a question about rabbits

[IvanJames]

Hi, everyone. I'm Ivan, and this is my first post. I'm truly sorry if I was supposed to do something else first!

Anyway, I have a very simple, seemingly minor question that I for one feel puts a steak through the heart of Biblical inerrancy. I'll start with the verse in question:

Deut 14:7 "Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you."

Now, it could have been the result of the Bible's authors mistaking a hare's toes for a camel-like "hoof", and mistaking the near-constant chewing hares do as "cud chewing." But, that would make the Bible the work of human beings. I would honestly like a Christian to respond to this dilemma.

For the record, no, no species of rabbit ("coney") or hare chews cud, nor did they ever.

---Ivan

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

Hi, everyone. I'm Ivan, and this is my first post.

Welcome, Ivan.

I'm truly sorry if I was supposed to do something else first!

No, you're cool. :thumbs:

Anyway, I have a very simple, seemingly minor question that I for one feel puts a steak through the heart of Biblical inerrancy.

Top sirloin or Porterhouse? ;) Stake. </spelling nazi> (No worries, you're still cool; I'm just an asshole pedant. Or a pendantic asshole.)

I'll start with the verse in question:

Yeah, that's probably one of the best. A lot of us have this one memorized.

I would honestly like a Christian to respond to this dilemma.

It's much more interesting to have an inerrantist respond. And it's so much fun watching them squirm.

For the record, no, no species of rabbit ("coney") or hare chews cud, nor did they ever.

Actually they used to have cloven hooves and chew cud, but Satan switched them around just to fuck us up. ;)

[TheBigKahoona]

This topic has been brought up before during many different debates and in many different forums. From what I have heard, and I am no hebrew scholar, is that the english meaning of "cud" and the Hebrew meaning of "cud" are two different things. What I have been told is that rabbit's "cud chewing" is referring to the fact that rabbits, will occasionally re-eat there own fecies making them unclean animals.

With regard to the "hoof" comment, any primitive man, whether this was written at the time claimed by Christians/Jews or skeptics, would have known what a rabbits foot looked like. A Hebrew who spent his whole life living outdoors or near the outdoors would have known alot more about his environment and the animals that populated it than you or I do. SO, I think that it is safe to say that this is again a small thing which is lost in translation between the Hebrew and English.

But then again, I am no Hebrew scholar. :huh:

[IvanJames]

Thanks for the welcome, PLP. I'm a bit of a spelling stickler myself! :D

I'm a pug guy, myself! They're better in pairs. (no, really...lol!)

So, do Christians EVER respond to posts like this?

---Ivan

[IvanJames]

This topic has been brought up before during many different debates and in many different forums. From what I have heard, and I am no hebrew scholar, is that the english meaning of "cud" and the Hebrew meaning of "cud" are two different things. What I have been told is that rabbit's "cud chewing" is referring to the fact that rabbits, will occasionally re-eat there own fecies making them unclean animals.

With regard to the "hoof" comment, any primitive man, whether this was written at the time claimed by Christians/Jews or skeptics, would have known what a rabbits foot looked like. A Hebrew who spent his whole life living outdoors or near the outdoors would have known alot more about his environment and the animals that populated it than you or I do. SO, I think that it is safe to say that this is again a small thing which is lost in translation between the Hebrew and English.

But then again, I am no Hebrew scholar.

Well, that brings up an interesting point: If the translations are so bad, how could a Biblical literalist know which parts are well-translated and which aren't? To me, this just seems like an excuse to dismiss any particularly hard-to-explain factual errors. Don't get me wrong, it's a great rhetorical fallback, the whole "we don't know what the translations really say but we're following it literally anyway" thing. So, if anyone has a more accurate translation, one which contradicts hundreds of years in Christian and Jewish scholarship in Bible translation, please let us know...with links to supporting evidence. I don't mean to be a jerk, but a dismissal based on a vague assumption that flies in the face of every published Bible I've ever seen, deserves a bit more explanation.
---Ivan

[ficino]

There was discussion of the rabbit-cud chewing question on Ex-Christians.com recently, on a thread under Debating with Christians, started by Messchird on dec. 25

http://exchristian.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1998&st=0


