quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I never said that study solved things by allegorizing did I? In the example I gave it was pretty clear that an apparent contradicition was easily solved by assuming that the circumference given was external (a more natual measurment to give) and the diameter was internal (more relevant to the volume it could contain). Nothing allegorical there.
You mean they didn't understand or were not interested in the relationship between circumference and volume when constructing a container for liquid? Did these people learn
nothing from the Egyptians?
[b] [QUOTE]To discuss the rabbits we need to find out all about the translation issues of 'chewing cud'[/b][/QUOTE]
Oh ok then.
The word used for chewing in the context of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 is alah. This word has a range of meanings around a root sense of raising up or bringing up and its use in this context shows that the ancient Hebrew's understood pretty well what was involved in chewing the cud. The word for cud is gerah and is cognate with the modern Arabic jirrah, used in exactly the same sense.
I have seen it argued that alah could be translated as "bringing forth" in this case, but the root sense is certainly one of bringing up. I fact, rather than translating this as chewing the cud, a better translation is that the animals in question "bring up the cud."
It is certainly clear from the context of the passages that the writer regards hares and coneys as digesting their cud in the same manner as ruminants - there is no distinction made in the passages which indicates any knowledge of any difference. Any interpretation that the writer did not intend it to be understood so requires a a considerable amount of information external to the text: there is no 'self-sufficient' interpretation that fits our knowledge of the biology of these animals, or of the hyrax or some of the other animals which have been identified as potential candidates.
Of course, the passages have absolutely no significance for the redemption of man from sin or the acceptance of Jesus, and him crucified. It's difficult to believe anyone would find this error a a barrier or challenge to their faith, compared to say, the problem of evil, unless that faith happened to be in a linguistically unsustainable literalism.