Leviticus 11:6

[The_Squid]

Leviticus 11:6

King James Version (KJV)

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

Hares do not chew their cud. Or have mammal biologists been wrong about that for all these years?

How did God let this one slip past the editors??

[TimG]

Hares do not chew their cud. Or have mammal biologists been wrong about that for all these years?

No but rabbits eat their poop:

coprophagy the ingestion of dung or feces; a vice in dogs; normal in rabbits. Called also cecotrophy.

http://medical-dicti....com/coprophagy

Given that the bible is a translation it is reasonable to assume that something was lost.

If you want to nitpik about a 4000 year old book there are better passages to use....

Edited January 19, 2013 by TimG

[The_Squid]

KJV is 400 years old.

Nitpick? That's the whole point.... It is so clear that the bible is simply a creation of ignorant tribesmen that how can anyone believe any of it?

[Shady]

Leviticus 11:6

King James Version (KJV)

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

Hares do not chew their cud. Or have mammal biologists been wrong about that for all these years?

How did God let this one slip past the editors??

How cares? I'm not religious. Why do I give a shit?

[Sleipnir]

Leviticus 11:6

King James Version (KJV)

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

Let me try and translate it...

"Because the hare chews their cud and cannot be hit by a (horse) hoof, hares are therefore unclean to eat".

[Bonam]

Why do I give a shit?

Here's why:

[msj]

How cares? I'm not religious. Why do I give a shit?

Perhaps the "How now, brown cow" cares?

Why give a poop? Well, because The_Squid is right: It is so clear that the bible is simply a creation of ignorant tribesmen that how can anyone believe any of it?

​So, when some homophobic twit relies on Leviticus he looks kinda silly when he ignores the other stupid things written in the stupid book that is no longer relevant.

[msj]

But, Bonam, Shady likes Repulbicans whose politics is infused with The Bible so why should he give a poop?

Unless you mean that rational people are starting to assert themselves and not putting up with these religious freaks which could mean the Republicans become more and more of an endangered species which means that Shady should then give a poop.

[jbg]

Leviticus 11:6

King James Version (KJV)

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

The cleanliness rules require that they both have cloven hoof and chew their cud.

[TimG]

Nitpick? That's the whole point....

Well I just gave you a link that shows that on this particular point the bible happens to be right and you are yapping about nothing.

There are many other dubious things in the bible. This is not one of them.

Edited January 19, 2013 by TimG

[The_Squid]

The KJV is clear.... Cud. Doesn't say poop.

Many translations say cud. http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Leviticus%2011:6

Edited January 19, 2013 by The_Squid

[TimG]

The KJV is clear.... Cud. Doesn't say poop.

So now you are an expert on ancient Hebrew or whatever language that book was originally written in?

But does the rabbit actually chew the cud? The Hebrew word translated “chew” is the word‘alah. With any attempt to translate one language to another, it is understood that there is often more than one meaning for a given word. A cursory glace at any Hebrew lexicon reveals that‘alah can mean go up, ascend, climb, go up into, out of a place, depart, rise up, cause to ascend, bring up from, among others. Here it carries the implication of moving something from one place to another. So the phrase translated to English as “chew the cud” literally means something on the order of “eats that which is brought forth again.”

[The_Squid]

No. I can read English though....

Leviticus 11:6 (LEB) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 and the hare, because it is a chewer of cud but it does not have a hoof that is divided—it is unclean for you;

Leviticus 11:3-8 (MSG) | Whole Chapter

3-8 “You may eat any animal that has a split hoof, divided in two, and that chews the cud, but not an animal that only chews the cud or only has a split hoof. For instance, the camel chews the cud but doesn’t have a split hoof, so it’s unclean. The rock badger chews the cud but doesn’t have a split hoof and so it’s unclean. The rabbit chews the cud but doesn’t have a split hoof so is unclean. The pig has a split hoof, divided in two, but doesn’t chew the cud and so is unclean. You may not eat their meat nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

Leviticus 11:6 (NASB) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you;

Leviticus 11:6 (NCV) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 The rabbit chews the cud but does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.

Leviticus 11:6 (NET) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 The hare is unclean to you because it chews the cud even though its hoof is not divided.

