Religions > Atheism > Proof In The Holy Scripture: The Bible Permits and Encourages Anal Sex
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J. Young" |
| Date: |
28 Oct 2006 08:37:50 AM |
| Object: |
Proof In The Holy Scripture: The Bible Permits and Encourages Anal Sex |
Everyone knows that The Bible Never Lies.
Anal Sex in Accordance with God's Will
The Vatican, September 29, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com, special report)
By Arlan-Henry Bodway
Are you saving yourself for your wedding night? The Devil wants you to fail,
that's why he puts stumbling blocks in your way. But God wants you to
succeed, and that's why he has given us an alternative to intercourse before
marriage: anal sex. Through anal sex, you can satisfy your body's needs,
while you avoid the risk of unwanted pregnancy and still keep yourself pure
for marriage.
You may be shocked at first by this idea. Isn't anal sex (sodomy) forbidden
by the Bible? Isn't anal sex dirty? What's the difference between having
anal sex before marriage and having regular intercourse? Let's address these
issues by debunking some myths about anal sex and God's will.
"I thought the Bible said anal sex was a sin."
This is a common misconception. Anal sex is confusing to many Christians
because of the attention paid to the Bible's condemnation of homosexual
acts. However, it's important to realize that these often quoted scriptures
refer only to sexual acts between two men. Nowhere does the Bible forbid
anal sex between a male and female.
In fact, many Biblical passages allude to the act of anal sex between men
and women. Lamentations 2:10 describes how "The virgins of Jerusalem have
bowed their heads to the ground," indicating how a virginal maidens should
position themselves to receive anal sex. Another suggestive scripture tells
of a woman's pride in her "valley" (referring to her buttocks and the cleft
between them) and entices her lover to ejaculate against her backside: "How
boastful you are about the valleys! O backsliding daughter who trusts in her
treasures, {saying,} ' Who will come against me?' (Jeremiah 49:4) And in the
Song of Songs, the lover urges his mate to allow him to enter her from
behind: "Draw me after you, let us make haste." (Song of Solomon, 1:4)
"Isn't anal sex dirty?"
The Bible says, "To the pure, all things are pure." (Titus 1:15) The Lord
created your body, and no part of it is imperfect or unclean. God also
created our bodies for pleasure, and anal sex is just one of the many ways,
including standard sexual intercourse, that we can enjoy this pleasure and
share it with a partner.
Although the ***** is used for elimination, in reality it is not as dirty as
you think, especially after a shower or bath. Elimination is also a natural
process of our God-given bodies, so our conception of the anal area as dirty
has more to do with our own psychological hang-ups. If the idea of direct
contact with this area is still distasteful to you, the male can wear a
condom as a barrier
"If you're going to have anal sex, why not just have regular sex?"
This is a good question: If you're going to have sexual contact before
marriage, why not just go the whole nine yards and have regular sex? There
are many good reasons for having anal sex instead. The first reason is
practical: having conventional vaginal intercourse can lead to unwanted
pregnancies. While it's true that the Lord bade us to "be fruitful and
multiply," (Gen 1:22) the Bible also counsels that "For everything there is
a season, and a time for every matter under heaven." (Ecl. 3:1) Pregnancy
outside of wedlock can have dire and life-altering consequences for all
those involved. Having anal sex allows you to greatly reduce this risk.
Second, for a young woman who has never engaged in sexual intercourse,
having anal sex allows her to preserve her virginity (i.e., maintain an
intact hymen) until marriage. There is no greater gift that a bride can give
than to offer her pure, unsullied maidenhead to her husband on their wedding
night.
Finally, anal sex allows both partners to save the most intimate and
powerful sexual act, that of face-to-face vaginal intercourse, for their
mates in marriage. This type of sexual relationship represents the most
powerful union between a man and a woman, and so it rightfully should be
reserved for one's life partner. Fortunately, you can engage in anal sex
prior to marriage and still be able to share the deeper, more meaningful act
of consecrated love through vaginal intercourse with your wedded spouse.
.
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof In The Holy Scripture: The Bible Permits and Encourages Anal Sex |
29 Oct 2006 12:10:14 AM |
|
|
ScottyFLL wrote:
osprey wrote:
ScottyFLL wrote:
osprey wrote:
Good, now all I have to do is wait for the other one to take the bait.
He will soon start throwing out baseless claims and I will see if you
follow along and take his word for it without questioning him or
investigating for the truth.
You see? I am even letting you know what is going to happen.
You're wasting your time. Fly away.
Just watch your back, and play it smart. I am pretty quick and I pay
close attention.
