Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the rabbit chew the cud? Bible inerrancy supported!
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 89 (77218)
01-08-2004 7:16 PM


Does the rabbit chew the cud? New info. Bible inerrancy is supported
ESSAY WITH ENDNOTES:
THE HYRAX CHEWS THE CUD! THE BIBLE'S CRITICS HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED AGAIN! DOES THE HARE CHEW THE CUD ALSO? THERE IS EVIDENCE POINTING TO HARE CUD CHEWING ALSO!
Moses declared in Leviticus 11: 5 over 3,000 years ago that the rock hyrax chews the cud. For readers unacquainted with rock hyraxes, the rock hyrax is a small animal that lives in the rocky areas of Arabia Petreae and the Holy Land. Some people have taken issue with Moses regarding rock hyrax cud chewing. So the question naturally arises, "What does the evidence say?"
According to the Biological Abstracts which are summaries of biological research done throughout the world, Abstract 72891 for the year 1967 says the following:
72891 HENDRICHS, H. Vergleichende Untersuchung des wiederkauverhaltens [ Comparative investigation of cud retainers] BIOL ZENTRALBL 84 (6): 671-751 Illus. 1965 [ recd.1966]. -- All artiodactyl families and about 80% of the spp. were investigated. Chewing regurgitated fodder is an idle pastime as well as an instinct associated with appetite. Characteristic movements were analyzed for undisturbed samples of animals maintained on preserves. Group specific differences are reported in form, rhythm, frequency and side of chewing motion. The ungulate type is characterized as a specialization. The operation is described for the first time for the order Hyracoidea. On the basis of 12 spp. of the marsupial subfamily Macropodinae rumination is inferred for the whole category. Advantages of the process are debated."
One of the writers for The Investigator Magazine (an Australian magazine that is devoted to Skeptic versus Bible Believer debates among other topics) made the following commentary regarding Hendrich's research:
"Notice the sentence: "The operation is described for the first time for the order of Hyracoida."
"Order Hyracoidea" is the scientific name of a category of animals that includes the Hyrax.....
In 1964 Zoologist Hubert Hendrichs observed hyraxes at the Munich zoo in Germany and noticed swallowing movements.....he observed a Hyrax making swallowing movements although not eating....He subsequently investigated more closely. Further observation showed that the Hyraxes chew the cud mainly at night for about an hour.....
The reason the Hyrax's cud chewing behavior remained unconfirmed so long is that the animal chews the cud as little as 30 minutes a day and usually at night. Unless hyraxes are held in captivity their cud chewing would not be noticed!"
Some people might raise the objection that the hyrax is not classified as a ruminant according to some science reference sources. Such an objection, while understandable, is not valid and is due to a misunderstanding. Specifically, in 1970 the Bible-Science Newsletter stated the following:
"Pasche quotes Friedrich Bettex, who in turn cites the distinguished authority on ruminants, Prof. Ruetimeyer of Basel:
"...I would call attention to the circumstances that in today's anatomical and embryological classification the practice of rumination is not decisive by itself. In other words, an animal may chew the cud and yet not be classified among the ruminantia."
Now lets be very practical. Would God tell the ancient Israelites to eat or not eat a food based on the animals embryological classification? Common sense would tell you that such a methodology would be wholly inappropriate. So it would fair to say that a reasonable person cannot raise the objection that a hyrax is not considered by all to be a ruminant according to zoological classification system where a true ruminant has a four chambered stomach and a ruminant can have a three chambered stomach. In addition, according to the zoological standard an animal must also plus meet anatomical and embryological criteria! Incidentally, the hyrax has a fermentation chamber in addition to its having a stomach (details will be provided later).
Of course, a perfectly valid question is: Does the hyrax have the appearance of chewing the cud? We do not want the early Israelites scratching their heads when they read that Leviticus states the shaphan/hyrax chews the cud. According to the online version of the Easton Bible Dictionary the hyrax is "continually working its teeth."
An objection a person could legitimately raise is that based on my preliminary research I only have one citation from the peer reviewed science literature showing that the hyrax chews the cud. Of course this is a legitimate objection. However, it is a two edged sword because the bar has been raised. According to a German peer reviewed biology journal, Hendrichs observed the Hyraxes chewing the cud for about an hour a day and mostly at night. So the question now becomes "Can you find me in the peer reviewed science journals where observers have watched hyraxes in captivity closely and continually for several 24 hour periods and NO cud chewing was observed?" I have asked a few skeptics who have a high interest in science this question and they found nothing. In my experience, so far the skeptics in the USA and Australia have struck out on this issue from an empirical science standpoint. In other words, I believe from an empirical point of view the Bible believer is standing on a firmer empirical scientific base in regards to the hyrax chewing the cud.
So why aren't more people TODAY aware the hyrax chews its cud. It is primarily a function of misunderstanding and misinformation. For example, one reason is that they are unfamiliar with the fact that the zoological classification can declare an animal is not a ruminant even though it chews its cud. Secondly, the Biological Abstracts only go back to 1990 via computer database search. If you want to find the BIOL ZENTRABL citation of 1967 you need to search through thick volumes in book form and there are tens of thousands of citations in the total Biological Abstracts so this is obviously a laborious process. Unfortunately, the laboriousness of searching manually through stacks can be a problem with the dissemination of information. For example, a recent issue of Library Journal mentions the case of Ellen Rochelle who died because a researcher was given a drug that caused lung damage but the researcher was not aware of possible lung damage associated with the drug being used because the researcher used the computer records of PubMed which only goes back to 1960 and the information was in the 1950's stacks. The Library Journal stated, "What happened is not just an indictment of one researcher but of a system in which people don't bother to research the literature anymore". Lastly, I think because the hyrax has a two chambered stomach many scientists just ASSUME the hyrax does not chew the cud. Of course, bad assumptions often inhibit science.
It should be said that a key issue in the hyrax/hare cud chewing issue is that the current Christian/rabbinical scholars are not in agreement with how the hebrew phrases "ma'alah gerah" and "gerah lo yigar" should be translated. Commonly these hebrew phrases are translated "chew the cud". This enters into the debate for the hyrax for example because the Samuel Clark in his 1981 Leviticus commentary suggested that that the term "gerah" "became expanded and the rodents, and pachyderms, which have a habit of grinding with their jaws, were familarly spoken of as ruminating animals." More will be said later regarding this issue when we discuss the hare where translation becomes more of an issue.
Lastly, in order to completely define the issue, it is important to identify the animal that is cited in Leviticus 11:5 using the hebrew word shaphan. The New King James Bible translates the Hebrew word shaphan into the words rock hyrax. The original word in the Hebrew in Leviticus 11:5 is shaphan. According to the available online International Standard Bible Encyclopedia the "shaphan.....is now universally considered to refer to the Syrian hyrax.....The Syrian hyrax lives in Syria, Palestine, and Arabia." The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible says the animal is "probably the hyrax" and although we cannot say with absolute certainty the animal is the hyrax, we must remember that since Strong published his concordance our knowledge of the Biblical creatures has grown (Dr. Strong and his colleagues were eminent scholars, but I am not sure if the editors have updated the new Strong's based on new findings). The Bible describes the shaphan as a small wise creature that hides among the rocks (Proverbs 30:26). This fits the hyrax who lives in colonies and is a socially gregarious animal that has a sentry who gives a shrill cry to warn other hyraxes of danger so they can hide among the clefts of the rocks. In addition, hyraxes are very adaptable creatures (I read that the hyraxes in Africa are very adaptable and so I am inferring that other hyrax species are as well). The hyrax has 21 separate vocalizations. According to a webpage published at the Israel's Bar-Ilan University by Professor Yehuda Felix, Faculty of Life Sciences, prior to wildlife protection laws that outlaw trapping or hunting hyraxes, the hyrax was "exceptionally wary" and it was previously difficult to follow their movements. Strong points out that the word shaphan is linguistically tied to the word saphan which implies hiding. Strong says the following regarding the word saphan: a primitive root; to conceal (as a valuable): -- treasure. In summary, although I would not go as far the International Bible Encyclopedia goes and say the shaphan is now "universally recognized as being the hyrax", I would say this is definitely the consensus opinion and that the best evidence supports this conclusion. Some scholars have reservations due to the fact that many biblical animals have uncertain identification. Also, some biblical scholars believe that various biblical animals have been misidentified (For example, Prof. Yehudah Felix in the Life Sciences department of the Israeli Bar-ILan University has said that some Bible animals have been misidentified according the the Jewish website Torat Emet).
Since the hare seems to get all the limelight in this controversy many readers are probably now asking, "So what about the hare!" Does the hare chew its cud as Leviticus 11: 6 seems to indicate?
