| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sharon" |
| Date: |
11 Aug 2005 12:50:47 PM |
| Object: |
Rabbit "Chewing Cud" Refection Error |
Here's another small issue with Answers in Genesis and literal biblicism.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp?vPrint=1
Thread:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2619853#post2619853
In a quite recent discussion with "JP Holding" of Tektonics.org (Christian
Apologist on the web) ... the question of the "hare chewing the cud" was
brought up. Mr. Holding proceeded to use Dr. Norman Geisler's argument about
refection in the hare qualifying as cud-chewing. I began researching, and
found a serious error in this argument. [Actually two serious errors.]
Dr. Geisler and numerous apologists have associated refection of rabbits
with "cud chewing". If you go that route, you run into the problem of the
"Swine chewing a cud". Swine, like rabbits consume their feces
[coprophagia] -- Swine notoriously will consume the feces of other animals,
including humans as well. (Moses emphatically states the swine does not chew
a cud.) We can deduce Moses was not referring to refection in the rabbit,
but rather made the same observation as Linnaeus. I feel Dr. Sarfati would
benefit from some further research on this issue.
http://www.aquavet.i12.com/Rabbit.htm
Further, the rabbit does not chew at all. It swallows the pellet whole. This
behavior cannot be called "chewing" the cud.
.
|
|
| User: "Sharon" |
|
| Title: Re: Rabbit "Chewing Cud" Refection Error |
14 Aug 2005 05:45:21 PM |
|
|
of Tektonics.org (Christian Apologist on the web) ... the question of the
"hare chewing the cud" was brought up. Mr. Holding proceeded to use Dr.
Norman Geisler's argument about refection in the hare qualifying as
cud-chewing. I began researching, and found a serious error in this
argument. [Actually two serious errors.]
Quibbler wrote: Only two? You must not have been trying very hard.
Sharon: There is more. Sometimes the simplest things get glazed over when
Creation Scientists begin "explaining the nature of things". They talked
themselves into a hole -- (including many skeptics) so much needless
confusion and chaos on the simple definition of "cud". Instead of the
"chewable wad" that it is defined as, somehow, mysteriously --people became
convinced "cud" was necessarily part a biological digestion process. The
only relationship, is that the Bible uses "alah gerah" for "brings up -the
cud (chewable wad)." Creationists have tried with all their might to deny
"`alah" means "brings up". Upon understanding the true definition of cud,
that argument is completely irrelevant to the issue.
Creationists are now trying to deny there's a word for "chew" in the Bible.
(JP Holding did earlier today, and a Creationist posted on iidb.org that
they could not find a word chew). But, the translators were emphatically
clear when they chose that word "cud" for Hebrew "gerah" that simply meant
"a chewable wad". The whole word itself indicates "to chew". The (Professor
Leonard Brand, Loma Linda University) sent me a long explanation a couple
evenings ago, how "chewing" was not important in the rumination process. To
define a "cud" --it must be "chewed" (verb). Cud itself is a noun, a wad
that is chewed (chewing is mandatory) -- cud has nothing to do with
digestion processes.
They have a page defending refection as "cud chewing".
http://www.grisda.org/origins/04102.htm --but they are in error.
---
The standard (and erroneous) claim located here :
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp?vPrint=1
Why does the Bible refer to rabbits as cud chewers in Leviticus 11:6:
"The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is
unclean for you." (New International Version)?
--
14 Aug 2005
Question: Rabbit Chews the Cud?
Answer: No. A rabbit does not chew a cud.
SOURCE: Dictionary.com:
What is the definition of cud? Tobacco chew qualifies as cud. Another
popular "cud" is chewing gum. Perhaps they should market a new brand as
"Bubble Cud".
DEF #1
cud ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kd)
n.
Food regurgitated from the first stomach to the mouth of a ruminant and
chewed again.
Something held in the mouth and chewed, such as a quid of tobacco.
[Middle English, from Old English cudu.]
DEF #2
Main Entry: cud
Pronunciation: 'k&d, 'kud
Function: noun
: food brought up into the mouth by a ruminating animal from its first
stomach to be chewed again
DEF #3
cud
n 1: food of a ruminant regurgitated to be chewed again [syn: rechewed food]
2: a wad of something chewable as tobacco [syn: chew, chaw, quid, plug, wad]
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cud
The rabbit's "caecal pellet" which is in controversy, is not chewed but
rather, it is swallowed whole. To qualify as cud, a wad must be chewed.
THREE REFERENCES VERIFYING RABBITS DO NOT "CHEW" THIS CUD OR FECES PELLET:
"Arrival of the caecotrophs at the ***** triggers a reflex licking of the
***** and ingestion of the caecotrophs, which are swallowed whole and not
chewed."
http://www.aquavet.i12.com/Rabbit.htm
"Griffiths and Davies assert that the soft pellets are found whole in the
stomach and therefore must be swallowed whole."