You might think you are intelligent, that's fine if you want to think
that. I don't think you are.
Doesn't matter to me what you think. I've never had an issue with my
intelligence; it's never been something I felt insecure about.
So, BRING IT ON, MARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyone who judges a persons "intelligence" based on their religious
beliefs (as you do), is insecure.
It's been brought on, SUSIE!!!!!!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof In The Holy Scripture: The Bible Permits and Encourages Anal Sex |
29 Oct 2006 12:25:19 AM |
|
|
In article <1162098614.109086.143940@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
ScottyFLL wrote:
osprey wrote:
ScottyFLL wrote:
osprey wrote:
Good, now all I have to do is wait for the other one to take the bait.
He will soon start throwing out baseless claims and I will see if you
follow along and take his word for it without questioning him or
investigating for the truth.
You see? I am even letting you know what is going to happen.
You're wasting your time. Fly away.
Just watch your back, and play it smart. I am pretty quick and I pay
close attention.
You might think you are intelligent, that's fine if you want to think
that. I don't think you are.
Doesn't matter to me what you think. I've never had an issue with my
intelligence; it's never been something I felt insecure about.
So, BRING IT ON, MARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyone who judges a persons "intelligence" based on their religious
beliefs (as you do), is insecure.
More made up psychology from Osprey (Pictured at
http://chiefinstigator.us.tt/spud.php ).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ScottyFLL" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof In The Holy Scripture: The Bible Permits and Encourages Anal Sex |
29 Oct 2006 12:38:38 AM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
Anyone who judges a persons "intelligence" based on their religious
beliefs (as you do), is insecure.
I do not judge your intelligence by your personal religious beliefs. I
know a lot of people with a lot of different religious and spiritual
experiences and outlooks. Many of these people are quite intelligent.
And indeed it might even be unfair to consider you "unintelligent" due
to your lack of ability to determine a fallacious argument from a valid
one, considering that you haven't taken a course in logic. (Your
refusal to have a look at the discipline of logic, after it has been
cited a number of times for you, is something of an indication that you
have no desire to learn, however.)
I and some others here ARE familiar with logic. "Logic" is not just a
word we throw out in order to give the impression that we are right --
anyone can just throw the word out. The discipline of logic is well
known and has been in existence since before the time of Christ. There
are structures and formulas and definitions that can be used to
determine the validity of the conclusion of an argument.
Here's a simple syllogism:
Premise 1: If all A are B, and
Premise 2: if all B are C, then
Conclusion: all A are C.
If both premises are correct, so is the conclusion. Try it.
When we have pointed out flaws in your arguments, USING THE DISCIPLINE
OF LOGIC, you have failed to acknowledge that the flaws exist. You
have ignored them and gotten emotional because the WAY YOU PRESENTED
YOUR ARGUMENT did not lead to a valid conclusion, per logic. And the
only reason I can think of for you to have done this is because an
argument whose conclusion you like has been deemed invalid, and you
can't figure out a way to re-work the argument so that the conclusion
is valid.
Rather than re-work your argument to try to achieve a valid conclusion,
you get emotional and tell us we're stupid and wrong.
THAT is why I say that you are not intelligent. Because you disregard
logic, have no intellectual curiosity about how to present a valid
argument, and are emotional when it is pointed out that you are not
presenting an issue properly. And there are a LOT of people here
telling you the SAME thing. But you simply disregard it.
That's stupid.
You will not be able to prove my arguments fallacious or my conclusions
invalid, because you do not know the basics of logic. You will call me
unintelligent simply because I disagree with THE WAY BY WHICH YOU
REACHED YOUR CONCLUSION. It will often APPEAR that we are disagreeing
with your CONCLUSION, which often we do, but what we point out here is
that the way you REACHED the conclusion is wrong. Do you understand
the difference?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ScottyFLL" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof In The Holy Scripture: The Bible Permits and Encourages Anal Sex |
28 Oct 2006 04:08:06 PM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
the atheist can't debate a scholarly theologist...period.
Hold that thought while I whip up a bat-egg omelet...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof In The Holy Scripture: The Bible Permits and Encourages Anal Sex |
28 Oct 2006 04:22:03 PM |
|
|
"ScottyFLL" <zmsscorpio@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162069686.595711.177040@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
osprey wrote:
the atheist can't debate a scholarly theologist...period.
Hold that thought while I whip up a bat-egg omelet...
