Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the rabbit chew the cud? Bible inerrancy supported!
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 76 of 89 (235598)
08-22-2005 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Primordial Egg
08-22-2005 2:06 PM


Re: Circular Argument
No, I think "chewing the cud" is perfectly fine and appropiate.
In layman's terms, they appear to chew the cud. The fact that scientists insist now it is not chewing the cud is an issue for scientists, not anyone else.
If the translator wants, they can insert a footnote that the hare engages on pseudo-chewing the cud, but even that is unnecessary.
I mean some things don't need to be harped on. You can pick up the meaning while keeping the same terms. For example, when the Bible speaks of a man "knowing his wife" or "laid with her", we don't really need to retranslate the term and say, "had sex", do we?
That is not faithful to the original wording. We know what it means, and anyone can see what the Torah is talking about in terms of chewing the cud, although it's interesting that this is an exception, meaning God sets the hare apart.
It could even be God is saying even though, to you, the hare appears to chew the cud. It doesn't matter because the Hebrews used the term to apply to the hare so the phrase is equated with what hares do, even if they are technically not ruminants.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-22-2005 2:06 PM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-23-2005 9:30 AM randman has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 77 of 89 (235690)
08-22-2005 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by randman
08-22-2005 1:17 PM


Re: Circular Argument
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.
But gay still means happy. And no one has asserted that a dictionary is inerrant.
There fore you ar saying that chewing the cud had a differnet meaning? But you have no basis for this assertion. You expect by virtue of the fact that you are making this argument then it must be true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by randman, posted 08-22-2005 1:17 PM randman has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 89 (235893)
08-23-2005 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by randman
08-22-2005 3:01 PM


Re: Circular Argument
In layman's terms, they appear to chew the cud. The fact that scientists insist now it is not chewing the cud is an issue for scientists, not anyone else.
Are you saying here that the KJV should not be interpreted scientifically?
I mean some things don't need to be harped on. You can pick up the meaning while keeping the same terms. For example, when the Bible speaks of a man "knowing his wife" or "laid with her", we don't really need to retranslate the term and say, "had sex", do we?
If you were unfamiliar with Biblical language, you'd probably need to have it explained. So this was an idiom in Hebrew, where "chewing the cud" meant "looking as though chewing a cud"?
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by randman, posted 08-22-2005 3:01 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by timothy44, posted 12-09-2006 3:48 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Sharon357
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 89 (237881)
08-28-2005 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
08-21-2005 10:55 PM


Re: hare and cud
randman - "We have to discuss words and phrases according to the language of the time, and heck, if the Torah refers to the hare "chewing the cud" but modern science distinquishes between pseodo-chewing and chewing, who the heck cares? To pretend that a modern definition has any authority at all in the argument is quite absurd."
--
Excuse me, PSEUDO-CHEWING -- The rabbit chews nothing...(you meant pseudo-rumination, not pseudo-chewing)... and scholars, translators acknowledge this -- that it was the language of the time. Scripture means "chew", not "swallow whole" -- AGAIN --just like those who still defend the refection argument, you are confusing cud with rumination. Rumination is a process of digestion (involving food regurgitated and rechewed)... a cud is a wad that's chewed including tobacco. Now please tell me what does chewing tobacco and rumination have in common? NOTHING. I'll get to "appearances of chewing" in a second...
Look up cud (the Old English definition for the Bible. It was a wad that is chewed or the wad brought up and chewed in rumination.) Whether there's a second pass of food has NOTHING to do with cud chewing. That is rumination --not cud chewing. You're confusing two different things, as the same thing.
Take a look at the Hebrew meaning:
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
"of them that chew" ([05927] `alah) -- "for they chew"
Point blank, a cud is not rumination.
I was amazed when JP Holding (so called Apologist) stooped to denying "chew" is implied in the ORIGINAL HEBREW scripture. Oh boy it sure is, twice in fact. He is a liar.
Let's take a look at what Dr. Norman Geisler had to say (below). The funny thing is, JP Holding, Dr. Sarfati, and Professor Brand will have more trouble dealing with Dr. Geisler's rejection of literal cud-chewing, than skeptics will.) Dr. Geisler has the guts to say "No, it does not literally chew a cud." But Sarfati, Brand, Holding and other fundies consigned themselves to outer darkness when they swore vehemently, without full investigation, "the rabbit chews a cud, now convert!" -- now, upon seeing the error of their way, they can't take their word back. Just like scripture is unchanging, so are their errors. Their stubborness is their downfall. Fundies are getting their panties in a wad . . sorry, but refection is not cud chewing (by the Hebrew definition nor the Old English or modern one).
The Bible is very scientific in this regard. Moses made the very same error Linnaeus made.
--
On 8/18/2005 8:10:52 PM, ...@ses.edu wrote:
Sharon: Thanks for your note. If you read my article [When Critics Ask (page 89-90) under the entry on Leviticus 11:5-6], then you know I don't believe the rabbit chews the cud in the modern technical sense. It simply makes a chewing motion that from an observational point of view can be associated with other animals that do chew the cud in the technical sense.
Norm Geisler
--------
No disrespect intended for Dr. Geisler, but there is no Hebrew word in that scripture that indicates "appearances" of cud chewing either. It states emphatically "bringing up" a cud. (And we should ask "brings up" a "gerah" --what's a gerah, other than something that's Hebrew 'alah . . . a wad no doubt. (Why didn't the Hebrew omit that noun, gerah if it merely meant "appearances" of chewing.. to use the word chew was enough, wasn't it? Why include gerah or cud, the wad?)
the cud, [01625] gerah
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
Translators and scholars have been very clear --they feel Moses made an observation the rabbit appears to chew a cud --and some express simply, he made an error in observation.
---
"I'm not surprised at all when Fundies claim the rabbit chews a cud, afterall they're the ones who also claim rabbits lay eggs."
This message has been edited by Sharon357, 08-28-2005 01:27 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 08-21-2005 10:55 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by randman, posted 08-28-2005 2:48 AM Sharon357 has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 80 of 89 (237889)
08-28-2005 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Sharon357
08-28-2005 12:18 AM