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_rabbits_cud.htm
A Christian website containing numerous links on the digestive system of
Rabbits.
http://www.gw.org/Rabbit.htm quotes
"Rabbits are sometimes called "pseudo-ruminants"... The rhythmic cycle of
coprophagy of pure cecal contents practiced by all rabbits allows
utilization of microbial protein and fermentation products, as well as
recycling of certain minerals. Whereas the feces commonly seen excreted by
rabbits are fairly large, dry and ovoid, excreted singly, and consist of
fibrous plant material, cecotrophs are about half that size, occur in moist
bundles stuck together with mucus, and are very fine textured and odiferous.
They are seldom seen, as the rabbit plucks them directly from the ***** as
they are passed and swallows them whole. Normal rabbits do not allow
cecotrophs to drop to the floor or ground, and their presence there
indicates a mechanical problem or illness in the rabbit.
microvet.arizona.edu/Courses/MIC443/notes/rabbits.htm
and
* Biblical Scholars speak on the question:
Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, page 525:
The OT...refers to the hare only to indicate that it is an unclean animal,
but its assertion that the hare is a ruminant is contrary to fact. Probably,
as in the case of the hyrax...some movements of the mouth and jaws have been
erroneously interpreted as cud-chewing.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 616:
This animal is mentioned only in the lists of unclean animals in Leviticus
and Deuteronomy...The hare and the coney are not ruminants, but might be
supposed to be from their habit of almost continuously moving their jaws.
Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 2000 edition, page 552:
Because it "chews the cud" but "does not have divided hoofs," the hare is
classified as an unclean animal (Lev. 11:6; Deut. 14:7). Actually, it is not
a ruminant but may have appeared as such to ancient obervers because of its
constant chewing movements.
An entire discussion has been dedicated to this issue here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=133308
*Credit to John Kesler
THROUGH THE EYES OF ANCIENT OBSERVERS
by Edward T. Babinski
August 10, 2005
The ancients probably saw rabbits and cows eating grass and both chewed the
grass for a while before swallowing it. They also probably noted the way
that cows regurgitate the bolus of food from their stomachs and chewed it
some more, and probably assumed that rabbits did the same. They didn't know
a lot about biology or how to divide creatures. They had few names for
animals in the Bible period and the very word translated as rabbit might
mean rock badger as well. What I find least likely is that the same ancient
Hebrews who spoke of the serpent as "eating dust" [sic] also knew about
"excrement eating," i.e., "refection" in hares (and/or coneys).
Recall that when the Bible mentions excrement, even cow's excrement (that
Yahweh allowed Ezekiel to use instead of human excrement to bake bread over)
the mention of the "excrement" coupled with disgust is quite evident. If an
ancient Hebrew had seen animals eating their own excrement they would
probably have mentioned that fact rather than disquising it as merely
"chewing the cud" [sic]. And likewise I doubt that the Hebrews studied hares
or rock badgers/coneys so carefully and employed such a wide definition of
"chewing the cud/regurgitation in the Hebrew" as to include eating one's own
defecation. Odds are, as I said, they probably simply assumed that rabbits,
like cows, chewed their grassy meals and "brought them up again" (isn't that
the meaning of the Hebrew?) to chew them some more.
Of course the same folks who want to claim that they have discovered a
modern "scientific" way to re-interpret such passages as "rabbits/coneys
chew the cud" are also the same ones who spend their time trying to explain
away the Bible's "heart/blood/bowel" focus on human life and behavior
(without mentioning the most vital organ that holds the most vital part of
one's "life" and "direction," i.e., the brain and nervous system), and they
are also the same folks who spend their time trying to explain away the
Bible's flat earth and geocentric assumptions concerning the cosmos and the
firmament and the order of creation:
http://www.creation-science.us/geocentrism/cosmology.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/1/1brain93.html
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/heart.html
RELATED LINK
Lengthy conversation with Webpologist JP Holding and Christian Professor
Leonard Brand, Loma Linda University on refection in rabbits and "cud"
chewing.
http://www.creation-science.us/errancy/hare_chew_cud.html
From "Do Rabbits Chew A Cud?"
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/creationism/rabbit_cud.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Rabbit "Chewing Cud" Refection Error |
14 Aug 2005 07:20:04 PM |
|
|
"Sharon" <none@spam-reject.net> said:
of Tektonics.org (Christian Apologist on the web) ... the question of the
"hare chewing the cud" was brought up. Mr. Holding proceeded to use Dr.
Norman Geisler's argument about refection in the hare qualifying as
cud-chewing. I began researching, and found a serious error in this
argument. [Actually two serious errors.]
Quibbler wrote: Only two? You must not have been trying very hard.
Sharon: There is more. Sometimes the simplest things get glazed over when
Creation Scientists begin "explaining the nature of things". They talked
themselves into a hole -- (including many skeptics) so much needless
confusion and chaos on the simple definition of "cud". Instead of the
"chewable wad" that it is defined as, somehow, mysteriously --people became
convinced "cud" was necessarily part a biological digestion process. The
only relationship, is that the Bible uses "alah gerah" for "brings up -the
cud (chewable wad)." Creationists have tried with all their might to deny
"`alah" means "brings up". Upon understanding the true definition of cud,
that argument is completely irrelevant to the issue.
