Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
Re: TOBS: Where in the bible?

An Mon, 01 May 2006 00:06:55 +0100, kathryn hat geschreibt:

"King7rook5" <chess@checkmate.org> wrote in message
news:Pho4g.1$zo2.0@trnddc01...

kathryn wrote:

"King7rook5" <chess@checkmate.org> wrote in message
news:IPm4g.8314$yI1.1247@trnddc04...

DanielSan wrote:

RedBishop wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/04/17/lunar.rocks/index.html
"New dating of lunar rocks add to a growing body of evidence that

the

moon and Earth were pelted by a flurry of large meteorites during a
relatively brief geologic time span about 3.9 billion years ago.

Known

as the "Late Heavy Bombardment," or LHB, this period of heightened
meteorite activity would have had important implications for life

on

Earth, since it coincides roughly with the time that scientists

think

the first primitive bacteria appeared on our planet."

Where, in Genesis, does it even hint that this happened? Nowhere.

The

writers had no clue about this. They never even imagined it! Yet

if

the Earth is only 6,000 or so years old as Bible Chronology spells

out,

The writers did need to know about this, nor was it important. Finally
who are you addressing? Not everyone who believes in creation believes
in the 6-day quikie.

And not everyone believes in God. So what?

Budicaca was hinting that the Bible is correct because it does describe
in detail microbiology.

Shame about the standing on pillars and a bat is a bird thing though.

You missed bunnies chewing cud.

Hello,

I have never found the Bible to be out of harmony with true science,

including the 'bunny cud' statement.

In Leviticus, God told Moses that all the animals to be used for food
(ground "beasts") basically were divided up into just two groupings:
those with split hoofs, and those that chewed cud.

Thus when fitting
animals into those two classifications, the rabbit, because of its
unusual digestion system, would fall more toward the cud chewers, than
the non cud chewers. Why more towards the cud chewers? If you can
appreciate scientific studies, then notice the details below. You
might be surprised at what you will learn.

The Scriptural reference to the hare as a cud chewer has frequently
been doubted by some critics of the Bible. (Le 11:4, 6; De 14:7) It
should not be overlooked, however, that the modern, scientific
classification of what constitutes chewing of the cud provides no
basis for judging what the Bible says, as such classification did not
exist in the time of Moses.

Even in the 18th century, English poet
William Cowper, who had at length observed his domestic rabbits,
commented that they "chewed the cud all day till evening." Linnaeus,
famed naturalist of the same century, believed that rabbits chewed the
cud. But it remained for others to supply more scientific data.
Frenchman Morot discovered in 1882 that rabbits reingest up to 90
percent of their daily intake. Concerning the hare, Ivan T. Sanderson
in a recent publication remarks: "One of the most extraordinary
[habits], to our way of thinking, is their method of digestion. This
is not unique to Leporids [hares, rabbits] and is now known to occur
in many Rodents. When fresh green food, as opposed to desiccated
[dried] winter forage, is available, the animals gobble it up
voraciously and then excrete it around their home lairs in a
semi-digested form. After some time this is then re-eaten, and the
process may be repeated more than once. In the Common Rabbit, it
appears that only the fully grown adults indulge this
practice."-Living Mammals of the World, 1955, p. 114.

Certain British scientists of this century made close observations of
the rabbits' habits under careful controls, and the results they
obtained were published in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society
of London, 1940, Vol. 110, pp. 159-163. Briefly this is the way the
hare reingests its food: If a rabbit eats a breakfast of fresh food,
it passes through the stomach into the small intestine, leaving behind
in the cardiac end of the stomach some 40 or 50 grams of pellets that
were already present when the fresh food was eaten. From the small
intestine the morning meal enters the caecum or blind end of the large
intestine and there remains for a period of time. During the day the
pellets descend, and in the intestines the bacterial protein in them
is digested. When they reach the large intestine they bypass the
material in the caecum and go on into the colon where the excess
moisture is absorbed to produce the familiar dry beans or droppings
that are cast away. This phase of the cycle completed, the material
stored in the dead end of the caecum next enters the colon, but
instead of having all the moisture absorbed it reaches the ***** in a
rather soft condition. It is in pellet form with each coated with a
tough layer of mucus to prevent them from sticking together. Now when
these pellets reach the *****, instead of being cast away, the rabbit
doubles up and takes them into the mouth and stores them away in the
cardiac end of the stomach until another meal has been eaten. In this
way the special rhythmic cycle is completed and most of the food has
passed a second time through the digestive tract.

Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt, Head Curator, Department of Zoology of the
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., in commenting on these
findings, wrote: "There seems to be no reason to doubt the
authenticity of the reports of various workers that rabbits
customarily store semi-digested food in the caecum and that this is
later reingested and passes a second time through the digestive
tract." He also observed that here is an explanation for "the
phenomenally large caecum of rabbits as compared with most other
mammals."-Awake!, April 22, 1951, pp. 27, 28." (Insight on the
Scriptures, Vol 1, p. 555.)

When the circumstances and context are all taken into consideration,
the Bible is absolutely correct in its statement. (see Le 11:1-8, 26)