Re: hare and cud
Sharon, I am not sure of your point. Are you saying a rabbit chews the cud but does not ruminate?
If so, it appears we are in agreement in the sense of the biblical term being correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Sharon357, posted 08-28-2005 12:18 AM Sharon357 has not replied

  
JJMorgan
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 89 (279194)
01-15-2006 4:54 PM


The Hebrew is the key
I have looked at the commentary rabbinical scholars and it doesn't seem clear that "ma'alah gerah" should be translated "chew the cud" as can be seen here: http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet2.html I also think the linguistic solution fits nicely with Professor Yedulah Felix of the Israeli Bar-Ilan University commentary:
"In our generation we have learned that the local hares of the genus called lepus are accustomed to eating a large amount of greens each morning. These are only partially digested and the remants are excreted in the form of balls on a flat open surface and later the hare returns to chew them, after these greens have undergone a process of chemical breakdown caused by bacteria." (see: — — ’ ’ | ’’‘ -’ ).

  
timothy44
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 89 (368684)
12-09-2006 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Primordial Egg
08-23-2005 9:30 AM


Re: Circular Argument
Primordial egg,
You wrote:
quote:
Are you saying here that the KJV should not be interpreted scientifically?
The KJV is just one translation and as can be seen from the previous post rabbinical scholars have quite a number of opinions regarding the translation issue at hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-23-2005 9:30 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Brian, posted 12-09-2006 4:26 PM timothy44 has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 83 of 89 (368694)
12-09-2006 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by timothy44
12-09-2006 3:48 PM


Re: Circular Argument
Hi T,
Sometimes it is worthwhile checking the date of the message you are replying to. This particular one is about 16 months old, it is unlikely PE will respond as I dont think he has posted here for about a year or so.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by timothy44, posted 12-09-2006 3:48 PM timothy44 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by timothy44, posted 12-09-2006 4:45 PM Brian has not replied

  
timothy44
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 89 (368701)
12-09-2006 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Brian
12-09-2006 4:26 PM


Re: Circular Argument
Brian,
Thanks for the tip.
Edited by timothy44, : No reason given.
Edited by timothy44, : WudkwK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Brian, posted 12-09-2006 4:26 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by AdminAsgara, posted 12-09-2006 6:50 PM timothy44 has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 85 of 89 (368725)
12-09-2006 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by timothy44
12-09-2006 4:45 PM


Re: Circular Argument
Hi Ken, why new name yet again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by timothy44, posted 12-09-2006 4:45 PM timothy44 has not replied

  
questioner
Junior Member (Idle past 6165 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 05-02-2007