Creationists are now trying to deny there's a word for "chew" in the Bible.
(JP Holding did earlier today, and a Creationist posted on iidb.org that
they could not find a word chew). But, the translators were emphatically
clear when they chose that word "cud" for Hebrew "gerah" that simply meant
"a chewable wad". The whole word itself indicates "to chew". The (Professor
Leonard Brand, Loma Linda University) sent me a long explanation a couple
evenings ago, how "chewing" was not important in the rumination process. To
define a "cud" --it must be "chewed" (verb). Cud itself is a noun, a wad
that is chewed (chewing is mandatory) -- cud has nothing to do with
digestion processes.
They have a page defending refection as "cud chewing".
http://www.grisda.org/origins/04102.htm --but they are in error.
---
The standard (and erroneous) claim located here :
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp?vPrint=1
Why does the Bible refer to rabbits as cud chewers in Leviticus 11:6:
"The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is
unclean for you." (New International Version)?
Are there 'Cuddites' and "Anticuddites'?
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Rabbit "Chewing Cud" Refection Error |
14 Aug 2005 07:11:30 PM |
|
|
William J. Stewart, Kingston, Ontario wrote:
You mentioned that the rabbit does not chew at all, but rather swallows
the pellet whole. This argument is based upon the assumption that "chew
the cud" is an adequate rendering of "'alah gerah". The fact is,
neither word literally means to chew. "'Alah" has a variety of uses,
but generally means to raise up or bring up. But in addition, it can
mean to recover or restore. The rabbit surely is recovering or
restoring it's food in the coprophagia process. It would seem that
translators considered "chew the cud" to best accommodate Moses'
meaning, though it seems to fall short in fully expressing what "'alah
gerah" means.
SHARON: MR. STEWART, IS IT CUD OR NOT? YEA OR NAY?
As soon as you've admitted it is cud spoken of in scripture (unless you
know more than Biblical translators) -- if you admit it is "cud" you
have admitted it means chewing. If you say that it does not mean cud
--then you guys are given the ultimatum of telling Christians, "Erm,
the rabbit does not chew a cud, because we're oblivious what the word
Gerah means. It doesn't mean cud anymore. We Christians are not sure
what the mystery wad was that cows bring up."
Christians are now attempting to deny the word "chew" is found in
Hebrew scripture. It doesn't have to be. "Chew" is found within the
word cud itself.
Please do choose another word for Gerah, but "cud" is not permitted if
you guys are going to say "Gerah" is "cud". Explain to the world,
Biblical Translators were too ignorant about Hebrew language to
understand the definition of Gerah.
CUD --MEANING LITERALLY "A WAD THAT IS CHEWED" -- Digestion has nothing
to do with the definition of cud. Okay, let's play that word game --
give the English equivalent of "Gerah".
The only question is "What is Gerah"? Is it `cud', yea or nay,
Christian brethren? Do you deny Gerah is "cud"? If you do, then please,
please! Tell us what Gerah is? Please keep the word "cud" out of your
articles in the future, because the rabbit does not chew a "cud". You
can redefine "Gerah" to your heart's desire, but you cannot redefine
cud.
I ask all these Christians, what is Gerah? Some mystery dropping from
heaven, like manna --or the lump a cow brings up and re-chews, which we
all know in this day and age is none other than "cud", good old
fashioned "cud". Again, read "dictionary.com" for the definition of
"cud".
Instead of saying "chew" is not found in the Bible, give the alternate
word which was intended for "Gerah". Some mystery in the Bible now, eh,
after centuries of calling it "cud" what is Gerah (noun): Bangaloo,
yahoogaloo, fhinashio, (some thing we've never heard of? Did Hebrew
cows spew up something unfamiliar to Farmers across the world in the
year 2005? or was Gerah "CUD" and Biblical translators put it? Biblical
translators used the word "cud", and by doing so, the word "cud" itself
indicates verbal "chewing". The whole word "cud" is defined as "a wad
that is chewed".
If the Gerah is not "cud", please inform the world what this "mystery
stuff is that cows bring up".
Cud is the word translators chose, and have always used. Cud is no
other than a "wad that is chewed". Chew does not need to be in the
Bible. Cud defines itself, it means "chewed wad". The rabbit does not
chew that pellet, by that alone, we know the pellet is not a "cud".
The whole argument about refection hangs upon "cud". And the definition
of cud hangs upon a wad "which is Chewed", like Chewing Gum, Chewing
Tobacco.
Now deny Gerah is "cud" if you will.
The whole scripture is meaningless without "cud" for Gerah. The whole
meaning of cud, is rendered useless, --and renders your cud chewing
arguments equally useles if you take the chewing out of it. Cud is
"chewed" ... it's all it does, it's all it ever was, it's all it will
ever be. "A chewable(verb) wad (noun)."
NOW GO RIGHT AHEAD AND DENY THE BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS.