First of all, it should be stated that both the hyrax and hare have a fermentation chamber in addition to having a stomach. Dr. Brandt, writes, "Other modifications of the stomach or some part of the intestines to provide a fermentation chamber are found in rodents, rabbits and hares, gallinaceous birds, horses, hyrax (McBee 1971). See the following website for this important detail plus other matters: Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that... Both hares hares and hyraxes seem to have a more complex digestive process than many animals. The details of the hyraxes complex digestive system can be seen as this website: Page not found - Apologetics Press (Please note the author of the piece at Page not found - Apologetics Press made one error in his essay. He claimed that Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopdia in 1975 said that hyraxes are ruminants. The Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia of 1975 actually stated that hyraxes ruminate). Why are these facts regarding the digestive processes of hyraxes and hares important? It is important because if the peer reviewed science literature states the hyrax chews the cud it is by no means inconceivable that the hare could chew its cud as well since they both have fairly complex digestive processes that have some similarities like the fermentation chamber mentioned beforehand. Some specific behaviors of hares/Israeli hares in regards to their digestive practices will be discussed later in this essay.
This is what Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia says about the hare:
" While not a true ruminant according to modern classification in that it does not have a four chambered stomach, the hare does rechew its food. There is a process of partial regurgitation of material that it is too hard for little cells in the stomach to absorb initially; thus there hare actually chews food previously swallowed (E.P. Schulze, "The Ruminating Hare,"Bible-Science Newsletter, VIII [Jan. 15, 1970], 6)."
Are there any experts on ruminants who say the hare chews its cud? The Bible-Science Newsletter offers the following:
" Pasche quotes Friedrich Bettex, who in turn cites the distinguished authority on ruminants, Prof. Ruetimeyer of Basel as being quite sure the hare ruminates:
"That the hare chews the cud is not new to me. Only, I would call attention to the circumstances that in today's anatomical and embryological classification the practice of rumination is not decisive by itself. In other words, an animal may chew the cud and yet not be classified among the ruminantia."
So do I have any reports of individuals observing hare or rabbit cud chewing? The Bible-Science Newsletter reports the following about the rabbit (although the rabbit is not native to Palestine, according to the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, I am assuming that hares are somewhat similar to rabbits, although in science, as stated before, overly relying on assumptions can and does lead to wrong conclusions):
F.C. Pasche writes (I am translating his words from the German):
"The poet Cowper, who kept rabbits and observed them minutely testifies that one of them ruminated all day until evening. Goldsmith: The Rhinocerous, the horse, the rabbit, the marmot and the squirrel all chew at intervals"
Is there any other evidence the hare chews the cud? The Bible-Science Newsletter continues:
"In a footnote Engelder quotes Jenks and Warne, Comprehensive Commentary as follows:
"Arnebeth. That this is the hare is confirmed in the cognate languages. That it chews the cud is proven beyond all doubt. See Michaelis and Linnaes. Although it wants the four stomachs to peculiar to cleft cattle, yet it returns the food, once chewed, into its mouth by the esophagus, since its stomach has several little cells divided by partitions from which the food, while it is too hard are repelled."
(I agree that that the Hebrew word arnebeth in Leviticus 11: 6 refers to the hare because the word arnab in Arabic means hare according the the online version of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Plus according to the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopdia there are ancient Middle Eastern reliefs of hares).
Below is some material which strongly adds to the article published by E.P. Schulz in the Bible-Science Newsletter published above:
Professor Yedulah Felix of the Israeli Bar-Ilan University writes:
"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."
A key quote of Professor Yedulah Felix above is "in our generation we have learned". This raises a vital question of course. Namely, "How much do we really know about the hares of Palestine in order to declare that they do not chew the cud?" Remember, the hyrax and the hare both have a fermentation chamber. And remember, it was not reported in the peer reviewed scientific literature until 1965 that the hyrax which has a fermentation chamber chews the cud. Here is a quote from the Bible Science newsletter which was cited from the first half of the 20th century which I think still applies today:
"Finally, in this note he [Engelder, who published in the theological journal Concordia Monthly, in July, 1941] cites Dr. P.E. Kretzman: "Careful scientists, even distinguished biologists, such as one at a leading state university which I attended, have admitted that our knowledge of certain mammals of this class would not warrant our declaring the statement of Leviticus 11:6 untrue. While mammals of this class do not have a digestive apparatus of those that chew the cud, there is evidently a process of total or partial regurgitation, together with a second chewing of the food, which fully substantiates the statement found in Scripture. It is not a mere semblence of chewing the cud with which we are dealing but an actual chewing of the food previously swallowed."
At his webpage, Professor Brand, chairman of the department of Biology at Loma Linda University, points out that lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) produce special pellets which they reingest to gain additional nutritional benefits. Regarding when these special pellets are created Dr. Brand says the following: "...when they cease their activity and retire to their burrows or resting areas, they begin producing soft pellets which they eat as soon as they are passed." As a side note, Professor Brand published in the journal Origins that Jules Carles, one of the foremost geneticists of our time, studied the biological processes of rabbits. And based on Mr. Carles study, Mr. Carles stated the following: "it is difficult to deny that rabbits are ruminants".
It appears to me that the different species of hares practice different behaviors. For example, Professor Yehuda Felix in the Life Sciences Department at the Israeli Bar-Illan University indicates that local hares in Israel spit up "food balls" on rocks and then reingest those "food balls". Professsor Brand mentions that lagomorphs practice refection. Professor Reutimeyer, an authority of ruminants said, "That the hare chews its cud is not new to me." Here is a possibilty: Perhaps hares in Israel practice the folowing behaviors: spitting "food balls" up on rocks and then reingesting those "food balls", refection, and regurgitating food into their mouth and reingesting food while it is still in their mouth! You can say I am "splitting hares" but I think the science is too cloudy in this area based on my hyrax/hare and Israeli hare research. For example, I know from my reading one of the writers at Investigator Magazine that in the 18th century, European scientists declared that the Bible was in error because it declared that ants store up their food. The 18th century scientists assumed that just because the Northern European ants do not store up their food, that all ants do not store up their food. This proved to be a bad assumption because there are species of ants in other areas that do store up their food. Perhaps the steady tortoise like research of patient scientist will eventually discover all the behaviors of hares in the Middle East and other hares as well in relation to Leviticus 11: 6.
In the meantime, there is excellent evidence that the Bible has a superb track record in terms of accurately describing animal behavior. Investigator Magazine has a letter from Britannica, published on their website, that based the new research Britannica has examined they will (and subsequently have) revise(d) their encyclopedias which formerly said that cobras cannot hear charmers but respond to vibrations produced by the charmers instruments. The Bible proved correct again in that the best evidence supports that cobras do hear the charmers just as the Bible declared. Also, consider this as reported by a writer to Investigator Magazine: naturalists spent a considerable amount of time observing lions and I am assuming they used high tech cameras and binoculars. Even with all the advantages the scientists had, they wrongly assumed that lions primarily killed their prey by breaking their neck or by using other methods (the naturalist Brocklehurst, Tjader, Guggisberg, and Eloff got it wrong on how lions kill their prey. [see endnotes for details]). Most Bible translations, especially the literal ones, say in Nahum 2:12 that lions strangle their prey. The current consensus view of naturalists is that lions kill their prey though strangulation.
Ultimately though, I think it is safe to say that hares appear to chew the cud at the very least, since Creation Magazine has stated that Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy, initially classified hares as ruminants based on the motions of their jaws. And it is patently obvious that the ancient Israelites would be no different than Linnaes in terms of his observation regarding hare cud chewing.
The next obvious question is: "Are there any peer reviewed science journals that say that rabbits, hares, or Israeli hares chew the cud?" I will admit at this point that I am in need of a scientist who is adept at doing scientific research to see if such findings are available. I would caution the person who says that the ancient Middle Eastern hares or that other species of hares do not chew the cud to remember the example of the 1965 peer reviewed hyrax citation in the scientific literature and the recent discoveries about Israeli hares. To be more precise, in order to say that hares/Middle Eastern hares do not chew the cud you must find a study where the hares and/or Middle Eastern hares are closely observed for several continuous 24 hour period in order to assert that hares do not chew the cud. Otherwise, you merely have more chuzpah than evidence. So far I have not had anyone tell me why this is a unreasonable standard.
A vital question in this whole hyrax/hare cud chewing issue in order to properly frame the issue as alluded to earlier is, "What does the correct translation of the term that is typically rendered "chew the cud"?" Here is some useful commentary from the Bible-Science Newletter from Pastor Schultz:
"....One may proceed to the next work [sic] in the text, the Hebrew conjunction ki, and here it should be noted that the Hebrew language is very economical in words, often making one word serve a variety of purposes. Thus the word ki, translated in the passage under discussion as "because," may and sometimes does signify (among other things) "if" or "although" and we are perfectly justified in render the clause: "if he cheweth the cud" or "although he may cheweth the cud". "
I think Pastor Schultz makes a excellent point that few or no other commentators raise. Because what if some species of hares chew the cud and others do not! And it seems as though the possibility that are hares are not created with the same behavior in terms of exactly how they reingest food (Professor Felix says that Israeli hares spit up "food balls" on rocks which they later reingest after bacteria has worked on the "food balls". Professor Brand says that hares practice refection. Professor Ruetimeyer, the expert on Ruminants said, "that the hare chews the cud is not new to me").