Don't make it too long, I have a football game to be going to. Delaware
State vs South Carolina
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof In The Holy Scripture: The Bible Permits and Encourages Anal Sex |
28 Oct 2006 04:23:24 PM |
|
|
In News 64mdnZXoM5VqVN7YnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com,, Osprey at
NoNeedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
"ScottyFLL" <zmsscorpio@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162069686.595711.177040@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
osprey wrote:
the atheist can't debate a scholarly theologist...period.
Hold that thought while I whip up a bat-egg omelet...
Don't make it too long, I have a football game to be going to.
Delaware State vs South Carolina
Don't for get your can of beer, ugly wife, and holey t-shirt.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. – Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof In The Holy Scripture: The Bible Permits and Encourages Anal Sex |
28 Oct 2006 04:27:25 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL13@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message
news:gTP0h.1093$zf.184@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 64mdnZXoM5VqVN7YnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com,, Osprey at
NoNeedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
"ScottyFLL" <zmsscorpio@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162069686.595711.177040@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
osprey wrote:
the atheist can't debate a scholarly theologist...period.
Hold that thought while I whip up a bat-egg omelet...
Don't make it too long, I have a football game to be going to.
Delaware State vs South Carolina
Don't for get your can of beer, ugly wife, and holey t-shirt.
Oh my, now there is a great example of how intelligent the average liberal
is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof In The Holy Scripture: The Bible Permits and Encourages Anal Sex |
29 Oct 2006 01:54:56 AM |
|
|
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL13@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message
news:gTP0h.1093$zf.184@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 64mdnZXoM5VqVN7YnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com,, Osprey at
NoNeedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
"ScottyFLL" <zmsscorpio@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162069686.595711.177040@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
osprey wrote:
the atheist can't debate a scholarly theologist...period.
Hold that thought while I whip up a bat-egg omelet...
Don't make it too long, I have a football game to be going to.
Delaware State vs South Carolina
Don't for get your can of beer, ugly wife, and holey t-shirt.
Oh my, now there is a great example of how intelligent the average liberal
is.
So much for *your* "intelligence - since Delaware State wouldn't be playing
The USC (which is Division I-A, a member of the SEC, and is in Columbia), but
SCSU (which is a bit down the road from Columbia, in Orangeburg, and is in
Division I-AA in the MEAC, to boot).
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 7, Peoria 1 (October 28)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, November 1 vs. Chicago, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof In The Holy Scripture: The Bible Permits and Encourages Anal Sex |
28 Oct 2006 04:30:30 PM |
|
|
In News h-WdnZjmfp6kVt7YnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com,, Osprey at
NoNeedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL13@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message
news:gTP0h.1093$zf.184@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 64mdnZXoM5VqVN7YnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com,, Osprey at
NoNeedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
"ScottyFLL" <zmsscorpio@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162069686.595711.177040@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
osprey wrote:
the atheist can't debate a scholarly theologist...period.
Hold that thought while I whip up a bat-egg omelet...
Don't make it too long, I have a football game to be going to.
Delaware State vs South Carolina
Don't for get your can of beer, ugly wife, and holey t-shirt.
Oh my,
Yes, those would be yours.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. – Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof In The Holy Scripture: The Bible Permits and Encourages Anal Sex |
28 Oct 2006 04:35:59 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL13@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message
news:WZP0h.1095$zf.17@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News h-WdnZjmfp6kVt7YnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com,, Osprey at
NoNeedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL13@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message
news:gTP0h.1093$zf.184@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 64mdnZXoM5VqVN7YnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com,, Osprey at
NoNeedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
"ScottyFLL" <zmsscorpio@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162069686.595711.177040@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
osprey wrote:
the atheist can't debate a scholarly theologist...period.
Hold that thought while I whip up a bat-egg omelet...
Don't make it too long, I have a football game to be going to.
Delaware State vs South Carolina
Don't for get your can of beer, ugly wife, and holey t-shirt.
Oh my,
Yes, those would be yours.
Well, I guess I just can't argue with that. WOW..what a rebuttal. You
liberals sure are smart!!!
Hey, go ahead and argue how smart you liberals are...and we can reflect on
some of your comments for a rebuttal..:o)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof In The Holy Scripture: The Bible Permits and Encourages Anal Sex |
28 Oct 2006 04:40:20 PM |
|
|
In News c8OdnaryE_mmUN7YnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com,, Osprey at
NoNeedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL13@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message
news:WZP0h.1095$zf.17@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News h-WdnZjmfp6kVt7YnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com,, Osprey at
NoNeedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL13@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message
news:gTP0h.1093$zf.184@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 64mdnZXoM5VqVN7YnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com,, Osprey at
NoNeedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
"ScottyFLL" <zmsscorpio@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162069686.595711.177040@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
osprey wrote:
the atheist can't debate a scholarly theologist...period.