You guys are simply proving how incapable you are of dealing with an
error.
I see! I see! You have time and time again, swervedand weaved all
around the word "alah" trying to claim it doesn't mean "bring up". But
when it comes to the word "cud", you claim now, it doesn't mean "cud"
--therefore, it doesn't mean "chew". Chewing is all "cud" is. A wad
that is chewed. SIMPLE: If it is not chewed, it is not cud. READ THE
DEFINITION OF CUD. Cud is defined as "a chewable (verb) wad (noun)", or
"a wad that chewed".
MR. STEWART -- For people who do not believe "Gerah" meant "Cud"... you
guys sure have used the word "cud" a lot.
Is Gerah Cud or not?
If you say it is cud, you have already admitted it means chewing.
Chewing is ALL cud is about.
Thank you for trying your best to swerve around the issues.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Rabbit "Chewing Cud" Refection Error |
11 Aug 2005 09:00:58 PM |
|
|
In article <1123782650.cacf7bd03c4a44a46c24454018edf2e7@teranews>,
none@spam-reject.net says...
Here's another small issue with Answers in Genesis and literal biblicism.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp?vPrint=1
They should call it AnswersFromGodsAnus.org, since most of their answers
tend to have a fecal aroma.
Thread:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2619853#post2619853
In a quite recent discussion with "JP Holding"
That guy is such a fucking idiot.
of Tektonics.org (Christian
Apologist on the web) ... the question of the "hare chewing the cud" was
brought up. Mr. Holding proceeded to use Dr. Norman Geisler's argument about
refection in the hare qualifying as cud-chewing. I began researching, and
found a serious error in this argument. [Actually two serious errors.]
Only two? You must not have been trying very hard.
Dr. Geisler and numerous apologists have associated refection of rabbits
with "cud chewing". If you go that route, you run into the problem of the
"Swine chewing a cud".
Hey, you weren't kidding about these answers having a fecal nature to
them. If you're going to go that route then dogs are also "ruminants",
since they are known to eat their own *****, as well as licking up their
own puke. For that matter, cat's are ruminants, because they lick their
own asses, as well as licking up their own vomit on occasion. Heck, for
that matter certain people, mainly of the German persuasion, for reasons
that it would probably be best not to know, would qualify as "ruminants"
under these broad definitions. If you've ever thrown up in your own
mouth, perhaps at the thought of JP Holding naked, then you would
qualify as a ruminant. If you've seen _The Yesmen_, then their proposal
about creating recycled burgers or "re-burgers", by capturing the waste
from fast food restaurants and reprocessing it, would turn even more
humans into cud chewing little fiends. FWIW, it might be more
appropriate to call it "mud chewing" as opposed to "cud chewing", if one
wanted to use a euphemism for this unsavory activity.
http://www.aquavet.i12.com/Rabbit.htm
Further, the rabbit does not chew at all. It swallows the pellet whole. This
behavior cannot be called "chewing" the cud.
I'm sure that's just an evil trick by satan to test your faith. They
probably secretly chew the pellets when you're not watching. That's, of
course, when they're not busy laying easter eggs.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Rabbit "Chewing Cud" Refection Error |
14 Aug 2005 05:53:45 PM |
|
|
of Tektonics.org (Christian Apologist on the web) ... the question of the
"hare chewing the cud" was brought up. Mr. Holding proceeded to use Dr.
Norman Geisler's argument about refection in the hare qualifying as
cud-chewing. I began researching, and found a serious error in this
argument. [Actually two serious errors.]
Quibbler wrote: Only two? You must not have been trying very hard.
Sharon: There is more. Sometimes the simplest things get glazed over
when
Creation Scientists begin "explaining the nature of things". They
talked
themselves into a hole -- (including many skeptics) so much needless
confusion and chaos on the simple definition of "cud". Instead of the
"chewable wad" that it is defined as, somehow, mysteriously --people
became
convinced "cud" was necessarily part a biological digestion process.
The
only relationship, is that the Bible uses "alah gerah" for "brings up
-the
cud (chewable wad)." Creationists have tried with all their might to
deny
"`alah" means "brings up". Upon understanding the true definition of
cud,
that argument is completely irrelevant to the issue.
Creationists are now trying to deny there's a word for "chew" in the
Bible.
(JP Holding did earlier today, and a Creationist posted on iidb.org
that
they could not find a word chew). But, the translators were
emphatically
clear when they chose that word "cud" for Hebrew "gerah" that simply
meant
"a chewable wad". The whole word itself indicates "to chew". The
(Professor
Leonard Brand, Loma Linda University) sent me a long explanation a
couple
evenings ago, how "chewing" was not important in the rumination
process. To
define a "cud" --it must be "chewed" (verb). Cud itself is a noun, a
wad
that is chewed (chewing is mandatory) -- cud has nothing to do with
digestion processes.
They have a page defending refection as "cud chewing".
http://www.grisda.org/origins/04102.htm --but they are in error.
---
The standard (and erroneous) claim located here :
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp?vPrint=1
Why does the Bible refer to rabbits as cud chewers in Leviticus 11:6:
"The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is
unclean for you." (New International Version)?