Regarding the remaining relevant words of the Leviticus 11: 5-6 and related passages excellent commentary is provided by both Christian and Jewish sources. Two sources I suggest that are provided by Tektonics Apologetics Ministries or linked to their site are: http://www.tektonics.org/cudchewers.html and http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet2.html (Torat Emet, Jewish Site).
As we stated before, the words "ma'alah gerah" and "gerah lo yigor" are commonly translated "chew the cud". The Jewish Site Torat Emet raises three important questions. The first question is the following: "Is it likely or possible that the Hebrew words "ma'alah gerah" words can be translated other ways as well?" Also, "Is likely or possible that the precise definition of words "ma'alah gerah" was lost with the passage of time?" Lastly, is it likely or possible that many translators and commentators overly restricted the translation of the Hebrew words: "ma'alah gerah" over time? The Jewish site Torat Emet list 5 plus different views that the Jewish/rabbinical/Christian scholars take regarding the Hebrew phrase "ma'alah gerah". Why are there some many views? One of the reasons is that the word gerah is used very sparingly in the Old Testament text and it is ONLY used in the in the phrases "mal'alah gerah" and "gerah lo yigor" ("gerah lo yigor" is only used in connection with swine and scholars have different explanations on why this is the case). I think if you review the two weblinks provided above you will come to the conclusion that at least three out of the four rabbinical views have merit and JP Holding's commentary can be upheld as well. In addition, you could reasonably say that Samuel Clark's view of the Hebrew words ma'alah gerah also has merit (Samuel Clark said the Hebrew words ma'alah gerah became expanded over time). Thus, I think we can safely say that the precise meaning of the words ma'alah gerah has become partially lost through the passage of time and thus can be translated other ways as well. On the other hand, I do believe that some illumination has been shed on the Hebrew translation so I will provide a brief synopsis.
The Jewish website provides the following commentary regarding the Hebrew phrase "ma'alah gerah" :
"The early grammarian R' Menachem ben Saruk connects the phrase ma'alah gerah with the phrase in 2 Samuel 14:14 uchemayim hanigarim. The latter phrase refers to water being drawn. Evidently, R' Manachem ben Sarak understands the word gerah as meaning something that is pulled in. Similarly, R' Yonah Ibn Janach in his Sefer Hashorashim (sv GRH translated gerah as mesichah - dragging. They would presumably translate the phrase ma'alah gerah as "raising something that is drawn into the mouth".
I take the view that gerah could refer to drawing in plus I think that JP Holding offers excellent commentary.
Next let us take a closer look at the Hebrew word alah. Strong's concordance says the word alah can be translated: ascended up, carry up, cast up, fetch up, get up, recover, restore, take up, and much more. In other words, the Hebrew word alah is very flexible in its usage. It is not restricted to the Leviticus 11: 5-6 verses but is found in a very large amount of verses. For example, in Joshua 24:17 the word alah is used in the following way: "It was the Lord our God who brought us and our fathers up out of Eygpt." Isaiah 8:7 uses the word alah in the following manner: "therefore the Lord is about to bring against them the mighty floodwaters of the River..." JP Holding at the Tektonics Apologetics Ministries webiste offers the following useful commentary: "So: the Hebrew word in question is NOT specific to the process of regurgitation; it is a phrase of general movement."
So let's tie our understanding of the Hebrew word alah with the commentary on the Jewish site Torat Emet. The Jewish site Torat Emet says "Evidently, R'Manachem be Saruk understands the word gerah as meaning something that is pulled in". We have also seen alah can mean the following: take up, fetch up, recover. So here is my conclusion:
After reading the two links regarding the Hebrew words "gerah ma'alah" and "gerah lo yigar" (which many translators translate "chew the cud") I think you can see that that the Hebrew phrase "ma'alah gerah" is very compatible or at the very least possibly compatible with Professor Felix's observation that some or all of species of local hares in Israeli spit up "food balls" on rocks and then redigest those "food balls". In addition, the actual Hebrew words are also very compatible or at the very least possibly compatible with Professor Brand's comments on lagomorphs (hares and rabbits) practicing refection. And of course, the Hebrew words fit what the expert on rumination Professor Ruetimeyer said. If you may recall Professor Reutimeyer said "that the hare chews the cud is not new to me". Perhaps, God used Hebrew words that are VERY flexible for a reason. Namely, because the circumstances of the hares reingestion are diverse. Granted, the Hebrew words have caused some debate among scholars. On the other hand, it seemed to fit the ancient Israeli needs well. We hear of no Israeli grumbling in the wilderness regarding the words "gerah ma'alah" or "gerah lo yigar" and what they exactly mean. And the ancient Israeli's were experts at grumbling in the wilderness! I don't think much has changed as far as human nature since the Jewish exodus from Egypt judging by the behavior of some regarding the "cud controversy". Lastly, it seems apparent to me that the translators and commentators being unaware of the diverse circumstances regarding hare reingestion of food inadvertently restricted the translation of the words "ma'alah gerah."
I realize that some individuals approach this essay with certain preconceived notions regarding the Hebrew phrase "ma'alah gerah" and may have not closely looked at the Jewish site and JP Holding site I provided. I would say, however, if someone wishes to be inflexible on the issue of translating the words "ma'alah gerah" that they at least explain why the 5-6 plus positions of the rabbinical/Christian scholars regarding the translation are untenable and why the scarcity of the usage of the word gerah and the phrase "ma'alah gerah" has not diminished their certainty. It seems to me that at least a few of these positions have merit. In short, I do not mind reasonable inflexibility but I wish it to be fully informed and rationale inflexibility so I would suggest they look at the two sites I provided above.
In summary, one of the problems regarding this issue and others like it is that you have to understand the following: the Hebrew scholarship, the available scientific literature, and lastly understand the current limitations in our current scientific understanding. I will say that this was the most challenging Bible controversy I have encountered but like most things it will yield to patient study. I hope this piece was helpful in clarifying the issue. If others wish to scour the databases and stacks of the available scientific literature and/or conduct further experiments to clarify things further, I would enjoy seeing the issue further clarified.
ENDNOTES
African Wildlife Foundation's webpage, re: hyraxes are very adaptable: List of Wild Animals and Endangered Species of Africa
An Ultimate Ungulate Fact Sheet (webpage fact sheet), re: hyraxes having sentries, 21 vocalizations: The page cannot be found
Bible-Science Newsletter, VIII [Jan. 15, 1970], E.P. Schultz, "The Ruminting Hare", page 6, website for publisher: Creation Moments – Bible Creation Lessons | Creation Vs. Evolution Debate | Creation Science .
Brand, Leonard, R., Chaiman of Department of Biology, Loma Linda University: webpage: "Do Rabbits Chew the Cud? Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...
Brand, Leonard R. (1977), "Do Rabbits Chew the Cud?, Origins, 4 (2): 102-104
Clark, Samuel, (1981, "Leviticus," The Bible Commentary, ed. F.C. Cook, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker)
Creation Magazine, Vol. 20, Issue 4, "Do Rabbits Chew the Cud" by Jonathon Sarfati. posted at website: Rabbitsdo they chew their cud? Oct 27, 2005 | Answers in Genesis
Easton Bible Dictionary, online version, Coney (hyrax): Coney - Easton's Bible Dictionary Online
Encyclopedia.com: re: hyraxes living in colonies: Just a moment...
Engelder, Verbal Inspiration (Concordia Theological Monthly, July 1941, pages 490-491).
Felix, Prof. Yedulah, Israel's Bar-Ilan University: webpage on shafan and arnevet: — — ’ ’ | ’’‘ -’
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, online Version: Coney (hyrax): Coney - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, online version: Hare: Hare - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Investigator Magazine, 2000, March, Vol 70: re: ants: The Bible: Tested, True, and Triumphant, (anonymous writer for this piece), P.O, Box 3243, Port Adelaide, Australia 5015: ADSL, ADSL2+, Broadband plans, Internet, Telephone, VOIP, SIM | Internet Service | Adam Australia | Internet Service | Adam Australia
Investigator Magazine, 1994, September, Vol. 38, re: cobras, "Revising the Britannica to Agree with the Bible", Port Adelaide, Australia, 5015, ADSL, ADSL2+, Broadband plans, Internet, Telephone, VOIP, SIM | Internet Service | Adam Australia | Internet Service | Adam Australia
Investigator Magazine, 1991, May, Vol.18: "The Hyrax Supports the Bible!", (anonymous writer for this piece), P.O. Box 3243, Port Adelaide, Australia 5015 ADSL, ADSL2+, Broadband plans, Internet, Telephone, VOIP, SIM | Internet Service | Adam Australia | Internet Service | Adam Australia
Investigator Magazine, 2000, March, Vol 70, re: Hyrax spends about an hour a day regurgitating and rechewing food, The Bible: Tested, True and Triumphant (anonymous writer for this piece),
ADSL, ADSL2+, Broadband plans, Internet, Telephone, VOIP, SIM | Internet Service | Adam Australia | Internet Service | Adam Australia
Investigator Magazine, 2002, November, Vol. 87, re: lion behavior and the Bible as described by the Bible: "Lions and the Bible" (anonymous writer for this piece), P.O.Box 3243, Port Adelaide, Australia, ADSL, ADSL2+, Broadband plans, Internet, Telephone, VOIP, SIM | Internet Service | Adam Australia | Internet Service | Adam Australia
Library Journal, 9/1/2002, "Could Librarian's Help Prevented Hopkins Tragedy?"
New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, 1990, Thomas Nelson Publshers, Nashville
Pasche, F.C., Erklaerung etlicher Stellen in den Buechern Mosis (Lehre und Wehre, June-July, 1923, page 188).
Torat Emat, webpage, re: Bible animal identification: http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet2.html
Wildlife Campus's webpage: re: hyraxes are small and gregarious, WildlifeCampus
Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, 1983, Animals of the Bible, Beasts of the field: hare, page 80, Moody Press, Chicago, IL
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-04-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Yaro, posted 01-20-2004 1:08 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 89 (77221)
01-08-2004 7:27 PM