Here's some stuff I came up with:

That the hyrax does not chew cud, cf. for example
http://www.talkreason.com/Forum.cfm?MESSAGEID=313
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyrax

That the hyrax does chew cud, cf. for example of many Christian websites:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16860

A Jewish website that goes into great detail and concludes that the question is hard to answer, given difficulty of translating the Hebrew words in the passage, but that there's room for considering the text factually correct:
http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet2.html

This is too much detail for me! Maybe there's enough ambiguity that this verse is not a test case one way or the other.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then I added this, similar to IvanJames' point:

I've come to the conclusion (sorry, guys, many of you have reached it before me, I know) that it doesn't matter so much that the Bible contains errors of fact. The worse thing is, it is USELESS.

I'm stretching for rhetorical purposes. But consider.

Let's go back to the rabbit/hyrax cud chewing thing.

If the hyrax doesn't chew cud, then Leviticus made an error of fact. So inerrancy falls (sorry, M-G; I can't see how this doesn't follow).

But, worse still.... there is reason to think that we don't really know what animal is denoted by the Hebrew word "shafan," or whether it chewed "cud" or its own waste. See link to the Jewish site I posted on page six of this thread.

So the Torah has stuff that no one really can understand. Therefore we need a passle of rabbis to construct a "fence around the Law," inventing subordinate commands that are designed to keep us away from violating what might or might not be the intent of the original command.

Or..

Jesus cuts through the knot and liberates us from the text of the Law. But what is the result? Christians just have an even longer sacred book than the Jews have. And the additions to the sacred book spawn their own problems of interpretation.

Meanwhile, you're royally fucked if you disobey God. But who can know how to puzzle out the meaning of the sacred text?

Is it really antecedently probable, that if the creator of the universe wanted to reveal itself to humans, it would choose a text produced in a historical context and leave that text for thousands of years as the normative deposit of revelation? Even allowing some of the definitions of the ancient words to fall out of human memory?

Do we solve the problem by better scholarship? How can people's eternal destinies be held hostage to the findings of scholars? And which scholars?

Revelation as a TEXT can satisfy only one criterion necessary: i.e. anyone can read the text, it is not a secret tradition memorized by a priestly class alone (as ancient Roman law was oral, memorized by patricians alone, so plebeians never knew what the law said). But that is not an advantage, when the problem, who has the right to interpret in later ages, is never solved by the text.

[laestrella]

Actually they used to have cloven hooves and chew cud, but Satan switched them around just to fuck us up. ;)


Muah I love you! Thats hilarious

[TheBigKahoona]

You have a good point, and you deserve a better explanation than I can give you. But the flaw is not in the text, the flaw is in OUR text. When you read the english version of the bible you are actually reading what a bunch of translators believe to be the most accurate translation of the Bible. This has led to incredibly huge mistakes throughout history. For example, the Vulgate made the famous mistake of translating the word "repent" to "Do penance" and that of course led to a bunch of peasants wearing uncomfortable shirts and hitting themselves on the head to atone for their sins.

So how do you find a flawless way to deal with the problems that translating can lead to? The truth is, there really is no infallible way, and so any English translation of the Bible will always, to a tiny degree, be flawed. That is why churches pay people known as Pastors/Reverends to know the ORIGINAL hebrew/Greek the Bible was written in.

Finally, to the last part of your post, can a Christian constantly dodge questions by blaming Biblical inconsistencies on simple translation problems? Of course not, but the real meat of the question is not in the English word "Hoof" or "Cud" but in the Hebrew word "hoof" and "Cud". Believe it or not Hebrew is not English said in a funny way. (I don't want to sound patronizing really) Instead, it is as you know a completely different language with, in some cases, completely different words for things.

Here is an example in Spanish which could potentially be confusing for English speakers to translate. Let's pretend you speak Spanish and need to translate this ancient sacred text into English.

Nunca coma caballos el domingo.

The English translation for this is:

Never eat horses on Sunday.

However, this is not a complete translation, because the passage could mean:

Never eat MALE horses on Sunday Leaving female horses on the menu. A small yet important difference.