--
14 Aug 2005
Question: Rabbit Chews the Cud?
Answer: No. A rabbit does not chew a cud.
SOURCE: Dictionary.com:
What is the definition of cud? Tobacco chew qualifies as cud. Another
popular "cud" is chewing gum. Perhaps they should market a new brand as
"Bubble Cud".
DEF #1
cud ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kd)
n.
Food regurgitated from the first stomach to the mouth of a ruminant and
chewed again.
Something held in the mouth and chewed, such as a quid of tobacco.
[Middle English, from Old English cudu.]
DEF #2
Main Entry: cud
Pronunciation: 'k&d, 'kud
Function: noun
: food brought up into the mouth by a ruminating animal from its first
stomach to be chewed again
DEF #3
cud
n 1: food of a ruminant regurgitated to be chewed again [syn: rechewed
food]
2: a wad of something chewable as tobacco [syn: chew, chaw, quid, plug,
wad]
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cud
The rabbit's "caecal pellet" which is in controversy, is not chewed but
rather, it is swallowed whole. To qualify as cud, a wad must be chewed.
THREE REFERENCES VERIFYING RABBITS DO NOT "CHEW" THIS CUD OR FECES
PELLET:
"Arrival of the caecotrophs at the ***** triggers a reflex licking of
the
***** and ingestion of the caecotrophs, which are swallowed whole and
not
chewed."
http://www.aquavet.i12.com/Rabbit.htm
"Griffiths and Davies assert that the soft pellets are found whole in
the
stomach and therefore must be swallowed whole."
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_rabbits_cud.htm
A Christian website containing numerous links on the digestive system
of
Rabbits.
http://www.gw.org/Rabbit.htm quotes
"Rabbits are sometimes called "pseudo-ruminants"... The rhythmic cycle
of
coprophagy of pure cecal contents practiced by all rabbits allows
utilization of microbial protein and fermentation products, as well as
recycling of certain minerals. Whereas the feces commonly seen excreted
by
rabbits are fairly large, dry and ovoid, excreted singly, and consist
of
fibrous plant material, cecotrophs are about half that size, occur in
moist
bundles stuck together with mucus, and are very fine textured and
odiferous.
They are seldom seen, as the rabbit plucks them directly from the *****
as
they are passed and swallows them whole. Normal rabbits do not allow
cecotrophs to drop to the floor or ground, and their presence there
indicates a mechanical problem or illness in the rabbit.
microvet.arizona.edu/Courses/MIC443/notes/rabbits.htm
and
* Biblical Scholars speak on the question:
Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, page 525:
The OT...refers to the hare only to indicate that it is an unclean
animal,
but its assertion that the hare is a ruminant is contrary to fact.
Probably,
as in the case of the hyrax...some movements of the mouth and jaws have
been
erroneously interpreted as cud-chewing.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 616:
This animal is mentioned only in the lists of unclean animals in
Leviticus
and Deuteronomy...The hare and the coney are not ruminants, but might
be
supposed to be from their habit of almost continuously moving their
jaws.
Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 2000 edition, page 552:
Because it "chews the cud" but "does not have divided hoofs," the hare
is
classified as an unclean animal (Lev. 11:6; Deut. 14:7). Actually, it
is not
a ruminant but may have appeared as such to ancient obervers because of
its
constant chewing movements.
An entire discussion has been dedicated to this issue here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=133308
*Credit to John Kesler
THROUGH THE EYES OF ANCIENT OBSERVERS
by Edward T. Babinski
August 10, 2005
The ancients probably saw rabbits and cows eating grass and both chewed
the
grass for a while before swallowing it. They also probably noted the
way
that cows regurgitate the bolus of food from their stomachs and chewed
it
some more, and probably assumed that rabbits did the same. They didn't
know
a lot about biology or how to divide creatures. They had few names for
animals in the Bible period and the very word translated as rabbit
might
mean rock badger as well. What I find least likely is that the same
ancient
Hebrews who spoke of the serpent as "eating dust" [sic] also knew about
"excrement eating," i.e., "refection" in hares (and/or coneys).
Recall that when the Bible mentions excrement, even cow's excrement
(that
Yahweh allowed Ezekiel to use instead of human excrement to bake bread
over)
the mention of the "excrement" coupled with disgust is quite evident.
If an
ancient Hebrew had seen animals eating their own excrement they would
probably have mentioned that fact rather than disquising it as merely
"chewing the cud" [sic]. And likewise I doubt that the Hebrews studied
hares
or rock badgers/coneys so carefully and employed such a wide definition
of
"chewing the cud/regurgitation in the Hebrew" as to include eating
one's own
defecation. Odds are, as I said, they probably simply assumed that
rabbits,
like cows, chewed their grassy meals and "brought them up again" (isn't
that
the meaning of the Hebrew?) to chew them some more.