re: Does the rabbit chew the cud?
FRIENDLY REQUEST TO READERS AND POSTERS TO THIS STRING:
I have some reasonable request for those who wish to participate in a discussion regarding the hare/cud issue. If you could accommodate my request I would be in indebted to you:
Please read my essay before responding. I had several gentleman write me because they only read the title and the answers to their questions were in my essay.
Please focus the debate on the hare/hyrax/rabbit/cud issue. If you want to create a string on another topic and create a well reasoned and well written topic that you wish to defend I would encourage you to do so. However, on this post string, I courteously ask that we talk about this particular issue and keep our focus on this topic.
Please be a courteous discussant and read my essay before responding. I had one gentleman at another forum post a reply to my essay but he only read the title.
Also, if you are going to assert the hare or hyrax does not chew the cud and the Bible made a mistake please meet the standard of evidence I give in my essay. If you do not feel my standard is reasonable, please state why you feel my standard of evidence is unreasonable and be as specific as possible. In addition, if you could address my Felix/Kretzman argument as well this would also be appreciated.
Also, if you state the hare does not chew the cud because it is not a Ruminant I would suggest you read my essay closer due to two reasons: 1) Professor Ruetimeyer, the distinguished authority on Ruminants, said that an animal CAN chew the cud and still not be declared a Ruminant because there is more than one factor that determines if a animal is declared a Ruminant (see my essay for details). 2) Also, Professor Ruetimeyer said, "That the hare chews the cud is not new to me...." 3) The best evidence which was provided by Hendrichs in peer reviewed journal demonstrates the hare chews the cud. Both hares and hyraxes have a fermentation chamber in addition to having a stomach. If you have better empirical evidence that the hyrax does not chew the cud then please present it. If you still feel the Ruminant objection can be maintained the please fully support this assertion.
Also, if you are going to state that your particular rendering of the Hebrew of "ma'alah gerah is correct, the please state why the other 5 plus translations cited in the rabbinical and Christian literature by scholars is untenable (I give two links regarding this issue in my essay). I would also like to address the issue regarding the fact that the phrase "ma'alah gerah" is used for sparingly in the Old Testament and why this fact of the scarcity of usage would not make translating problematic.
Lastly, here is an interesting website in that sheds some light on a animal which seems similar to the hare the rabbit:
http://www.gw.org/Rabbit.htm
I do realize that the Bible animal is a hare and not a rabbit however.
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-06-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by kendemyer, posted 01-12-2004 1:46 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 51 by Sharon357, posted 08-15-2005 7:17 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 89 (78029)
01-12-2004 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by kendemyer
01-08-2004 7:27 PM