Is this making any sense at all??? Be honest, I know you will.

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

When you read the english version of the bible you are actually reading what a bunch of translators believe to be the most accurate translation of the Bible.

One would expect an omnipotent god to ensure all translations of its were absolutely accurate.

That is why churches pay people known as Pastors/Reverends to know the ORIGINAL hebrew/Greek the Bible was written in.

First of all, I don't think most clergy don't actually read Hebrew or Greek. They probably know a little bit, but the level of philology and linguistics (not to mention historical methodology) necessary to understand the original text is a rigorous and narrow speciality.

Secondly, when a christian asks me to believe in experts in translation and interpretation, I am no longer being asked to believe a god; I am being asked to have faith in--to submit my moral and intellectual will to--other human beings. And that's tyranny, plain and simple. Evil, pernicious, degrading and offensive tyranny.

Ask me to submit to a god and I'll merely laugh at you. Ask me to submit to you and you'll get my boot in your ass.

[TheBigKahoona]

"First of all, I don't think most clergy don't actually read Hebrew or Greek. They probably know a little bit, but the level of philology and linguistics (not to mention historical methodology) necessary to understand the original text is a rigorous and narrow speciality."

That's why various religious orders make their spiritual leaders go through years of rigorous training before they are ordained. Jesuit Priests take the cake with 13 years of study after a four year college education. Every Pastor worth his salt knows how to read Hebrew and Greek. Pardon me, every innerantist/literalist Pastor worth his salt knows how to read hebrew and Greek.

With regards to the translations/translators. What do you expect, God to come down and swat their hand every time they make a mistake. Besides, God doesn'te even need to do that, there are more than enough Atheist Watchdog groups out there anyway i.e. this very website.

Evil, pernicious, degrading and offensive tyranny.

It's not like the knowledge isn't out there for you to obtain. If they were to stop you from seeing the original text or from learning HEbrew, that would be tyrrany. I suppose if I didn't trust my pastor I might try to learn Hebrew myself. However, not everyone has the time to learn two dead foreign languages but it certainly isn't tyrrany to have somebody translate it for you.

[Toto]

. . .
With regards to the translations/translators. What do you expect, God to come down and swat their hand every time they make a mistake. Besides, God doesn'te even need to do that, there are more than enough Atheist Watchdog groups out there anyway i.e. this very website.

. . . .

The Internet Infidels thank you for your plug.

So, consulting this website as to "rabbits + cud" we find more than you ever wanted to know about rabbits digestive systems (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1995/2/2chew95.html) Regardless, the Biblical Hebrew does not support this argument. Contrary to what Geisler says, the Hebrew phrase [does he mean the Hebrew based on a lexicographical study of the Hebrew language of the OT or the KJV's inaccurate English translation?] is not "chewing the cud." As I pointed out in my previous article, the phrase consists of two words: gerah and `alah. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible translates `alah [word 5927] literally as "[cause to] ascend" and gerah [word 1625] as "cud." Therefore, the complete literal phrase translates as "brings up the cud." So is Geisler saying that the Hebrew phrase "brings up the cud" does not refer to or was not intended for the ancients to interpret in the sense of characteristic [1]? Since "brings up the cud" as used in Leviticus 11:5-6 obviously does refer to regurgitation of cud and since rabbits and rock badgers do not regurgitate cud, we may consider both verses as biologically erroneous. What is so "technical" about regurgitation? I don't know, but, nonetheless, this is the same so-called "technical aspect" of rumination that Leviticus wrongly applied to the rabbit and rock badger.

[Chris Weimer]

I've come to the conclusion (sorry, guys, many of you have reached it before me, I know) that it doesn't matter so much that the Bible contains errors of fact. The worse thing is, it is USELESS.
Bravo! But only if someone takes it for its intended purpose i.e. holy scripture. As literature, I must say it is very useful, otherwise I wouldn't devote my entire life to understanding it.

[RED DAVE]

From PoodleLovinPessimist:
Actually they used to have cloven hooves and chew cud, but Satan switched them around just to fuck us up.That's exactly what happened.