Of course the same folks who want to claim that they have discovered a
modern "scientific" way to re-interpret such passages as
"rabbits/coneys
chew the cud" are also the same ones who spend their time trying to
explain
away the Bible's "heart/blood/bowel" focus on human life and behavior
(without mentioning the most vital organ that holds the most vital part
of
one's "life" and "direction," i.e., the brain and nervous system), and
they
are also the same folks who spend their time trying to explain away the
Bible's flat earth and geocentric assumptions concerning the cosmos and
the
firmament and the order of creation:
http://www.creation-science.us/geocentrism/cosmology.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/1/1brain93.html
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/heart.html
RELATED LINK
Lengthy conversation with Webpologist JP Holding and Christian
Professor
Leonard Brand, Loma Linda University on refection in rabbits and "cud"
chewing.
http://www.creation-science.us/errancy/hare_chew_cud.html
From "Do Rabbits Chew A Cud?"
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/creationism/rabbit_cud.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sharon" |
|
| Title: Re: Rabbit "Chewing Cud" Refection Error |
15 Aug 2005 08:42:29 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism Jim07D5 wrote:
Are there 'Cuddites' and "Anticuddites'?
--- Jim07D5
Nope.
Quote: Originally posted by lee_merrill
Another thought on this, farther down, we read that insects that walk "on
all fours" are not to be eaten either, with some exceptions (Lev. 11:20-22).
Only those insects (locusts etc.) have six legs! So what are we to conclude?
Either they could not count, or else their biological terminology was
different than we would expect, in this instance, and thus probably also, in
the description of the rabbits, whose stomachs they could no doubt examine.
Blessings,
Lee
Sharon: Shall we rent a time-machine and go back and personally ask Moses
what "gerah" means? (With the way you are having trouble comprehending the
English definition of "cud", it will be certainly far more difficult for you
to grasp the definition of "gerah".) Point blank, "cud" has nothing, nichts,
nada to do with "digestion" --why do you bring up the rabbit's stomach?
Question: What does digestion have to do with cud?
Answer: Nothing.
The only vague relationship between cud and digestion is when Moses said the
ruminants "bring up" this "chewable wad". Moses defined rumination by the
presence of cud (wad), but he did not define cud by rumination. No matter
what they find in a rabbit's stomach, will have zero bearing upon the
English definition of cud. It is unchanging (confusion over the word, does
not change its meaning) --it is a noun, a wad that is chewed. If the wad is
not chewed, it is not "cud".
If the word translators used was anything other than "cud" there would
likely be no problem. True.. they've discovered similarities between the
ruminants and pseudo-ruminants (rabbits) -- yet, this has no bearing upon
the definition of cud. The rabbits consumes the pellet, but it does not chew
it --chewing defines a cud. If the rabbit chewed on the pellet at length,
(as in tobacco, or the length of time people chew on chewing gum) it would
most certainly be a "cud".
The example of the swine -- it may chew up semi-digested feces (like the
rabbit) but it does not chew at length (explains why Moses excluded it from
the cud-chewers), and as in chewing gum or tobacco (human cud chewing). Yes,
humans chew a lot of cuds. From Red-Man Plug to Wrigley's Spearmint.
The best you are given by translators in English is "cud" for "gerah", and
there are no refunds or exchanges, and cud means what cud means -- a wad of
something chewable. As for the Hebrew -- well, that's for Sarfati and
Geisler and all those guys to duke out.
------------
Sharon: "You have one more problem. Not only did Biblical translators use
the word "chew" in their translation, but they used the word "cud" as well.
Chewing was twice emphasized as in "(1)chew the (2)cud".
Johnny EC wrote: "That might have something to do with "Cud" being the
closest thing in the English language to gerah.
Not all words perfectly translate from one language to the next. I reccomend
you do some linguistic study beforehand. Instead of basing an argument for
Biblical errancy on an English translation of the Bible."
Sharon: Deny as you may, that "cud" doesn't really mean "cud", you can
redefine alah, gerar, Gerah to your heart's content, but you cannot redefine
cud. Translators used the word "cud" for a reason. And you know what I think
that reason was? The reason I think translators used "cud", was because
Moses meant "cud". What is this "mystery word" you're looking for...
typically languages evolve from the need for a word. Funny that in the
thousands of years, no better word than "cud" evolved in the languages for
translators to find that "better word" than cud for Gerah.
BTW, just a note here. All the linguistic study that needed to be done on
this topic was done by John Kesler on iidb:
Originally Posted by lee_merrill
Hi everyone,
Well, I checked verse 7, and it doesn't actually have the Hebrew word for
"chew," though verse 8 does. So I think my point here still stands.
Kesler: What reference work did you use? Each source that I consulted shows
that not only is there a Hebrew word rendered "chew" in Deuteronomy 14:7,
but it is there twice. It is verse 8 that doesn't have a Hebrew word for
"chew." See here
(http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1124061167-6063.html#7) for proof.
And to reiterate, as comparison between Leviticus 11:3 and 7 reveals, there
is no substantive difference between alah and garar. See this post.