Leviticus 11:6 (NIRV) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 “‘Rabbits chew the cud. But their hoofs are not separated in two. So they are not “clean” for you.

Leviticus 11:6 (NIV) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.

Leviticus 11:6 (NIV1984) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.

Leviticus 11:6 (NIVUK) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.

Leviticus 11:6 (NKJV) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you;

Leviticus 11:6 (NLV) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 Do not eat the rabbit. For it chews its food again, but does not have feet that are hard and divided. It is unclean to you.

Leviticus 11:6 (NLT) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 The hare chews the cud but does not have split hooves, so it is unclean.

Leviticus 11:6 (NRSV) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 The hare, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you.

Leviticus 11:6 (NRSVA) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 The hare, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you.

Leviticus 11:6 (NRSVACE) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 The hare, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you.

Leviticus 11:6 (NRSVCE) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 The hare, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you.

Vayikra 11:6 (OJB) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but separateth not the hoof; he is temeiah (unclean) unto you.

Leviticus 11:6 (RSV) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.

Leviticus 11:6 (RSVCE) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.

Leviticus 11:6 (TNIV) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.

Leviticus 11:6 (WYC) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 and an hare, for also he cheweth (the) cud, but parteth not the claw (but its foot is not divided);

Leviticus 11:6 (YLT) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 and the hare, though it is bringing up the cud, yet the hoof hath not divided -- unclean it [is] to you;

[TimG]

Your own quote proves it is a translation issue:

Leviticus 11:6 (NLV) | In Context | Whole Chapter

6 Do not eat the rabbit. For it chews its food again, but does not have feet that are hard and divided. It is unclean to you.

Rabbits eat poo because they need to give it a second pass through their digestive system - much like cows. This translation makes it clear what the rabbit is actually doing and appears to be perfect for anal retentive nitpickers. I recommend you use this translation for future bible studies. Edited January 19, 2013 by TimG

[betsy]

Leviticus 11:6

King James Version (KJV)

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

Hares do not chew their cud. Or have mammal biologists been wrong about that for all these years?

How did God let this one slip past the editors??

For the sake of The Squid.....here's some explanations. You missed Deuteronomy too, btw.

Nevertheless, of those that chew the cud or have cloven hooves, you shall not eat, such as these: the camel, the hare, and the rock hyrax; for they chew the cud but do not have cloven hooves; they are unclean for you. (Deuteronomy 14:7)

In the modern scientific classification system, animals that chew the cud are called ruminants. Cattle, sheep, deer, giraffes, and camels² are ruminants. Ruminants have four stomach compartments. They swallow their food into one stomach compartment where food is partially digested. Then the food is regurgitated back into the mouth, chewed again, and then swallowed into a different stomach compartment. This process is called rumination.

So is the Bible wrong? After all, rabbits are not ruminants.³ They do not have four-compartment stomachs. How can they “chew the cud”?

Obviously, rabbits do not share the digestive anatomy of modern ruminants. However, to describe rabbits chewing the cud is not incorrect. Simply stated, it is not reasonable to accuse a 3500-year-old document of error because it does not adhere to a modern

man-made classification system.

Consider what rabbits do. They engage in an activity called cecotrophy. Rabbits normally produce two kinds of feces, the more common hard feces as well as softer fecal pellets called cecotropes. Cecotropes are small pellets of partially digested food that are passed through the animal but are then reingested. As part of the normal digestive process, some partially digested food is concentrated in the cecum where it undergoes a degree of fermentation to form these cecotropes. They are then covered in mucin and passed through the anus. The rabbit ingests the cecotropes, which serve as a very important source of nutrition for the animal.

Is this the same as cud? In the final analysis, it is. Cud-chewing completes the digestion of partially digested food. Why would it be strange to think that centuries ago, the idea of “cud” had a somewhat broader meaning than a modern definition.

But does the rabbit actually chew the cud? The Hebrew word translated “chew” is the word ‘alah. With any attempt to translate one language to another, it is understood that there is often more than one meaning for a given word. A cursory glace at any Hebrew lexicon reveals that ‘alah can mean go up, ascend, climb, go up into, out of a place, depart, rise up, cause to ascend, bring up from, among others. Here it carries the implication of moving something from one place to another. So the phrase translated to English as “chew the cud” literally means something on the order of “eats that which is brought forth again.”