Hold that thought while I whip up a bat-egg omelet...
Don't make it too long, I have a football game to be going to.
Delaware State vs South Carolina
Don't for get your can of beer, ugly wife, and holey t-shirt.
Oh my,
Yes, those would be yours.
Well, I guess
Let us know when you actually know something.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. – Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof In The Holy Scripture: The Bible Permits and Encourages Anal Sex |
28 Oct 2006 04:44:25 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL13@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message
news:87Q0h.663$LI4.315@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News c8OdnaryE_mmUN7YnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com,, Osprey at
NoNeedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL13@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message
news:WZP0h.1095$zf.17@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News h-WdnZjmfp6kVt7YnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com,, Osprey at
NoNeedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL13@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message
news:gTP0h.1093$zf.184@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 64mdnZXoM5VqVN7YnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com,, Osprey at
NoNeedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
"ScottyFLL" <zmsscorpio@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162069686.595711.177040@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
osprey wrote:
the atheist can't debate a scholarly theologist...period.
Hold that thought while I whip up a bat-egg omelet...
Don't make it too long, I have a football game to be going to.
Delaware State vs South Carolina
Don't for get your can of beer, ugly wife, and holey t-shirt.
Oh my,
Yes, those would be yours.
Well, I guess
Let us know when you actually know something.
Those intellectual rebuttals just roll off your tongue...don't they?
I'm so impressed. Why don't you throw out some more of those liberal
intellectual insults?
Isn't that what you are best at??
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof In The Holy Scripture: The Bible Permits and Encourages Anal Sex |
28 Oct 2006 05:52:33 PM |
|
|
In News crqdnYUckPipUt7YnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com,, Osprey at
NoNeedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL13@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message
news:87Q0h.663$LI4.315@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News c8OdnaryE_mmUN7YnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com,, Osprey at
NoNeedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL13@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message
news:WZP0h.1095$zf.17@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News h-WdnZjmfp6kVt7YnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com,, Osprey at
NoNeedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL13@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message
news:gTP0h.1093$zf.184@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 64mdnZXoM5VqVN7YnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com,, Osprey at
NoNeedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
"ScottyFLL" <zmsscorpio@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162069686.595711.177040@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
osprey wrote:
the atheist can't debate a scholarly theologist...period.
Hold that thought while I whip up a bat-egg omelet...
Don't make it too long, I have a football game to be going to.
Delaware State vs South Carolina
Don't for get your can of beer, ugly wife, and holey t-shirt.
Oh my,
Yes, those would be yours.
Well, I guess
Let us know when you actually know something.
Those intellectual
Which you would know nothing about.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. – Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sylvia R. Dickinson" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof In The Holy Scripture: The Bible Permits and Encourages Anal Sex |
29 Oct 2006 01:05:19 AM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL13@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message
news:gTP0h.1093$zf.184@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 64mdnZXoM5VqVN7YnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com,, Osprey at
NoNeedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
"ScottyFLL" <zmsscorpio@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162069686.595711.177040@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
osprey wrote:
the atheist can't debate a scholarly theologist...period.
Hold that thought while I whip up a bat-egg omelet...
Don't make it too long, I have a football game to be going to.
Delaware State vs South Carolina
Don't for get your can of beer, ugly wife, and holey t-shirt.
Oh my, now there is a great example of how intelligent the average liberal
is.
Very "intelligent" response, Bobby.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof In The Holy Scripture: The Bible Permits and Encourages Anal Sex |
28 Oct 2006 09:58:49 AM |
|
|
Andrealphus wrote:
In News 1162045049.961342.160880@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com,, osprey at
noneedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
Andrealphus wrote:
In News MPG.1fad273db8200b8f9898fe@news.motzarella.org,, J. Young at
jayyoung@bible.org, typed this:
Everyone knows that The Bible Never Lies.
Everyone also knows that the Bible is full of contradictions and
errors, and is irrelevant to the civil issues in any case.
And I have seen some of the toughest atheist debate some of these so
called contradictions and errors with educated theologist and those so
called contradictions and errors were found out to be nothing more
than total misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on the atheist part.
Yeah, like rabbits chewing their cuds, and bats identified as fowl. I've
also seen these debates and have seen the theologists reduced to stammering.
