The Hare That Chews Cud

[LOki]

In an effort to continue the civil portion of an interesting discussion...

And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you.

Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; [as] the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; [therefore] they [are] unclean unto you.

Actually the full context is the Chapter itself, and then again the Bible itself. The interpretation I gave you was not of my manufacture, but came up at the top of the list from my first Google.

You will note, that I <a href="http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=523424&postcount=540">linked to the entire chapter.</a>

Following those links, you have access to the entire Bible, and all the on-line resources of Blue Letter Bible. I have withheld none of the context, I have not taken the statement out of it's context in any manner to change its meaning. Nor have I added context, from sources outside of the Bible, to alter the meaning of the statement, "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud,..." to something other than, "The hare chews the cud."

Contextually, I remain on rock-solid ground.

When you have a deeper understanding of the total, you will see that the same health related issues God has with the cud chewing animals is evident with the rabbit.

"Health related issues" is not relevent to the validity of the assertion that the hare chews the cud.

What's really amazing is that if the Bible was written by mere men, they would not have known that.

If the Bible were written by an infallible God, he would know that of all the reasons (including eating its feces) the hare might be unclean, chewing the cud is not one of them. It is certainly possible that the fallibility of "mere men" would lead them to conclude that the hare chews cud based on the hare's jaw movements, rather than its digestive mechanism.

Of course, the reasons "mere men" were mistaken are irrelevent to the point that they were mistaken; just as reasons God may have had for asserting the hare chews cud are not relevent to the point that the hare does not, in fact chew cud. The point remains that the Bible, for whatever reasons one wishes ascribe, despite any excuses one might make for it, clearly asserts that the hare chews the cud, when in fact the hare does not chew the cud; proving that the Bible is wrong regarding the hare chewing the cud.

 

[Gunny]

In an effort to continue the civil portion of an interesting discussion...



You will note, that I <a href="http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=523424&postcount=540">linked to the entire chapter.</a>

Following those links, you have access to the entire Bible, and all the on-line resources of Blue Letter Bible. I have withheld none of the context, I have not taken the statement out of it's context in any manner to change its meaning. Nor have I added context, from sources outside of the Bible, to alter the meaning of the statement, "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud,..." to something other than, "The hare chews the cud."

Contextually, I remain on rock-solid ground.

"Health related issues" is not relevent to the validity of the assertion that the hare chews the cud.

If the Bible were written by an infallible God, he would know that of all the reasons (including eating its feces) the hare might be unclean, chewing the cud is not one of them. It is certainly possible that the fallibility of "mere men" would lead them to conclude that the hare chews cud based on the hare's jaw movements, rather than its digestive mechanism.

Of course, the reasons "mere men" were mistaken are irrelevent to the point that they were mistaken; just as reasons God may have had for asserting the hare chews cud are not relevent to the point that the hare does not, in fact chew cud. The point remains that the Bible, for whatever reasons one wishes ascribe, despite any excuses one might make for it, clearly asserts that the hare chews the cud, when in fact the hare does not chew the cud; proving that the Bible is wrong regarding the hare chewing the cud.

Whether or not one chooses to believe the Bible is the word of God is a personal choice. That the Bible was written by men is not in doubt, and Man is fallible, and subject to see things from the viewpoint of his tiny little world.

Leviticus 20:13 and 18:22 are almost identical. What would be the purpose of God repeating himself?

 

[LOki]

Whether or not one chooses to believe the Bible is the word of God is a personal choice. That the Bible was written by men is not in doubt, and Man is fallible, and subject to see things from the viewpoint of his tiny little world.

This, unfortunately, is not the POV of those who demand that the Bible is not falliible--that in no regard has it been proven wrong--and based upon such infallibility, believers are justified in forcibly asserting their infallibly derived values upon others, because the Bible says so.

This coersion is not, of course, the point of the thread that engendered this one. The point is to establish whether or not the Bible has been proven wrong. I tried to suggest that certain inaccuracies were not relevent to the purpose of the Bible (which has not been established in this discussion), but it became apparent that the existence of these errors had to be established, if they indeed exist.