(http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2627923#post2627923)
-----------
Originally Posted by lee_merrill
Hi everyone,
Well, there does seem to be! "Alah" is quite a bit broader, and for "garar,"
the two dictionaries I checked (TWOT, BDB) listed only "drag, drag away" as
meanings, so this seems to make any specific interpretation less certain in
this context of "what happens to food."
Kesler: "As I mentioned previously, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates says that Leviticus
11:7 is an example of garar meaning "chew the cud" and "ruminate." This is
what the swine doesn't do which makes it unclean. Leviticus 11:3 says that
"clean" animals are supposed to allah the cud, so in the context of
clean/unclean animals, allah and garar meant nearly the same thing. I have
to wonder if you gave fair consideration to what I'm saying since you refer
to BDB, TWOT's definitions without commenting on the fact that the context
of Leviticus 11 shows the two words are used interchangeably. See also here
(http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1124103883-4881.html) which
shows that "to chew the cud" is one of garar's definitions.
I think that I have provided ample evidence for my position, and I feel that
I am repeating myself, so this will be my last post in this thread."
From:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2632156#post2632156
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2633207#post2633207
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Rabbit "Chewing Cud" Refection Error |
15 Aug 2005 09:58:13 AM |
|
|
"Sharon" <none@spam-reject.net> said:
In alt.atheism Jim07D5 wrote:
Are there 'Cuddites' and "Anticuddites'?
--- Jim07D5
Nope.
Quote: Originally posted by lee_merrill
Another thought on this, farther down, we read that insects that walk "on
all fours" are not to be eaten either, with some exceptions (Lev. 11:20-22).
Only those insects (locusts etc.) have six legs! So what are we to conclude?
Either they could not count, or else their biological terminology was
different than we would expect, in this instance, and thus probably also, in
the description of the rabbits, whose stomachs they could no doubt examine.
Blessings,
Lee
Sharon: Shall we rent a time-machine and go back and personally ask Moses
what "gerah" means? (With the way you are having trouble comprehending the
English definition of "cud", it will be certainly far more difficult for you
to grasp the definition of "gerah".) Point blank, "cud" has nothing, nichts,
nada to do with "digestion" --why do you bring up the rabbit's stomach?
Question: What does digestion have to do with cud?
Answer: Nothing.
The only vague relationship between cud and digestion is when Moses said the
ruminants "bring up" this "chewable wad". Moses defined rumination by the
presence of cud (wad), but he did not define cud by rumination. No matter
what they find in a rabbit's stomach, will have zero bearing upon the
English definition of cud. It is unchanging (confusion over the word, does
not change its meaning) --it is a noun, a wad that is chewed. If the wad is
not chewed, it is not "cud".
If the word translators used was anything other than "cud" there would
likely be no problem. True.. they've discovered similarities between the
ruminants and pseudo-ruminants (rabbits) -- yet, this has no bearing upon
the definition of cud. The rabbits consumes the pellet, but it does not chew
it --chewing defines a cud. If the rabbit chewed on the pellet at length,
(as in tobacco, or the length of time people chew on chewing gum) it would
most certainly be a "cud".
The example of the swine -- it may chew up semi-digested feces (like the
rabbit) but it does not chew at length (explains why Moses excluded it from
the cud-chewers), and as in chewing gum or tobacco (human cud chewing). Yes,
humans chew a lot of cuds. From Red-Man Plug to Wrigley's Spearmint.
The best you are given by translators in English is "cud" for "gerah", and
there are no refunds or exchanges, and cud means what cud means -- a wad of
something chewable. As for the Hebrew -- well, that's for Sarfati and
Geisler and all those guys to duke out.
------------
Sharon: "You have one more problem. Not only did Biblical translators use
the word "chew" in their translation, but they used the word "cud" as well.
Chewing was twice emphasized as in "(1)chew the (2)cud".
Johnny EC wrote: "That might have something to do with "Cud" being the
closest thing in the English language to gerah.
Not all words perfectly translate from one language to the next. I reccomend
you do some linguistic study beforehand. Instead of basing an argument for
Biblical errancy on an English translation of the Bible."
Sharon: Deny as you may, that "cud" doesn't really mean "cud", you can
redefine alah, gerar, Gerah to your heart's content, but you cannot redefine
cud. Translators used the word "cud" for a reason. And you know what I think
that reason was? The reason I think translators used "cud", was because
Moses meant "cud". What is this "mystery word" you're looking for...
typically languages evolve from the need for a word. Funny that in the
thousands of years, no better word than "cud" evolved in the languages for
translators to find that "better word" than cud for Gerah.
BTW, just a note here. All the linguistic study that needed to be done on
this topic was done by John Kesler on iidb:
Originally Posted by lee_merrill
Hi everyone,
Well, I checked verse 7, and it doesn't actually have the Hebrew word for
"chew," though verse 8 does. So I think my point here still stands.
Kesler: What reference work did you use? Each source that I consulted shows
that not only is there a Hebrew word rendered "chew" in Deuteronomy 14:7,
but it is there twice. It is verse 8 that doesn't have a Hebrew word for
"chew." See here
(http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1124061167-6063.html#7) for proof.
