on current taxonomy and biology.

I guess "chewing or appearing to chew the cud" would be a better translation in modern English, no?I agree that languages are not analogous, but English has more than twice the vocabulary of any other language - its inconceivable to me (and I speak more than one language) that something can't be translated into English, albeit clumsily.Would you agree that the translators should have written: "chewing or appearing to chew the cud", or that this is at least an improvement?PE

How about 'eating the grass twice'? Rabbits do that. It is just that they eat their own pellets to process the cellulose twice, since it is so hard to digest.It provides the same function as 'chewing the cud'. .. just a bit more unappitizing to use humans.