Re: re: Does the rabbit chew the cud?
Dear Readers:
This post string is for the issue of the hare/cud issue only.
Please do not consider this post to be a invitation to debate the general issue of Bible inerrancy. It is not. I am posting this for people who have other Bible questions as a courtesy. I have had many different questions about various Bible issues and at this time I simply do not have the time to answer them. But I do want to answer them so I have provided resources below as a courtesy to the public.
ANSWERS TO BIBLE QUESTIONS PLUS BIBLE INERRANCY DISCUSSED
This webpage is devoted to supporting the doctrine of Bible inerrancy. First, I provide some resources for answering Bible questions and then I give evidence which supports the doctrine of Bible inerrancy:
ANSWERS TO BIBLE QUESTIONS. USER FRIENDLY RESOURCES.
Bible Query - Answers to Bible questions (look up by verse)
http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html (extremely well organized )
A Christian Thinktank (allows lookup by topic or keywords )
Christian Answers Network [Home] - Multilingual answers, reviews, ministry resources, and more! - ChristianAnswers.Net
BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.: Rbc (general questions)
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible (excellent free commentaries)
ADVANCED GOOGLE TIPS SO YOU CAN FIND BIBLE ANSWERS NOW!
Google (search engine)
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en (advanced searches)
Refine web searches - Google Search Help (advanced Google help)
AWESOME BIBLE SITES I FOUND THROUGH Google
NOAH'S ARK:
Noah's ark seen through the eyes of a nautical engineer:
GoDaddy Security - Access Denied
Historical accounts of Noah's ark sitings:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~arktracker/ark/Sightings.html
Noah's ark, objections answered
Noah’s Ark | Answers in Genesis
Noah's ark design debate:
http://EvC Forum: About that Boat - Noah's Ark -->EvC Forum: About that Boat - Noah's Ark
(God is smart enough to tell Noah how to overcome some design issues plus the Chinese seemed to do it).
Noah's ark, insects not welcome:
ADSL, ADSL2+, Broadband plans, Internet, Telephone, VOIP, SIM | Internet Service | Adam Australia | Internet Service | Adam Australia
More answers regarding Noah's ark:
http://www.ldolphin.org/cisflood.html
JONAH AND THE BIG FISH, IT HAPPENED! BELIEVE IT!
http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=188
DEFENSE OF CHRISTIANITY SITES
http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111 (VERY comprehensive apologetics site)
Page not found - Apologetics.com (comprehensive site, excellent essays)
http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=184 (Bible prophecy)
http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=185 (Bible archaeology)
http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showforum=15 (articles created by the author of this webpage)
http://www.myfortress.org (fairly comprehensive site)
http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=180 (creationism sites)
(I generally agree with most of the essays written at the above 2 Christian apologetic sites for the most part although two of the essays neglect to mention that the new city of Tyre is not built upon the old one although it is extremely close to it. Some of Pascal's writings are brilliant but I disagree with some points Pascal made. Also, the creator of the http://www.myfortress.org site made what I think could be a very small error. He gave a report of Voltaire's death which I know has conflicting testimony. On of the sites has pro Big bang theory proponents and I do not agree with the Big Bang theory. Other than these concerns I wholeheartedly endorse these sites).
WHERE THE CRITICS OF THE BIBLE OFTEN GO WRONG
http://www.tektonics.org/calcon.html
WHAT IS BIBLE INERRANCY (FREE OF ERROR)? SHORT ESSAYS.
Bible | Answers in Genesis
A COMMON OBJECTION OF BIBLE INERRANCY
http://tektonics.org/JPH_IHI.html
RECOMMENDED AUTHORS AND BOOKS
MacArthur Study Bible answers a lot of Bible inerrancy issues in its notes (I do not always agree with MacArthur's theology but he is a top notch scholar)
Dr. Gleason Archer has been called the "apostle of Bible inerrancy". Dr. Geisler has also written some excellent works on this subject. Here is a link to some books by these gentleman:
http://www.helpmewithbiblestudy.org/20s/t_difficulties.htm
Also, although it is out of print and you would need to do a search through used book dealers I think the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia is a superb reference source that answers Bible questions.
IMPORTANT REQUEST TO READERS
1. Please do not ask me to argue about Bible inerrrancy. If you have a Bible inerrancy question please use the Bible questions answered sites I gave above. I hate arguing. It raises my blood pressure and gives me knots in my stomach. I won't do it! LOL
2. Please do not ask me any Bible questions. I would love to answer all your Bible questions, however, I am self-employed right now my plate is currently full. I think the resources I gave you will enable you to find your own answers. In short, I did not give you a fish but taught you how to fish! God bless your efforts. You can get your Bible questions answered. I am speaking from experience.
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-04-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by kendemyer, posted 01-08-2004 7:27 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 89 (79562)
01-20-2004 12:56 PM