And to reiterate, as comparison between Leviticus 11:3 and 7 reveals, there
is no substantive difference between alah and garar. See this post.
(http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2627923#post2627923)
-----------
Originally Posted by lee_merrill
Hi everyone,
Well, there does seem to be! "Alah" is quite a bit broader, and for "garar,"
the two dictionaries I checked (TWOT, BDB) listed only "drag, drag away" as
meanings, so this seems to make any specific interpretation less certain in
this context of "what happens to food."
Kesler: "As I mentioned previously, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates says that Leviticus
11:7 is an example of garar meaning "chew the cud" and "ruminate." This is
what the swine doesn't do which makes it unclean. Leviticus 11:3 says that
"clean" animals are supposed to allah the cud, so in the context of
clean/unclean animals, allah and garar meant nearly the same thing. I have
to wonder if you gave fair consideration to what I'm saying since you refer
to BDB, TWOT's definitions without commenting on the fact that the context
of Leviticus 11 shows the two words are used interchangeably. See also here
(http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1124103883-4881.html) which
shows that "to chew the cud" is one of garar's definitions.
I think that I have provided ample evidence for my position, and I feel that
I am repeating myself, so this will be my last post in this thread."
From:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2632156#post2632156
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2633207#post2633207
All of this seems like a more visceral version of debates over angels
dancing on the heads of pins.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sharon" |
|
| Title: Re: Rabbit "Chewing Cud" Refection Error |
15 Aug 2005 10:43:10 AM |
|
|
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:0bb1g1te4tikah5tilomkse0nto1hhbbg8@4ax.com...
All of this seems like a more visceral version of debates over angels
dancing on the heads of pins.
--- Jim07D5
Yup.
The only vague relationship between cud and digestion is when Moses said
the
ruminants "bring up" this "chewable wad". Moses defined rumination by the
presence of cud (wad), but he did not define cud by rumination. No matter
what they find in a rabbit's stomach, will have zero bearing upon the
English definition of cud. It is unchanging (confusion over the word, does
not change its meaning) --it is a noun, a wad that is chewed. If the wad
is
not chewed, it is not "cud".
I myself am guilty of believing some days ago it was an error to say "Fecal
pellets can not be cud." They can be, if they are chewed on at length. I was
thinking myself, cud necessarily had to be vomit (like cow regurgitation
from its stomach) --I was thinking it absurd that a turd could qualify as
edible cud. But it is true. The definition of cud can include a turd which
is held in the mouth and chewed on.
Somehow, everyone got confused on the definition of cud. They mistakingly
assumed it was limited to "something that is re-chewed a second time through
the system, strictly as in digestion". However, as soon as a Hillbilly opens
a pack of Red Man Chaw and sticks a wad in his jaw, and chomping away for
three or four minutes --it's cud. (It has nothing to do with digestion). If
the rabbit `chewed at length' on that turd --it's cud. (But it does not chew
on the pellet, and that is why it is not cud). If the cow spews up a wad
from its first stomach, and rechews at length --it's cud.
And the Creationists were arguing `alah did not literally mean "bring up" --
gumby apologetics --stretched and skewed in whatever direction is necessary
to make the facts fit scripture. So they said "`alah" meant "bring around
from the backside to the mouth". The Skeptics have said that's not true,
`alah specifically means brings up or to bring up.
I am thinking the Hebrew may be identical to English in that regard --
Moses, thinking "humans also chew on wads" and are "cud chewers" -- there
may be other examples of cud chewing that are not coming to mind right
now, -- but to eliminate all the other forms of cud chewing and narrowing it
down to ruminants, he specified "bring up - the wad" (rumination was
defined). Humans can chew a cud, but they do not "bring it up" as in
rumination.
I believe the Hebrew literally means "brings up the cud".
The Christians may be confused on the definition of cud, now, but Moses did
not appear to be confused. He appears to be very definitive between "bring
up" = "ruminant".
And, he simply made an error of observation -Rabbits make the "appearance"
to bring up a wad and chew.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sharon" |
|
| Title: Re: Rabbit "Chewing Cud" Refection Error |
15 Aug 2005 11:20:22 AM |
|
|
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:0bb1g1te4tikah5tilomkse0nto1hhbbg8@4ax.com...
All of this seems like a more visceral version of debates over angels
dancing on the heads of pins.
--- Jim07D5
Yup.
Definition became clouded by Creation Scientists
Where the Creationists went wrong was assuming "cud" necessarily was "a
second pass of food, as in rumination." They never knew to question the
rabbit (refection) merely consists of swallowing the pellet -- they
erroneously assumed it chewed the pellet... but more than this, even IF the
rabbit had chewed up that pellet and swallowed --that in itself would only
qualify as (in a pseudo kind of way) "pseudo-ruminant" they're called, but
if the rabbit did not chew on that pellet at length, it still wasn't cud.
They did not understand the definition of cud. It has nothing to do with
eating or digestion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