Also, most reference material on rabbit digestion says that the cecotrope pellet is swallowed whole and found intact in the rabbit stomach. However, experts have observed that rabbits keep the cecotrophe in the mouth for a time before swallowing.⁴ So even though the mucin membrane covering the cecotrope is not broken, the rabbit is able to knead it in its mouth before swallowing, possibly to enhance the process of redigestion.

Conclusion

So is the Bible in error here? No it is not. Rabbits re-ingest partially digested foods, as do modern ruminants. They just do so without the aid of multiple stomach compartments.

http://www.answersin...ts-chew-the-cud

Edited January 19, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Two issues are at hand: the definition of ‘cud’ and that of ‘chewing’. Let’s take a close look at the Hebrew version of both. Cuds first, chewies afterwards.

First, gerah (or gehrah) is indeed the word used here, and—this is important—it is used nowhere in the Old Testament besides these verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We have only this context to help us decide what it means in terms of the Mosaic law.

Second, the process rabbits go through is called refection, and it is not just ‘dung’ that the rabbits are eating, which is probably why the Hebrew word for ‘dung’ was not used here. Indeed, contrary to Meritt’s assertion, that the word gehrah also means 1/20^th of a shekel actually gives us a hint here! 1/20^th of a shekel is of little worth, but it does have worth. Where the word for ‘dung’ is used in the Bible, it implies something defiled, unclean, or useless. But in lapine terms, ‘dung’ is not useless: It contains pellets of partially digested food, which rabbits chew on (along with the waste material—UGH!) in order to give their stomachs another go at getting the nutrients out. (It’s an efficient way of getting more vitamins and nutrients, we’re told, but I think I’ll stick with my Flintstones chewables, thank you very much.) The pellets have some minute value, much as 1/20^th of a shekel has some value.

Contrast this with what cows and some other animals do, rumination, which is what we moderns call ‘chewing the cud’. They regurgitate partially digested food in little clumps called cuds, and chew it a little more after while mixing it with saliva. (This also, presumably, helps them get the most out of their food, but I’m not trying it.)

So, let’s see … partially digested food. Partially digested food. Seems to be a common element here. Could it be that the Hebrew word simply refers to any partially digested food? Could it be that the process is not the issue, just the object?

Our other key word provides us with some hints. Meritt is partially correct when he says that the phrase translated ‘chew the cud’ in the KJV is more exactly ‘bring up the cud’. (The full phrase is ‘maketh the cud to come up’.) By leaving it at that, he apparently wishes for us to believe that ‘bring up’ means, in an exclusive sense, regurgitation. Whoooooa, horsey. Back up. Let’s check those hooves for Hebrew words! The word here is ‘alah, and it is found in some grammatical form on literally (well, almost literally) every page of the OT! This is because it is a word that encompasses many concepts other than ‘bring up’. It also can mean ascend up, carry up, cast up, fetch up, get up, recover, restore, take up, and much more. It is a catch-all verb form describing the moving of something to another place. (‘maketh the gehrah to ‘alah’).

So what have we learned? The Hebrew word in question is NOT specific to the process of regurgitation; it is a phrase of general movement. And related to the specific issue at hand, the rabbit is an animal that does ‘maketh’ the previously digested material to ‘come up’ out of the body (though in a different way than a ruminant does—as Meritt says, with rabbits, it comes all the way through; but again, the word is not specific for regurgitation!) and thereafter does chew ‘predigested material’!

The mistake is in our applying of the scientific terms of rumination to something that does not require it.

http://creation.com/...-chew-their-cud

Edited January 19, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

On a lighter note, the author of this thread should understand how some things can possibly get mis-interpreted or mis-translated over time.... what more when we're talking 400 years.

The_Squid offers a good example of that. See how his avatar looks more like a toucan than a squid. You'd drive a toddler confused and crazy if he sees this picture of this "squid" in his picture book!

Edited January 19, 2013 by betsy

[cybercoma]

How cares? I'm not religious.

Then why post in the Religion & Politics section?

[cybercoma]

imply stated, it is not reasonable to accuse a 3500-year-old document of error because it does not adhere to a modern

man-made classification system.

When there's idiots out there that want this stuff taught in science classrooms, alongside well-researched and documented scientific facts, then yes. Yes it is reasonable.

[Guest Manny]

Thank you betsy for being so patient with people, even though some of them intend to ridicule religious peoples views. Hopin that they may learn something here. There's nothing wrong with asking questions, because the bible requires us to think a bit. Its not always obvious and its not simple. Lets give people some respect, even if we dont understand them. Calling religious people freaks is an insult, and childiish. And in this case, betsy shows how mistaken you are. But at least you are reading it, and asking questions. And learning, thanks to her.

[betsy]

When there's idiots out there that want this stuff taught in science classrooms, alongside well-researched and documented scientific facts, then yes. Yes it is reasonable.

Read the article again. Your reply indicate you haven't really understood the article.

Okay... gotta tune you out for now. Manny's just praised me for my patience - don't want to disappoint him. Bye-the-bye.

Edited January 19, 2013 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

A thread in the religious forum dedicated to feces...didn't think it was possible.

On a lighter note, the author of this thread should understand how some things can possibly get mis-interpreted or mis-translated over time.... what more when we're talking 400 years.

How sure are we that the bible we know of today is the same as those almost thousand of years ago? Surely the over the course of a thousand years the entire book could be mis-interpreted or mis-translated into something else.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Sleipnir

[betsy]

A thread in the religious forum dedicated to feces...didn't think it was possible.

How sure are we that the bible we know of today is the same as those almost thousand of years ago? Surely the over the course of a thousand years the entire book could be mis-interpreted or mis-translated into something else.

Good question. I go by faith....but I understand that skeptics or non-believers do not. So here's a little explanation about the Bible.

Unfortunately, none of these original manuscripts exist today. Well over 3000 years have passed since Moses first penned the book of Genesis. None of his own writing has survived, but copies have been made down through the centuries. The scribes who made these copies were extremely careful as they did their work. We know this because there are over 5000 complete or partial copies of the originals, actually copies of the copies. Yet these thousands of copies (which predate the printing press) agree with each other to an amazing extent. There is no major variation in any of them. No other book from ancient times has this much underlying documentary support. So we are sure we have the original text as it came from the mind of God.

Because what we have are copies of so many manuscripts, there is no single location where "the original Bible" is housed. The Bible text most often used by scholars and translators is a composite made from the oldest and most reliable of the ancient manuscripts. These old manuscripts are housed in several museums and other places all over the world.

But what about the translation of this text into English? Does it accurately reproduce the original text - which, after all, was first written down in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? Since the ancient texts we are using agree to such an remarkable extent, our task is to put this original text into excellent English.

The translation task is not simple. To find the exact meaning in modern English of those ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek terms, phrases, and sentences is very challenging. Sometimes the original words have no exact counterpart in English, so several English words may be required to reproduce the precise meaning. And English is constantly changing, as some of our words take on new meanings. For example, the word "gay" means something quite different today than it meant fifty years ago.

This helps to explain why there is so much variation in the English translations. Ten trained translators looking at the same Greek text would likely come up with ten slightly different renditions, and each would have reasons for his or her choice of particular words and phrases. English is, after all, not a fixed, dead language. It is alive and constantly changing. So don't expect that there will be no further English translations. Translators continue to study the ancient text to find just the right nuance and shade of meaning in today's English to express exactly what God intended to convey.

http://www.biblica.com/bibles/faq/15/

Edited January 19, 2013 by betsy

[msj]

Well I just gave you a link that shows that on this particular point the bible happens to be right and you are yapping about nothing.

There are many other dubious things in the bible. This is not one of them.

So, you're saying you don't eat rabbit because the Bible says so or because rabbits eat their own poop or both?

I don't eat rabbit on a regular basis but I do have it a few times each year.

I guess if I am what I eat then I am poop.

Would rather be poop than drink cows milk and be puss, blood, hormone....

Edited January 19, 2013 by msj

[TimG]

So, you're saying you don't eat rabbit because the Bible says so or because rabbits eat their own poop or both?

I really don't care what the bible says about dietary requirements. What I laugh at are secular humanist fundamentalists who try to start a thread crapping on people that don't share their beliefs by claiming some irrelevant phrase in the bible is wrong when that phrase is not actually wrong if one understands the biology of rabbits and the nature of translated works. Edited January 19, 2013 by TimG