Should discussion move in the direction of questioning the authority of the Bible in dictating the moral validity of people's actions, I would certainly recognize that the authority of the Bible in people's actions must be limited to those areas where it not wrong. But that's still a different topic, yes?

 

[Gunny]

This, unfortunately, is not the POV of those who demand that the Bible is not falliible--that in no regard has it been proven wrong--and based upon such infallibility, believers are justified in forcibly asserting their infallibly derived values upon others, because the Bible says so.

This coersion is not, of course, the point of the thread that engendered this one. The point is to establish whether or not the Bible has been proven wrong. I tried to suggest that certain inaccuracies were not relevent to the purpose of the Bible (which has not been established in this discussion), but it became apparent that the existence of these errors had to be established, if they indeed exist.

Should discussion move in the direction of questioning the authority of the Bible in dictating the moral validity of people's actions, I would certainly recognize that the authority of the Bible in people's actions must be limited to those areas where it not wrong. But that's still a different topic, yes?

The Bible's moral authority and whether or not it contains errors are indeed two separate topics.

IMO, only those people insecure in their faith and having it questioned, or in this case the errors/inconsistencies in the Bible presented, blindly claim they do not exist.

The capablility of introspection on an intellectual level and coming out the other end sane does not exist.

 

[5stringJeff]

In an effort to continue the civil portion of an interesting discussion...

You will note, that I <a href="http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=523424&postcount=540">linked to the entire chapter.</a>

Following those links, you have access to the entire Bible, and all the on-line resources of Blue Letter Bible. I have withheld none of the context, I have not taken the statement out of it's context in any manner to change its meaning. Nor have I added context, from sources outside of the Bible, to alter the meaning of the statement, "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud,..." to something other than, "The hare chews the cud."

Contextually, I remain on rock-solid ground.

Actually, the Hebrew words don't necessarily mean chewing cud in the same manner as cows chew cud. See this article for more.

 

[LOki]

Actually, the Hebrew words don't necessarily mean chewing cud in the same manner as cows chew cud. See this article for more.

As it turns out, I am fully aware of this.

It brings certain trouble, regarding the accuracy of translation, to the infallible authority of the Bible argument. If you are willing to embrace the notion that the Bible we read does not say what the author of the Bible wrote (let alone what he meant), then that casts the greatest doubt on the Bible's authority for any purpose. I'm not going to take that disingenuous path to the conclusion it demands.

Also, this guy's hopeful defense from misapplication of terminology suffers from conflicting presumtions. It first assumes that the ancient Hebrews were sophisticated enough to distinguish that some turds are merely dung (which the Hebrews had a perfectly good word for) and some other turds that are "partially digested food." Yet these same sophisticated Hebrews were not so sophisticated that they would not distinguish "partially digested food" that comes from an animal's anus from that "partially digested food" that an animal brings up as cud--patricularly when they could have, without ambiguity. This LOki is not buying.

Finally, though he is right that in the Hebrew, the actual verse does not say "chew" (which is good for his argument, because the hare doesn't chew his turds either; he swallows them whole) he is wrong about "cud." The root of "gerah" (garar) is an onomonopoetic term (like "boom") which indicates "from the throat"; not to the throat, and not from the anus. "Gerah" implies chewing, and asserts regurgitation, rather than defecation, from the sound and its source. I have no argument with him that "`alah" means "to bring up", but with "gerah", it 's clear what is meant--which is cud; just the way we understand it, and not butt-nuggets at all.

The hare does not chew (or bring up) cud--the Bible is wrong on this account. Even in Hebrew.

 

[LOki]

IMO, only those people insecure in their faith and having it questioned, or in this case the errors/inconsistencies in the Bible presented, blindly claim they do not exist.

Indeed. These folks are doomed, who embrace the notion that morality is extenal to the human condition--that human beings can somehow be human beings without morality--that morality comes from a book. Those who subscibe to such external sources of morality are doomed to being nothing more than the strategically shaven apes (though perhaps better behaved) that those without morality certainly are.

The capablility of introspection on an intellectual level and coming out the other end sane does not exist.

I'm not sure this is true, but then again I'm not sure I'm clear on what you mean.