another resource
Dear Readers:
I also wanted to mention that I have written other articles on the Bible if anyone wishes to examine them. Please go to the following web address if you are interested:
http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showforum=15
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-04-2004]

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 89 (79563)
01-20-2004 12:58 PM


a friendly request
Dear Readers:
I am sorry for this digression. As I said in my initial post I would like to limit the discussion to hare/rabbit/hyrax cud issues.
Here is something I gave Yaro who is the next poster to this string and it cleared up Yaro's questions:
PLEASE READ THESE QUESTIONS THEY WILL PROVIDE INVALUABLE ASSISTANCE IN CLARIFYING THINGS AND CLEAR UP MOST IF NOT ALL YOUR QUESTIONS.
Below is a string of questions I gave for a gentleman I had a discussion with:
PLEASE NOTE:
Do not answer the transcript questions unless you are being difficult! LOL
VERY IMPORTANT NOTE TO ALL READERS:
I ASKED THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT SOMETIMES THE SOCRATIC METHOD (ASKING QUESTIONS) IS THE BEST WAY TO EXPLAIN OR TEACH CONCEPTS. IF I WERE TO FORCE MY POSITION THROUGH NON-QUESTIONS IT WOULD HAVE ONLY BROUGHT RESENTMENT. I REALIZE I ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS BUT SOMETIMES SCIENCE ISSUES AND ISSUES OF TRANSLATION OF ANCIENT TEXT WHERE PHRASES AND WORDS HAVE LIMITED/DATA ARE DIFFICULT TO ANSWER. PLEASE IGNORE THE DIPLOMA/TRANSCRIPT QUESTIONS (UNLESS I THINK YOU MAY BE CHOOSING TO BE DIFFICULT!)
Dear Sir:
I have come to the conclusion you are perhaps doing the best you can. I will make it easier for the you and the audience to discover how certain you are in declaring Leviticus 11: 5-6 to be in error. I also realize it is definitely my fault to some degree the lack of clarity in our debate. To be honest it is hard to tell over the internet since communication is more difficult. When you answer my questions please put the number of the question next to your answer.
I think this list will clarify things for yourself and the audience. I put the questions in a certain order so they could be a teaching tool for yourself.
1) How important is it for this debate from 1 to 100 where 100 is super important that Professor Ruetimeyer,the authority on ruminants, said, "a animal can chew the cud and still not be a ruminant" for an animal that has a fermentation chamber plus has a peer science journal saying it chews the cud (this is of course the hyrax)
Please justify your answer
2) How important is it for this debate from 1 to 100 where 100 is super important that professor Ruetimeyer, the authority on ruminants said, "a animal can chew the cud and still not be a ruminant" for the hare who has:
a fermentation chamber, it shares in common that fact it has fermentation chamber with the hyrax, it has professsor ruetimeyer declaring it chews the cud and he is an expert in rumination, it has cowper declare he watched its "cousin" the rabbit minutely and it chewed the cud, and jules carles, the world famous geneticist says that based on a comparative study between its "cousin" the rabbit and a cow that "it is hard to declare the rabbit is not a ruminant."
Please justify your answer
3) How could you tell the difference between an animal just moving its teeth and it ruminating?
Please elaborate
4) How sure could you be regarding question 3 from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty.
Please justify
5) when did hendrichs say the hyrax chewed the cud? How was it distributed throughout the day according to Hendrichs?
6) Is 24 hour continous study for several days better than non- continuous study in order to determine rumination for the hyrax?
Yes? No?
7) How important to have careful empirical data such as hendrichs which was 24 hour continuous monitering for several days if you want to be a careful scientist on a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is very important (please keep in mind that he was published in a peer reviewed science journal)?
Please fully justify your answer.
8) do you have comparable data to hendrichs in terms of his 24 continuous study for several days?
yes? no?
9) How likely is it that the hyrax does chews the cud on scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty?
Please justify your answer.
(please consider Hendrich data compared to others and hendrichs was published in a peer reviewed science journal, please consider the hyraxes fermentation chamber, please consider that an animal can be ruminate but still not be a ruminant according to ruetimeyer))
10) How likely is it that you are wrong about the number you gave in question #9 on a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty.
Please fully support your answer
11)How confident should the audience reading this post be regarding the number you gave in question 10 from a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty.
please fully support your answer.
12) Is it preferable to have 24 hour continuous study to determine if hares chew the cud?
Yes? No?
13) if it is not preferable then please state why.
14) How important is it on a scale from 1 to 100 to study hares for a 24 hours continuously in captivity for several days if you want to be a careful scientist where 100 is really important?
please justify your answer
15) do you have any data where hares where closely monitered for 24 hours continuously and they did not chew the cud?
Yes? NO?
How much does your reply to this question matter on a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is really important?
16) do you have any data for Middle eastern hares where they were continuously monitered for several 24 hour periods and no cud chewing was observed.
Does it matter? Please justify your answer.
17) How likely is it that the hare chews the cud on scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty?
(please considers Hendrich data compared to others, please consider the hyraxes fermentation chamber, please consider that the hare also has a fermentation chamber,please consider that an animal can be ruminate but still not be a ruminant according to ruetimeyer, please consider that jules carles said it is hard to say that a rabbit does not ruminate and a rabbit could be similar to a hare, and the hyrax and hare both have a fermentation chamber)
Please fully support your answer.
18) How likely is it that you are wrong about the number you gave in question 17 on a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty.
Please fully support your answer
19)How confident should the audience reading this post be regarding the number you gave in question 18 from a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty.
please fully support your answer.
20) How likely is it that the hare does chews the cud on scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty?
(please considers Hendrich data compared to others, please consider the hyraxes fermentation chamber, please consider that an animal can be ruminate but still not be a ruminant according to ruetimeyer, please consider that one science reference source says the hyrax is a ruminant)
Please fully support your answer.
21) How likely is it that you are wrong about the number you gave in question #20 on a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty.
Please fully support your answer
22)How confident should the audience reading this post be regarding the number you gave in question 21 from a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty.
please fully support your answer.
23) How likely is it that the hyrax does chews the cud on scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty?
(please considers Hendrich data compared to others, please consider the hyraxes fermentation chamber, please consider that an animal can be ruminate but still not be a ruminant according to ruetimeyer, please consider that one science reference source says the hyrax is a ruminant)
Please fully support your answer.
24) How likely is it that you are wrong about the number you gave in question #23 on a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty.
Please fully support your answer
25)How confident should the audience reading this post be regarding the number you gave in question 25 from a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty.
please fully support your answer.
26) On a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is very competent how competent are you in hebrew?
27) If you gave a high number for question 26 please describe for the readers your Hebrew education or self study.
ONLY ANSWER THIS QUESTION IF YOU ARE BEING DIFFICULT OR i THINK YOU MAY BE BEING DIFFICULT!
28) if it is self study how do you propose showing the readers you are competent?
SEE INSTRUCTIONS FOR QUESTION 27
29) If you had hebrew education can you send the transcripts to the moderator or verify it somehow.
SEE INSTRUCTIONS FOR QUESTION 28
30) if you have transcripts can you please post them on the internet.
SEE INSTRUCTIONS FOR QUESTION 29
31) How well could you explain why each of the other 5 plus rabbinical/christian scholars were wrong for each individual scholar on a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is fantastic.
please justify your answer
32) did you explain why each of the other 5 plus rabbinical/christian scholars were wrong or more likely to be wrong for each individual scholar?
yes? no?
33) on a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty how confident are you that "malah gerah" ONLY means chews the cud?
please justify
34)How confident are you in the number you gave in question 33
from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty?
please justify
35) How confident should the readers be in the number you gave in question 34 from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty and why?
Please justify
36) are you taking into account your combined uncertainty regarding the language and the science issues if you determine that the Leviticus 11: 5 is in error and taking into a account the opinions of the commentators Samuel Clark, Saruk and JP Holding in your opinion?
Who is samuel clark? why did saruk say what he said and why did he say what he said? Please do the same for Holding as you did for Saruk.
37) How confident from 1-100 are you that the Bible made a mistake in Leviticus 11: 5 where 100 is absolutely confident taking answers 1- into account.
Please state why and justify
38) How confident are you that the number you gave in question 37 is correct where 100 is absolute certainty and 0 is no certainty at all .
please justify
39) How confident should the audience be for the number you gave for question 38 where 0 is not confident at all and 100 is complete certainty.
Please justify
40) How confident are you taking into the opinion of Samuel Clark that Leviticus 11: 6 made a error from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty?
please justify
41) How confident are you in your opinion in #40 from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty?
please justify
42) How confident should the audience be in your answer to question 41 where 0 is not certain at all and 100 is very confident.
please justify
Dear Readers:
HERE IS AN EXPLANTION OF THE PREVIOUS SURVEY:
Why did you ask all those questions?
I believe that asking questions which is called the Socratic method is sometimes the best way to convey concepts particularly ones that are complex.
Why so many questions? Do you have a mean streak a mile wide?
I think issues that involve science and complex translation issues with ancient text in cases where a word and phrase is used in limited context are more difficult and require more questions. I also think that followup questions to test the validity of key questions are important.
Isn't asking so many questions similar to what a prosecuting attorney would do and isn't likely to breed resentment?
Perhaps. I do think, however, that repeating yourself and trying to force your ideas on others would breed far more resentment. It also clarfies things in the mind of both parties.
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 01-31-2004]
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-19-2004]

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 6 of 89 (79564)
01-20-2004 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kendemyer
01-08-2004 7:16 PM


Hyrax' aren't rabitts. They aren't even rodents. They are more closely related to elephants.
Hares aren't rabitts, they are in the same family, but they are not rabitts. Also, their "foodball" behaviour is very diffrent from cud chewing. One of the prerequisits to cud chewing, is a four chamberd stomach, ruminants use the first chamber to store the food like a 'gullet', then they rechew and process the food from there. The other chambers poor the acids, and bile on the stuff.
Can you show me evidence that Hares have this?
[This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-20-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kendemyer, posted 01-08-2004 7:16 PM kendemyer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Yaro, posted 01-20-2004 4:11 PM Yaro has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 7 of 89 (79618)
01-20-2004 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Yaro
01-20-2004 1:08 PM


kendemyre? Any response?
[This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-20-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Yaro, posted 01-20-2004 1:08 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Yaro, posted 01-20-2004 4:22 PM Yaro has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 8 of 89 (79620)
01-20-2004 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Yaro
01-20-2004 4:11 PM


well, here are some links in case your interested. First some show and tell:
Rabbit:
Hyrax:
Hare:
http://www.accdc.com/products/profiles/arctichare.html
It talks about the arctic hare. But it illustrates the distinction between hares and rabbits.
Arctic Hare belong to the order Lagomorpha, (rabbits, hares and pikas), and are a member of the Leporidae family which includes all hares and rabbits. Hares and jackrabbits belong to the genus Lepus and are characterized by specialization for running and adaptation to exposed habitats. The Arctic Hare is closely related to the Blue Hare (Lepus timidus), an Eurasian species, and was formerly included in this species.
http://www.americazoo.com/goto/index/mammals/hyracoidea.htm
THE ORDER HYRACOIDEA: The hyrax, or dassie, is an odd mammal that superficially resembles a guinea pig and is about the size of a rabbit. It is neither, however, but is more closely related to elephants, manatees, and the aardvark. They can be traced through fossils to the Eocene epoch about 50,000,000 years ago.
So you see, these are very distinct creatures. None of which, chew their cud.
[This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-20-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Yaro, posted 01-20-2004 4:11 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Yaro, posted 01-20-2004 4:37 PM Yaro has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 9 of 89 (79623)
01-20-2004 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Yaro
01-20-2004 4:22 PM