Snapshot of obviously satanically inspired hyrax (http://www.treknature.com/gallery/Middle_East/Israel/photo4989.htm)

RED DAVE

[Garnet]

I was wondering if someone was going to bring up the "rabbits eat their own shit so they chew cud" argument. I saw that one on another forum for the first time today and about fell out of my chair.

[Boro Nut]

For the record, no, no species of rabbit ("coney") or hare chews cud, nor did they ever.

But taking the bible literally they obviously did, which literally means it must have been before the fall, which literally means about summertime, or at a stretch spring , which literally means it's bollocks.

Alternatively, you could make the case that the ancient Greek/Hebrew word for chewing the cud has for centuries been incorrectly translated as the ancient Greek/Hebrew word for chewing the cud, instead of the biblically correct ancient true Greek/Hebrew word for not chewing the cud, although this argument has the slight disadvantage of being bollocks as well.

Much more likely is the evolutionary position, which is that hares and coneys have never, ever, chewed the cud, but that since the bible was written cows and camels have evolved into their present cud chewing forms from a common ancestor that ate its own pellets.

Boro Nut

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

That's why various religious orders make their spiritual leaders go through years of rigorous training before they are ordained. Jesuit Priests take the cake with 13 years of study after a four year college education. Every Pastor worth his salt knows how to read Hebrew and Greek. Pardon me, every innerantist/literalist Pastor worth his salt knows how to read hebrew and Greek.

Personally, I think you're talking through your hat, unless you're using "worth his salt" as a No True Scotsman dodge. But I won't press the point, it's really irrelevant.

With regards to the translations/translators. What do you expect, God to come down and swat their hand every time they make a mistake.

Yes, that's precisely what I expect. Or rather, I expect the god to magically make their translations perfect.

Besides, God doesn'te even need to do that, there are more than enough Atheist Watchdog groups out there anyway i.e. this very website.

Yeah, and we find that the translations are full of inconsistencies and outright errors, and some translations appear intentionally biased in favor of particular theological positions.

Evil, pernicious, degrading and offensive tyranny.

It's not like the knowledge isn't out there for you to obtain. If they were to stop you from seeing the original text or from learning HEbrew, that would be tyrrany. I suppose if I didn't trust my pastor I might try to learn Hebrew myself. However, not everyone has the time to learn two dead foreign languages but it certainly isn't tyrrany to have somebody translate it for you.

Very few people have the economic capacity to devote the up to 13 years of intensive scholarship necessary to comprehend the Bible. Unless you're volunteering to pay for my schooling and upkeep, by economic necessity, I cannot ascertain the meaning of the Christian Bible(s) myself. Therefore, you are demanding that I must take the words of people, not a god, on faith as to "correct" moral beliefs. This is indeed tyranny.

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

And even if I did read and comprehend the Christian Bible(s) in the original languages, I'm still subordinating my will and moral beliefs to the human beings who originally wrote the words, which is still tyranny.

If you want to be a slave to the superstitious fantasies of human writers long dead, human copyists long dead, human redactors long dead, human editors and anthologists long dead, human translators long dead, and human parasites... er... priests (at least they're still alive) who demand a privileged interpretive role, please feel free. Just don't ask me to do it, and don't expect me to feel anything praiseworthy about the idea of enslaving my will to other people, especially people long dead.

[IvanJames]

So how do you find a flawless way to deal with the problems that translating can lead to? The truth is, there really is no infallible way, and so any English translation of the Bible will always, to a tiny degree, be flawed. That is why churches pay people known as Pastors/Reverends to know the ORIGINAL hebrew/Greek the Bible was written in.

Well, I have a couple of personal biases here. One, I was raised Jewish. A lot of the Kosher laws have become folkloric rather than Biblical; I'm not complaining, this is my people and my culture of origin. But the meat/dairy thing is too much. For instance, tuna salad is considered dairy, even though there's nothing dairy in it. Also, a passage about the guys' next door's pagan rites (cooking a kid in its mother's milk) into an inability to eat chicken parmigiana. Why is beyond me, since chickens don't even give milk!