Message 86 of 89 (398917)
05-03-2007 1:40 AM


Missing the Point
Whether the rabbit/hare or hyrax chew their cuds is irrelevant to finding inaccuracy in this section of the Bible. The Bible says each of these animals is unkosher because "its hoof is not split." Lev. 11:4-5. But, neither of these animals has hooves. Does anybody have a rabbit's hoof for good luck? And the Hebrew word here (Parsah) is not generic; it specifically means hoof, not foot and not paw. Verse 27 later in the chapter uses the term "its paws" (Cahpov), so the use or misuse of language here is very important.
Remember, this section is about kosher and unkosher animals. More to the point, verse 3 focuses on kosher animals that have both split hooves and chew their cuds. Verses 4 through 7 only list those animals that have one, but not the other. Jewish sources say that these are exhaustive lists that prove the existence of God. While that may be a stretch, at the very least these verses should include real examples of unkosher animals that might be mistaken as kosher.
The camel is a great example included here. It chews its cud and has a hoof, just not a completely split, cloven hoof. The pig makes a little sense if there could be a mistake as to what "chewing its cud" actually means. Clearly, there is a lot of debate over hares and rabbits chewing their cuds as opposed to cows. This thread has hyraxes waking up in the middle of the night to chew their cuds, so why not have a fear that pigs do the same? Anyway, let's assume that Jewish bacon lovers needed something in writing to tell them that pigs were off the menu.
That leaves the hare and the hyrax. What in the world are they doing here? They have no hooves. No one reading these verses would have thought that if they saw a monkey chewing gum it was time to get out the barbecue. Even a monkey appearing to chew its cud has no hooves, much less split hooves. Why include a warning for any animal that is clearly unkosher upon visual inspection?
And if a pig needs to be mentioned as a warning, what about a hippopotamus? At least that's a real life example of an animal with split hooves that someone might think is kosher. It's the same suborder as a pig and whether it chews its cud, given its undomesticated environment, might be an open question.
The Rabbis would say that the suborder Suiformes is the same for the hippo and pig. They would point to this as evidence that God exists because only God could have put together a list of all the animals that chew cud but have no cloven hooves or visa versa. Of course, the Jews in the desert knew nothing of suborders or animal classifications that wouldn't exist for thousands of years.
Also, given the lax definition of cud chewing, I'm sure some zoologist could come up with an animal that appears to be chewing its cud for some portion of the day and was not included on the suborders listed in these verses.
But I digress. If God wrote the Bible, and according to the Rabbis, not one letter or dot of the Old Testament is wrong or superfluous, then hares and hyraxes must have hooves. The Hebrew literally says for both that while each chews its cud "its HOOF is not split." It could have said it doesn't have a split hoof, which is technically correct. But God appears to think these animals have hooves.
As stated above, the chapter later uses the word paws, so this is not a case of using a generic term. The animals could have been used as examples of cud eaters who were unkosher without stating that they had no split hooves (which was obvious). From a Jewish perspective, that would have saved several extraneous Hebrew letters; and God could not have put in extra letters. If you delete the hare and hydrax as obvious examples that needn't be mentioned, you save even more letters.
Letters also have a great significance for the Rabbis since they each have a specified numerical value that can help to explain the text and teach other lessons. Extra letters are no small matter, and in this computerized world where the Bible is looked to for codes, they take on an even greater meaning.
Yes, I may have been too skeptical as a yeshiva student. But I have a hard time finding a divine hand in passages about hares and hyraxes with hooves.

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by AdminPD, posted 05-03-2007 11:50 AM questioner has replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 87 of 89 (398991)
05-03-2007 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by questioner
05-03-2007 1:40 AM


Welcome to EvC
Welcome Questioner,
Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure.
As members, we are guests on this board and as guests we are asked to put forth our best behavior. Please read the Forum Guidelines carefully and understand the wishes of our host. Abide by the Forum Guidelines and you will be a welcome addition.
In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant.
Please direct any questions or comments you may have to the Moderation Thread.
Again, welcome and fruitful debating. Purple

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encyclopedia Brittanica, on debate

Links for comments on moderation procedures and/or responding to admin msgs:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate Proposals
    Helpful links for New Members:
    Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], and Practice Makes Perfect

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 86 by questioner, posted 05-03-2007 1:40 AM questioner has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 88 by questioner, posted 05-11-2007 11:51 PM AdminPD has replied

      
    questioner
    Junior Member (Idle past 6165 days)
    Posts: 2
    Joined: 05-02-2007


    Message 88 of 89 (400300)
    05-11-2007 11:51 PM
    Reply to: Message 87 by AdminPD
    05-03-2007 11:50 AM


    Re: Welcome to EvC
    My apologies, AdminPD. No disrespect was intended. It wasn't until I received your message and re-read what I posted that I realized the tone and tenor of what I wrote may have been offensive to others. Once again, I apologize to you and to the other members of the forum. It will not happen again.
    Respectfully, questioner

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 87 by AdminPD, posted 05-03-2007 11:50 AM AdminPD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 89 by AdminPD, posted 05-12-2007 7:06 AM questioner has not replied

      
    AdminPD
    Inactive Administrator


    Message 89 of 89 (400316)
    05-12-2007 7:06 AM
    Reply to: Message 88 by questioner
    05-11-2007 11:51 PM


    Re: Welcome to EvC
    No apologies necessary. Actually is was an excellent post.
    This is just my standard welcome that provides links that are beneficial to new members and gives new members an idea of behavioral expectations here at EvC.
    It also serves as a reminder to those who may engage you in discussion.
    It is nice to see you are a conscientious person.
    I'm not sure how much discussion you'll get on this thread since the originator hasn't posted since 2004, but then again it has been revived a few times.
    Again welcome, and fruitful debating.
    AdminPD

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 88 by questioner, posted 05-11-2007 11:51 PM questioner has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024