Re: [asa] Re: Slug

At 12:50 AM 6/17/2006, Paul Seely wrote:
>Janice,
>
><<You wrote, "...The mistake is in our applying of the scientific
>terms of rumination to something that does not require it."
>
><http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html>Is the Bible Wrong
>About a Rabbit Chewing
>Cud<http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html>?
>http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html??>>

>Janice, think. In the OT, chewing the cud made animals clean.
>Would eating anything that came from an animal's anus be thought by
>anyone to make an animal Clean?
>
>Paul

@ Paul, read.

Dick Fischer had written to Dave: "... Hares do appear to
chew. Maybe you like this explanation from Strong's concordance:
"probably an extinct animal because no known hare chews its cud,
exact meaning is unknown, and best left untranslated as
'arnebeth.'" What animals went extinct in the last three thousand
years that used to chew its cud? Beats me. "

Paul, I see from your non sequitur comment and question that you
didn't bother to read the commentary which speaks to why the Bible
scholars / translators like Strong wound up with an inexact
translation. This time, I'm copying it in full (below). ~ Janice

Skeptical Crud About Cud - James Patrick
Holding http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html

Lev. 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not
the hoof; he is unclean unto you. (See also Deut. 14:7)

This is one of the most popular objections in the skeptical book, and
it's basically this: Rabbits are not ruminants; they practice
refection. Refection is a process in which rabbits eat their own dung
mixed with undigested material. The Hebrew does not use the word for
"dung". Therefore this passage is wrong. (The objection is also
registered against the verses mentioning the coney, or hyrax;
however, the identification of this animal is uncertain -- we will
assume it to be an animal that refects as well.)

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.
Here is the word for "cud" according to Strong's:

gerah, the cud (as scraping the throat):--cud.

There are a few factors we need to keep in mind here. First, this
word 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, refection is a process whereby rabbits pass pellets of
partially digested food, which they chew on (along with the waste
material) in order to give their stomachs another go at getting the
nutrients out. It is not just "dung" that the rabbits are eating,
which is probably why the Hebrew word for "dung" was not used here.

Contrast this with what cows and some other animals do, rumination,
which is what we moderns call "chewing the cud." They regurgiate
partially digested food in little clumps called cuds, and chew it a
little more after while mixing it with saliva.

So then: partially digested food is a common element here. We
therefore suggest that the Hebrew word simply refers to any partially
digested food -- the process is not the issue, just the object.

"Yeah, right, Holding! So are you more of an expert in Hebrew than
all those Bible scholars like Strong who decided that 'cud' was the
best word to use here? Get real!!!"

More of an expert in Hebrew, no -- the problem is that those Hebrew
experts aren't experts in animal biology. It's commonly noted, in a
weaker defense of this verse, that rabbits look like they chew cud,
such that even Linneaus was fooled by them and classified them as
ruminants -- and even many modern books on rabbits have no reference
to it. Everyone sees rabbits chewing and might come to the same
conclusion, but few know about refection -- least of all experts in
Hebrew who spend most of their days indoors out of the sight of rabbits.

"Just shot yourself in the foot, Holding! You admitted that few
people know about refection. Tell us why! It's because rabbits do it
at night and underground. Isn't it more likely that Moses made a big
fat mistake like Linneaus, based on appearances?"

Rabbits actually do this mostly at night and underground -- not
always; and the reason for this is that the behavior usually takes
place 3-8 hours after eating. Now catch this: One reason so few
people know about this behavior today is because we spend so much
time indoors -- and because when we are outdoors, we tend to stomp
around and scare the jeebers out of timid creatures like rabbits. So
little wonder we don't see it much! And even rabbit owners don't see
it because they of course feed their bunnies on their schedules -- so
that refection happens while they are asleep!

In contrast, the ancients lived mainly outdoors and many of them were
pastoral sorts who spent hours in the field. So -- don't think for a
moment that this wasn't something the average ancient wouldn't have
known about. They were a lot more observant than we are (because they
needed to be to survive!) and spent a lot more time in places where
they could see this behavior. (At the same time, it would be rather
foolish -- and an argument from silence -- to make the point that
refection is not mentioned in any other ancient documents. For this
objection to have merit, one must produce a surviving ancient
documentation that should have mentioned it, but didn't -- and that's
rather a hard row to hoe!)

"That's only half the problem, Holding! You forgot the other half --
the verse says 'bring up' the cud -- sounds like regurgitation to me!"

Our other key word here is 'alah, and it is found in some grammatical
form on 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. (The literal
rendering here is, "maketh the gerah to 'alah.")

Now in the verses in question, 'alah is used as a participle. Let's
look at the other verses where it is used this way (NIV only implies
some of these phrases; where in parentheses, the phrase is in the
original, sometimes in the KJV):

Josh. 24:17 It was the Lord our God himself who brought us and our
fathers up out of Egypt....

1 Sam. 7:10 While Samuel was sacrificing (offering) the burnt offering...

Nahum 3:3 Charging cavalry, flashing swords (lifted), and glittering spears!

Isaiah 8:7 ...therefore the Lord is about to bring against them the
mighty floodwaters of the River...

2 Chron. 24:14 When they had finished, they brought the rest of the money...

Ps. 135:7 He makes clouds rise (up) from the ends of the earth...

2 Sam. 6:15 ...while he and the entire house of Israel brought the
ark of the Lord with shouts and the sound of trumpets. (Similar
quote, 1 Chr. 15:28)

So: 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" out of
the body (though in a different way than a ruminant does) 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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 17 14:08:59 2006