The other thing is the age of the languages. Even the experts may have no idea what missing nuances there were when the language was actually spoken. Also, experts usually have considerable differences of opinion. Case in point: You know the book "The Stranger," by Camus? It was written in French in (i think) the mid-1950s. Even though the author was around to talk to, and even though French is a modern, widely-understood language, I personally own 2 rather different translations.

Also remember that different churches--especially the "non-denominational" kind--have different standards of scholarship, and usually, pre-determined ideological viewpoints.

---Ivan

[TheBigKahoona]

"Yes, that's precisely what I expect. Or rather, I expect the god to magically make their translations perfect."

But that is impossible because of the basic fact that no perfect translation into english is possible given the many differences between the two languages. If you wonder why God created all these crazy languages then go read the part in Genesis about the tower of Babel, but now we are REALLY off topic.

"Yeah, and we find that the translations are full of inconsistencies and outright errors,

Some translations may have blatant errors, but not ALL translations have blatant errors. Unfortunately, none of them are perfect that is why it is helpful to have somebody around who knows HEbrew or Greek.

...some translations appear intentionally biased in favor of particular theological positions."

If you are afraid a particular translation is biased, in one way or another get a different one.

"Very few people have the economic capacity to devote the up to 13 years of intensive scholarship necessary to comprehend the Bible. Unless you're volunteering to pay for my schooling and upkeep, by economic necessity, I cannot ascertain the meaning of the Christian Bible(s) myself. Therefore, you are demanding that I must take the words of people, not a god, on faith as to "correct" moral beliefs."

Christians and Jews do not hold a monopoly on Bible translations. I haven't looked but I beleive this very site might even have there own translations of various Biblical passages. I'm sure you need not be afraid of a moderator here trying to shove moralistic propoganda down your throat. Once you have a translation you trust, the interpretation is all up to you. However, with regards to Faith, if you aren't willing to have Faith of any kind then I suggest you don't waste your time.


"Just don't ask me to do it, and don't expect me to feel anything praiseworthy about the idea of enslaving my will to other people, especially people long dead."

I'm sorry but I think that I have kept my proseletyzing to a minimum so far. Nowhere on this thread have I asked you to accept anything regarding my religion, I just answered the question originally posted which asked for a conservative xtian response.

[IvanJames]

"From PoodleLovinPessimist:
That's exactly what happened.

Snapshot of obviously satanically inspired hyrax (http://www.treknature.com/gallery/Middle_East/Israel/photo4989.htm)

RED DAVE"

Wow. That's one angry hyrax.
---IvanJames

[IvanJames]

I just answered the question originally posted which asked for a conservative xtian response.

Yes, and sincere thanks for that.
---IvanJames

[TheBigKahoona]

Your welcome! :)

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

"Yes, that's precisely what I expect. Or rather, I expect the god to magically make their translations perfect."

But that is impossible because of the basic fact that no perfect translation into english is possible given the many differences between the two languages.

So much worse for a god.

If you wonder why God created all these crazy languages then go read the part in Genesis about the tower of Babel, but now we are REALLY off topic.

Yet another ad hoc rationalization. I swear, if Satan came to Earth, 50 feet tall, horns, tail and red skin, blasting Christian Fundamentalists left and right and rewarding us atheists with booze, pot and hookers, y'all would find a way to rationalize even that as consistent with the existence of an all-powerful Yahweh.

"Yeah, and we find that the translations are full of inconsistencies and outright errors,

Some translations may have blatant errors, but not ALL translations have blatant errors.

Then you can't know which is which.

Unfortunately, none of them are perfect that is why it is helpful to have somebody around who knows HEbrew or Greek.

It's supernaturally incompetent for a deity to allow such a state of affairs.

...some translations appear intentionally biased in favor of particular theological positions."

If you are afraid a particular translation is biased, in one way or another get a different one.

My point is that it's evidence of only either nonexistence or supernatural incompetence for a deity to permit such a state of affairs.