Hmmm... while we are at it
Let's look at the dictionary deffinition of cud:
\Cud\ (k[u^]d), n. der bait, Icel. kvi[eth]r womb, Goth. qi[thorn]us. Cf. Quid. 1. That portion of food which is brought up into the mouth by ruminating animals from their first stomach, to be chewed a second time.
A regurgitated food pellet is not cud. As it neither comes from a ruminant, an animal with a multi-chamberd stomach, nor is it passed into the mouth for rechewing. What we have here, is vomit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Yaro, posted 01-20-2004 4:22 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Yaro, posted 01-20-2004 4:51 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 10 of 89 (79627)
01-20-2004 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Yaro
01-20-2004 4:37 PM


And finaly,
All the relevant sources in your essay, are around 1975. Anything recent?
Because from everything I read, the information I have posted is accurate. You site old sources, you get old info. Not to mention the fact that you site several non-scientific, non-peer reviewd sources.
Few which even sound meritorious:
Investigator Magazine? With an anonymous auther no less!
Library jurnal? Engelder, Verbal Inspiration ?
Heck, even Engelders article is from 1941!!!
Pu-leeez!
[This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-20-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Yaro, posted 01-20-2004 4:37 PM Yaro has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 89 (79645)
01-20-2004 6:13 PM


to:Yaro
Dear Yaro:
I am will respond to your posts in just a moment but before I do I want to post some arguments to the essay so I do not have to go through the same things twice. Please indulge me in this exercise.
Sincerely,
Ken

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 89 (79648)
01-20-2004 6:16 PM


Dear Readers:
This is a common attack on my works. Please do not repeat this line of debate:
I took a second review of your last post I think I can offer an initial reply faster than I thought I could because there seems to be a recurring theme in your post:
I will list some of your relevant sentences:
That's because, Kendemyer, you are too biased. Perhaps you think bias is irrelevant in science, huh?
XXX:
Well, posting the theological reasons that inspired you to undertake this research illuminates your bias, now doesn't it?
What drives you in your search to discover the obscure eating behavior of the hyrax and the hare is not the search for scientific truth, Kendemyer, but religious vindication
XXX, here is a very salient paragraph that sums up a essay by C.S. Lewis I once read 20 years ago that I have never forgotten:
"Some day," Lewis wrote, "I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father - who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third, 'Oh you say that because you are a man.' 'At that moment,' E. Bulver assures us, 'there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the ... dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.' That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century." ( taken from the webiste: http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoret...adingissue.html )
XXX, I think you should consider that essay. Now am I denying that a person's belief structure can influence his decision making abilities. Of course, not! But we can both scream bias at each other at the top of our lungs but where will that get us? Here is where I suggest it would get us:
XXX: You are more biased than I am.
Ken: Am not. You are more biased than me!
XXX: Are you kidding? You are WAY more biased than me!!
Ken: You are fooling yourself if you think that I am more biased than YOU!!!
etc etc etc
Considering that you do not know me very well and I do not know you very well I just see such a discussion as pointless. I can maintain I researched and wrote the piece because I was in search of truth and you can say your wrote your rebuttal for the same reason. In short, stalemate.
Ultimately, we have to look at the facts. When I began this detective pursuit of the facts I followed the creed of a American icon "Joe Friday" who you may remember said, "Just the facts, Ma'am". I also think you are very selective in your readings of my post. For example, consider the following:
"As far as my investigation goes, I merely looked into the facts and went where they lead me. In fact, I reviewed a skeptics website essay first when I decided to write and further research this essay because I thought he has done a lot of good work in a particular area of the debate (I was slightly criticized for this but I felt he had done a good job to demonstrate the shaphan was likely to be the hyrax although I am no expert on extinct species which some maintained the shaphan was. The gentleman who ran the website said it was unlikely that the shaphan was unfound extinct species but I found that this claim was suspect because he never demonstrated why. I believe perhaps it was or wasn't until I did further research). I believe, however, that the skeptic who wrote the essay for that website was dead wrong on the central issue of proving the hyrax did not chew the cud. I felt the gentleman was not using observation to empirically demonstate the hyrax does not chew the cud. Later I discovered Hendrich's work who closely observed hyaxes in captivity found out they do chew the cud. Of course, this showed my suspicions were entirely justified regarding that the skeptics websites assertion that the hyrax did not chew the cud (as I said he was not citing careful observation although as I said before his work demonstrating the shaphan was very likely to be the hyrax looked solid even though he did not demonstate how likely unfound extinct species could be. In my essay, I say why I thought the shaphan was a living species - namely the hyrax)."
Consider this post also:
"I would also like to thank the skeptics, Christians, and non-Christians who read my essay and provided valuable feedback and editing advice):"
Now XXX, I realize you can say I am engaging in self-deception or deception or that I was just covering my biased tracks. Of course, I could say: Am not. And of course, you could reply: Are too. But again where would that get us? Nowhere I suggest. I suggest at this point we discuss the most germaine facts.
I will gently remind you that you did agree to discuss the hare/hyrax/rabbit/cud/etc issues and not delve into other matters.
Now XXXX am I denying that people could let their emotions outweigh their reason? I certainly did not. If fact, I very strongly implied that if I found you to be unreasonable I would not engage you further. But let us look at the facts first before deciding who is the more unreasonable.
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 01-20-2004]

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 89 (79649)
01-20-2004 6:34 PM


Dear Yaro:
1. I never said hyraxes were rabbits. Please reread my essay. I feel if you are going to be a courteous discussant you need to read my essay closely,
2. I never said rabbits are hares.
I did say that hyraxes, hares, and rabbits all had a fermentation chamber in addition to having a stomach. I did say that Carles, who did a comparative study between cows and rabbits by the way, said, "it is hard to argue that rabbits are not runinants."
3. If hyraxes chew the cud in 1975 I am assuming they did it in Moses's time too. I am also assuming they continue to do it now.
Also, this was reported in a peer reviewed science journal.
4. Do you have any better data as far as hyraxes being closely observed for several continuous 24 hour periods. And if not why are you criticizing Hendrich's data.
5. Are you aware that an animal can chew the cud and still not be a ruminant according to some people (see Ruetimeyer's comments. In addition, not all scientists agree if the hyrax is a ruminant or not a ruminant. In addition, consider the Hendrich's hyrax data.)
6. Your criticism of my other sources is a genetic logical fallacy. See logical fallacy list on the internet.
Now please respond to the questions below:
1) "What makes you, Yaro, think the hyrax does not chew the cud?" (if this is the case) What is your position on this, and why? If you say the hyrax does not chew the cud, please support it using close observation for several 24 hour continuous periods? If you say that is a bad standard for a no response then please state why.
2) "What makes you, Yaro, think the hare does not chew the cud?" (if this is the case) What is your position on this, and why? If you say the the hare does not chew the cud then please state why. If you say the hare does not chew the cud, please support it using close observation for several 24 hour continuous periods. If you think this is a unreasonable standard then please state why.
3) Yaro, please answer the same questions for #2 but this time do it for Middle Eastern hares. If you think there should be absolutely no distinction between Middle Eastern hares and other hares please fully support your conclusion.
4) Yaro, what is your postion on "chew the cud" is the only acceptable translation? If you say yes then please support that position using the criteria I gave in my first very first post in the string if you think it is the only acceptable translation. If you say no, then the hare debate is over but the hyrax debate can continue.
Yaro, I will respond to more post from you when you have answered all my questions but I do ask that you answer all my questions and not some.
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 01-20-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Yaro, posted 01-20-2004 7:22 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 14 of 89 (79655)
01-20-2004 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by kendemyer
01-20-2004 6:34 PM


1. I never said hyraxes were rabbits. Please reread my essay. I feel if you are going to be a courteous discussant you need to read my essay closely,
I did read your post. And I fail to see the link between hyrax's and the rabitts mentiond in leviticus. Hyraxes look nothing like rabbits, and aren't even related.
And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you.
Where does it say Hyrax?
I realize that you mention contaversy concerning the translation of the words weather hare or hyrax. But "probably", as your essay states, is not good enugh!
I could say, it's a rabbit! And I would be just as supported. Question is, which is it, hare, rabbit, or Hyrax?
Meaning if anything, the bible is unclear. Infact, another apologetic I read made the asertion that the word for rabbit in the bible was an "unknown animal".
So how the heck do you get from that to Hyrax? Or hare for that matter?
and although we cannot say with absolute certainty the animal is the hyrax, we must remember that since Strong published his concordance our knowledge of the Biblical creatures has grown
This is simply not acceptable proof. Either the bible says what it means, or it dosn't. You can't just put a hyrax in where it says rabbit.
2. I never said rabbits are hares.
So which is it then? Rabbit, hare, Hyrax, unknown animal?
How can you have proof for something you arent even sure of. If anything you have a hypothesis, with some supportive speculation. But nothing definative.
After all, you and I both seem to agree that if anything Leviticus is either wrong, or unclear.
I did say that hyraxes, hares, and rabbits all had a fermentation chamber in addition to having a stomach. I did say that Carles, who did a comparative study between cows and rabbits by the way, said, "it is hard to argue that rabbits are not runinants."
To the contrary, it is easy to argue that they are not. Here is the classification of a ruminant:
Any of various hoofed, even-toed, usually horned mammals of the suborder Ruminantia, such as cattle, sheep, goats, deer, and giraffes, characteristically having a stomach divided into four compartments and chewing a cud consisting of regurgitated, partially digested food.
So, rabitts aren't hoofed, nor even toed, are never hornd (less you belive in Jackalopes), they don't FOUR chambers, and they don't belong to the suborder ruminentia.
3. If hyraxes chew the cud in 1975 I am assuming they did it in Moses's time too. I am also assuming they continue to do it now.
Also, this was reported in a peer reviewed science journal.
But they don't and they never did. The case you make is based on superficial apearance. These animals spit things up and chew it again. Refaction, I think it's calld. Dogs do this to. Ever seen a dog come back to it's vomit?
This is a very diffrent process, from the process known as rumination. In which we have an animal with a FOUR chamberd stomach. Which regurgitates into it's own MOUTH. Not on the floor, as a pellet, etc.
Rumination is a very specific action.
4. Do you have any better data as far as hyraxes being closely observed for several continuous 24 hour periods. And if not why are you criticizing Hendrich's data.
As stated above, he is missnaming an observed behavior. Just because they may do something SIMILAR, does not mean they are doing the actual thing.
5. Are you aware that an animal can chew the cud and still not be a ruminant according to some people (see Ruetimeyer's comments. In addition, not all scientists agree if the hyrax is a ruminant or not a ruminant)
Wikipedia
Seems pretty clear!
Not only that, even your statement here again pleads to ambiguity! "not all scientists agree if the hyrax is a ruminant or not..."
How is this proof?
As far as I know the taxanomic description of a ruminant is as follows:
A ruminant is any hooved animal that digests its food in two steps, first by eating the raw material and regurgitating a semi-digested form known as cud, then eating the cud.
Ruminants have a stomach with four chambers which are the rumen, reticulum, omasum, and abomasum. In the first two chambers, the rumen and the reticulum, the food is mixed with bile to form the cud (or bolus). Especially, cellulose is broken down in these chambers using symbiotic bacteria. The cud is then regurgitated, chewed slowly to completely mix it with the bile, and it further breaks down fibers. The re-swallowed cud then passes through the rumen into the next stomach chambers, the omasum, where water is removed. Then, the cud is moved to the last chamber, the abomasum. The digested food in the abomasum is finally sent to the small intestine, where the absorption of the nutrients occurs.
Ruminants also share another anatomical feature in that they all have an even number of toes. Ruminants include cows, goats, sheep, camels, and antelope. The suborder Ruminantia includes all those except the camels, which are Tylopoda.
RABBITTS ARE NOT RUMINANTS! THE DON'T HAVE FOUR STOMACHS!
They are about as much ruminants as dogs are.
1) "What makes you, Yaro, think the hyrax does not chew the cud?" (if this is the case) What is your position on this, and why? If you say the hyrax does not chew the cud, please support it using close observation for several 24 hour continuous periods? If you say that is a bad standard for a no response then please state why.
Stated. Chewing the cud requires a four chamberd stomach, a special digestive process, the actual SPECIFIC fetures that make an animal a ruminant.
By your definition anything that eats what it regurgitates is a ruminant which is simply not true. Are dogs, or wild cats ruminants?
2) "What makes you, Yaro, think the hare does not chew the cud?" (if this is the case) What is your position on this, and why? If you say the the hare does not chew the cud then please state why. If you say the hare does not chew the cud, please support it using close observation for several 24 hour continuous periods. If you think this is a unreasonable standard then please state why.
Same answer as above.
3) Yaro, please answer the same questions for #2 but this time do it for Middle Eastern hares. If you think there should be absolutely no distinction between Middle Eastern hares and other hares please fully support your conclusion.
Again, see above. Food pellets, or regergitation does not necisseraly classify as cud.
4) Yaro, what is your postion on "chew the cud" is the only acceptable translation? If you say yes then please support that position using the criteria I gave in my first very first post in the string if you think it is the only acceptable translation. If you say no, then the hare debate is over but the hyrax debate can continue.
It is answerd. Hares do not do cud chewing.
Now, if you feel that the translated word has a more ambigious meaning, fine. But you are then left with a very unclear passage that basicaly boils down to this (according to your argument):
Leviticus 11:5 (redacted by kendemyre): And the [rabbit, hyrax, hare, or perhapse some other animal], because he [he spits up his food, and may at sometomes be caught eating it up again], but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you.
How is this a clear passage? And how does this prove your hyrax hypothisis?
My quandry is not weather or not the bible authors thought the creature in question chewd its cud. Obviously they did think so. Yet it is even more painfully obvious that these authers had little knowledge of what cud chewing really entaild or they wouldn't have calld it such.
So my question for you is, how is this passage right? Anyway you slice it, it is ambigious, and demonstrates a lack of understanding concerning anatomy and the nature of certain difgestive processes. The writters obviously saw a similar action, and classified it similarly to another they saw, though in truth they are not equivilant actions at all.
[This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-20-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by kendemyer, posted 01-20-2004 6:34 PM kendemyer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Yaro, posted 01-20-2004 8:17 PM Yaro has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 15 of 89 (79668)
01-20-2004 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Yaro
01-20-2004 7:22 PM


here is a nice little article at talk origins :
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: January 2000
The fellow here follows your hyrax hypothesis. He makes the case that it confused the bible authers due to their constant mouth movements.
A much more plausible theory than yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Yaro, posted 01-20-2004 7:22 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Yaro, posted 01-20-2004 10:49 PM Yaro 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