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:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/04102.htm 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: http://www.apologeticspress.org/faq/r&r8912a.htm (Please note
the author of the piece at
http://www.apologeticspress.org/faq/r&r8912a.htm 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:
www.awf.org/wildlives/142
An Ultimate Ungulate Fact Sheet (webpage fact sheet), re: hyraxes
having sentries, 21 vocalizations:
http://www.ultimateungulate.com/Hyracoidea/Procavia_capensis.html
Bible-Science Newsletter, VIII [Jan. 15, 1970], E.P. Schultz, "The
Ruminting Hare", page 6, website for publisher: www.creationmoments.com
..
Brand, Leonard, R., Chaiman of Department of Biology, Loma Linda
University: webpage: "Do Rabbits Chew the Cud?
http://grisda.org/origins/04102.htm
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:
www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp
Easton Bible Dictionary, online version, Coney (hyrax):
www.searchgodsword.org/dic/ebd/view.cgi?number=T878
Encyclopedia.com: re: hyraxes living in colonies:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/h1/hyrax.asp
Engelder, Verbal Inspiration (Concordia Theological Monthly, July 1941,
pages 490-491).
Felix, Prof. Yedulah, Israel's Bar-Ilan University: webpage on shafan
and arnevet: http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Eparasha/shmini/felix.html
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, online Version: Coney
(hyrax): www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T2255
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, online version: Hare:
http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T4100
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:
http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm
Investigator Magazine, 1994, September, Vol. 38, re: cobras, "Revising
the Britannica to Agree with the Bible", Port Adelaide, Australia,
5015, http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BBritannicaCobra38.htm
Investigator Magazine, 1991, May, Vol.18: "The Hyrax Supports the
Bible!", (anonymous writer for this piece), P.O. Box 3243, Port
Adelaide, Australia 5015
http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BHyrax18May1991.htm
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),
http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm
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,
www.adam.com.au/bstett/BLions87.htm
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:
www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet2.html
Wildlife Campus's webpage: re: hyraxes are small and gregarious,
http://www.wildlifecampus.com/Glossary/Glossary.asp?Letter=h
Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, 1983, Animals of the Bible, Beasts of the
field: hare, page 80, Moody Press, Chicago, IL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof In The Holy Scripture: The Bible Permits and Encourages Anal Sex |
28 Oct 2006 10:43:32 AM |
|
|
In News 1162047529.594909.283740@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com,, osprey at
noneedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
Andrealphus wrote:
In News 1162045049.961342.160880@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com,,
osprey at noneedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
Andrealphus wrote:
In News MPG.1fad273db8200b8f9898fe@news.motzarella.org,, J. Young
at jayyoung@bible.org, typed this:
Everyone knows that The Bible Never Lies.
Everyone also knows that the Bible is full of contradictions and
errors, and is irrelevant to the civil issues in any case.
And I have seen some of the toughest atheist debate some of these so
called contradictions and errors with educated theologist and those
so called contradictions and errors were found out to be nothing
more than total misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on the
atheist part.
Yeah, like rabbits chewing their cuds, and bats identified as fowl.
I've also seen these debates and have seen the theologists reduced
to stammering.
ESSAY WITH ENDNOTES:
THE HYRAX
Yawn...
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof In The Holy Scripture: The Bible Permits and Encourages Anal Sex |
28 Oct 2006 01:40:25 PM |
|
|
Andrealphus wrote:
In News 1162047529.594909.283740@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com,, osprey at
noneedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
Andrealphus wrote:
In News 1162045049.961342.160880@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com,,
osprey at noneedtoknow@mail.com, typed this:
Andrealphus wrote:
In News MPG.1fad273db8200b8f9898fe@news.motzarella.org,, J. Young
at jayyoung@bible.org, typed this:
Everyone knows that The Bible Never Lies.
Everyone also knows that the Bible is full of contradictions and
errors, and is irrelevant to the civil issues in any case.
And I have seen some of the toughest atheist debate some of these so
called contradictions and errors with educated theologist and those
so called contradictions and errors were found out to be nothing
more than total misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on the
atheist part.
Yeah, like rabbits chewing their cuds, and bats identified as fowl.
I've also seen these debates and have seen the theologists reduced
to stammering.
ESSAY WITH ENDNOTES:
THE HYRAX
Yawn...
And that's how the atheist reacted when they got their asses handed to
them on the issues.
Once again, you have proven that when provided the rebuttal..you can't
handle it.
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:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/04102.htm 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: http://www.apologeticspress.org/faq/r&r8912a.htm (Please note
the author of the piece at
http://www.apologeticspress.org/faq/r&r8912a.htm 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 ala | | | |