"Very few people have the economic capacity to devote the up to 13 years of intensive scholarship necessary to comprehend the Bible. Unless you're volunteering to pay for my schooling and upkeep, by economic necessity, I cannot ascertain the meaning of the Christian Bible(s) myself. Therefore, you are demanding that I must take the words of people, not a god, on faith as to "correct" moral beliefs."

Christians and Jews do not hold a monopoly on Bible translations. I haven't looked but I beleive this very site might even have there own translations of various Biblical passages.

No matter which way I turn, though, I'm forfeiting my will to a human translator.

I'm sure you need not be afraid of a moderator here trying to shove moralistic propoganda down your throat.

I'm not turning to the moderators or administrators to interpret the word of a god here. No one here tells me what to think or what to believe is good or right. The only standards the staff at IIDB enforce are regarding the polite use of their own property. They don't assert I will go to hell, or even jail, if I choose not to post here.

Once you have a translation you trust, the interpretation is all up to you. However, with regards to Faith, if you aren't willing to have Faith of any kind then I suggest you don't waste your time.

If I have faith, I don't need a translation, or even a scripture at all.

"Just don't ask me to do it, and don't expect me to feel anything praiseworthy about the idea of enslaving my will to other people, especially people long dead."

I'm sorry but I think that I have kept my proseletyzing to a minimum so far. Nowhere on this thread have I asked you to accept anything regarding my religion, I just answered the question originally posted which asked for a conservative xtian response.

You're right. I apologize. I get worked up about this sometimes.

[TheBigKahoona]

"Yet another ad hoc rationalization. I swear, if Satan came to Earth, 50 feet tall, horns, tail and red skin, blasting Christian Fundamentalists left and right and rewarding us atheists with booze, pot and hookers, y'all would find a way to rationalize even that as consistent with the existence of an all-powerful Yahweh."

It's funny you said this because that is exactly what is predicted in the book of Revelations. Ironic isn't it? ;)

It's supernaturally incompetent for a deity to allow such a state of affairs.

Now you are blowing the problem way out of proportion. WE are not dealing with a "DO Penance" vs. "Repent" mistake here. We are dealing with a, "Is the english word for "cud" and "hoof" directly parallel to the Hebrew one. Most of the most misleading translation mistakes have been caught and dealt with.

"My point is that it's evidence of only either nonexistence or supernatural incompetence for a deity to permit such a state of affairs."

Yes, there are bad translations of the Bible. The Bible even admits that there will be many extremely convincing false prophets who will lead people astray with REAL miracles. People die everyday who have never even heard of the name Jesus. A few weeks ago 150,000+ people died in a tsunami. The Bible says in numerous places that aweful things will happen to good/innocent people. Does this make God supernaturally incompetent? You probably think so, but if he IS supernaturally incompetent than at least he's honest about it.

I'm not turning to the moderators or administrators to interpret the word of a god here. No one here tells me what to think or what to believe is good or right. The only standards the staff at IIDB enforce are regarding the polite use of their own property. They don't assert I will go to hell, or even jail, if I choose not to post here.

I think you missed my point here. There is a HUGE difference between interpreting the word of God and translating it from its original Hebrew and Greek. I was trying to tell you that if you are afraid of trusting a translation of the Bible because it was translated by a biased person (a Christian/Jewish translator) then why not get a Bible translated by an unbiased source such as this site, or other Atheist run sites. That way you would know for sure it was free of Christian tampering.

If I have faith, I don't need a translation, or even a scripture at all.

If you have Faith you definitely need a Bible so you can know what you have Faith in.

[IvanJames]

"If you have Faith you definitely need a Bible so you can know what you have Faith in."

...as every religion tells its followers. Why not the Q'ran? The Hebrew Bible? Zoroastrianism? Zeus, um, Zeusism?

So, who first told you that THIS was the truth?
---IvanJames

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

"Yet another ad hoc rationalization. I swear, if Satan came to Earth, 50 feet tall, horns, tail and red skin, blasting Christian Fundamentalists left and right and rewarding us atheists with booze, pot and hookers, y'all would find a way to rationalize even that as consistent with the existence of an all-powerful Yahweh."

It's funny you said this because that is exactly what is predicted in the book of Revelations. Ironic isn't it? ;)

:banghead: