FBF: Hare chews the cud - new info - inerrancy supported!

THE HYRAX CHEWS THE CUD! THE BIBLE'S CRITICS HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED AGAIN! DOES THE HARE CHEW THE CUD ALSO? THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO HARES CHEWING THE CUD ALSO.

Moses declared in Leviticus 11: 5 over 3,000 years ago that the rock hyrax chews the cud. For readers unacquainted with rock hyraxes, the rock hyrax is a small animal that lives in the rocky areas of Arabia Petreae and the Holy Land. Some people have taken issue with Moses regarding rock hyrax cud chewing. So the question naturally arises, "What does the evidence say?"

According to the Biological Abstracts which are summaries of biological research done throughout the world, Abstract 72891 for the year 1967 says the following:

72891 HENDRICHS, H. Vergleichende Untersuchung des wiederkauverhaltens [ Comparative investigation of cud retainers] BIOL ZENTRALBL 84 (6): 671-751 Illus. 1965 [ recd.1966]. -- All artiodactyl families and about 80% of the spp. were investigated. Chewing regurgitated fodder is an idle pastime as well as an instinct associated with appetite. Characteristic movements were analyzed for undisturbed samples of animals maintained on preserves. Group specific differences are reported in form, rhythm, frequency and side of chewing motion. The ungulate type is characterized as a specialization. The operation is described for the first time for the order Hyracoidea. On the basis of 12 spp. of the marsupial subfamily Macropodinae rumination is inferred for the whole category. Advantages of the process are debated."

One of the writers for The Investigator Magazine (an Australian magazine that is devoted to Skeptic versus Bible Believer debates among other topics) made the following commentary regarding Hendrich's research:


"Notice the sentence: "The operation is described for the first time for the order of Hyracoida."

"Order Hyracoidea" is the scientific name of a category of animals that includes the Hyrax.....

In 1964 Zoologist Hubert Hendrichs observed hyraxes at the Munich zoo in Germany and noticed swallowing movements.....he observed a Hyrax making swallowing movements although not eating....He subsequently investigated more closely. Further observation showed that the Hyraxes chew the cud mainly at night for about an hour.....

The reason the Hyrax's cud chewing behavior remained unconfirmed so long is that the animal chews the cud as little as 30 minutes a day and usually at night. Unless hyraxes are held in captivity their cud chewing would not be noticed!"


Some people might raise the objection that the hyrax is not classified as a ruminant according to some science reference sources. Such an objection, however, is not valid. For one, the 1975 Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia considers the hyrax as a ruminant. More importantly, in 1970 the Bible-Science Newsletter stated the following:

"Pasche quotes Friedrich Bettex, who in turn cites the distinguished authority on ruminants, Prof. Ruetimeyer of Basel:

"...I would call attention to the circumstances that in today's anatomical and embryological classification the practice of rumination is not decisive by itself. In other words, an animal may chew the cud and yet not be classified among the ruminants."

Now lets be very practical. Would God tell the ancient Israelites to eat or not eat a food based on the animals embryological classification? Common sense would tell you that such a methodology would be wholly inappropriate. So it would fair to say that a reasonable person cannot raise the objection that a hyrax is not considered by all to be a ruminant according to zoological classification system where a true ruminant has a four chambered stomach and a ruminant can have a three chambered stomach. In addition, according to the zoological standard an animal must also plus meet anatomical and embryological criteria! Incidentally, the hyrax has a two chambered stomach.

Of course, a perfectly valid question is: Does the hyrax have the appearance of chewing the cud? We do not want the early Israelites scratching their heads when they read that Leviticus states the shaphan/hyrax chews the cud. According to the online version of the Easton Bible Dictionary the hyrax is "continually working its teeth."

An objection a skeptic could raise is that based on my preliminary research I only have one citation from the peer reviewed science literature showing that the hyrax chews the cud. Of course this is a legitimate objection. However, it is a two edged sword because the bar has been raised for the skeptic. According to a German peer reviewed biology journal, Hendrichs observed the Hyraxes chewing the cud for about an hour a day and mostly at night. So the question for the skeptic now becomes "Can you find me a peer reviewed science literature where observers have watched hyraxes in captivity closely and continually for several 24 hour periods and NO cud chewing was observed?" I have asked a few skeptics who have a high interest in science this question and they found nothing. In my experience, so far the skeptics in the USA and Australia have struck out on this issue from an empirical science standpoint. In other words, I believe from an empirical point of view the Bible believer is standing on a firmer empirical scientific base in regards to the hyrax chewing the cud.

So why aren't more people TODAY aware the hyrax chews its cud. It is primarily a function of misunderstanding and misinformation. For example, one reason is that they are unfamiliar with the fact that the zoological classification can declare an animal is not a ruminant even though it chews its cud. Secondly, the Biological Abstracts only go back to 1990 via computer database search. If you want to find the BIOL ZENTRABL citation of 1967 you need to search through thick volumes in book form and there are tens of thousands of citations in the total Biological Abstracts so this is obviously a laborious process. Unfortunately, the laboriousness of searching manually through stacks can be a problem with the dissemination of information. For example, a recent issue of Library Journal mentions the case of Ellen Rochelle who died because a researcher was given a drug that caused lung damage but the researcher was not aware of possible lung damage associated with the drug being used because the researcher used the computer records of PubMed which only goes back to 1960 and the information was in the 1950's stacks. The Library Journal stated, "What happened is not just an indictment of one researcher but of a system in which people don't bother to research the literature anymore". Lastly, I think because the hyrax has a two chambered stomach many scientists just ASSUME the hyrax does not chew the cud. Of course, bad assumptions often inhibit science.

It should be said that a key issue in the hyrax/hare cud chewing issue is that the current Christian/rabbinical scholars are not in agreement with how the hebrew phrases "ma'alah gerah" and "gerah lo yigar" should be translated. Commonly these hebrew phrases are translated "chew the cud". This enters into the debate for the hyrax for example because the Samuel Clark in his 1981 Leviticus commentary suggested that that the term "gerah" "became expanded and the rodents, and pachyderms, which have a habit of grinding with their jaws, were familarly spoken of as ruminating animals." More will be said later regarding this issue when we discuss the hare where translation becomes more of an issue.

Lastly, in order to completely define the issue, it is important to identify the animal that is cited in Leviticus 11:5 using the hebrew word shaphan. The New King James Bible translates the Hebrew word shaphan into the words rock hyrax. The original word in the Hebrew in Leviticus 11:5 is shaphan. According to the available online International Standard Bible Encyclopedia the "shaphan.....is now universally considered to refer to the Syrian hyrax.....The Syrian hyrax lives in Syria, Palestine, and Arabia." The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible says the animal is "probably the hyrax" and although we cannot say with absolute certainty the animal is the hyrax, we must remember that since Strong published his concordance our knowledge of the Biblical creatures has grown (Dr. Strong and his colleagues were eminent scholars, but I am not sure if the editors have updated the new Strong's based on new findings). The Bible describes the shaphan as a small wise creature that hides among the rocks (Proverbs 30:26). This fits the hyrax who lives in colonies and is a socially gregarious animal that has a sentry who gives a shrill cry to warn other hyraxes of danger so they can hide among the clefts of the rocks. In addition, hyraxes are very adaptable creatures (I read that the hyraxes in Africa are very adaptable and so I am inferring that other hyrax species are as well). The hyrax has 21 separate vocalizations. According to a webpage published at the Israel's Bar-Ilan University by Professor Yehuda Felix, Faculty of Life Sciences, prior to wildlife protection laws that outlaw trapping or hunting hyraxes, the hyrax was "exceptionally wary" and it was previously difficult to follow their movements. Strong points out that the word shaphan is linguistically tied to the word saphan which implies hiding. Strong says the following regarding the word saphan: a primitive root; to conceal (as a valuable): -- treasure. In summary, although I would not go as far the International Bible Encycopedia goes and say the hyrax is now "universally recognized as being the hyrax", I would say this is definitely the consensus opinion and that the best evidence supports this conclusion. Some scholars have reservations due to the fact that many biblical animals have uncertain identification. Also, some biblical scholars believe that various biblical animals have been misidentified (For example, Prof. Yehudah Felix in the Life Sciences department of the Israeli Bar-ILan University has said that some Bible animals have been misidentified according the the Jewish website Torat Emet).

Since the hare seems to get all the limelight in this controversy many readers are probably now asking, "So what about the hare!" Does the hare chew its cud as Leviticus 11: 6 seems to indicate?

This is what Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia says about the hare:

" While not a true ruminant according to modern classification in that it does not have a four chambered stomach, the hare does rechew its food. There is a process of partial regurgitation of material that it is too hard for little cells in the stomach to absorb initially; thus there hare actually chews food previously swallowed (E.P. Schulze, "The Ruminating Hare,"Bible-Science Newsletter, VIII [Jan. 15, 1970], 6)."

Are there any experts on ruminants who say the hare chews its cud? The Bible-Science Newsletter offers the following:

" Pasche quotes Friedrich Bettex, who in turn cites the distinguished authority on ruminants, Prof. Ruetimeyer of Basel as being quite sure the hare ruminates:

"That the hare chews the cud is not new to me." (Professor Reutimeyer then explains that an animal can chew the cud and still not be classified a ruminant which I quoted previously).

So do I have any reports of individuals observing hare cud chewing? The Bible-Science Newsletter reports the following about the rabbit (although the rabbit is not native to Palestine, according to the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, I am assuming that hares are somewhat similar to rabbits, although in science, as stated before, overly relying on assumptions can and does lead to wrong conclusions):

F.C. Pasche writes (I am translating his words from the German):

"The poet Cowper, who kept rabbits and observed them minutely testifies that one of them ruminated all day until evening. Goldsmith: The Rhinocerous, the horse, the rabbit, the marmot and the squirrel all chew at intervals"

Is there any other evidence the hare chews the cud? The Bible-Science Newsletter continues:

"In a footnote Engelder quotes Jenks and Warne, Comprehensive Commentary as follows:

"Arnebeth. That this is the hare is confirmed in the cognate languages. That it chews the cud is proven beyond all doubt. See Michaelis and Linnaes. Although it wants the four stomachs to peculiar to cleft cattle, yet it returns the food, once chewed, into its mouth by the esophagus, since its stomach has several little cells divided by partitions from which the food, while it is too hard are repelled."

(I agree that that the Hebrew word arnebeth in Leviticus 11: 6 refers to the hare because the word arnab in Arabic means hare according the the online version of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Plus according to the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopdia there are ancient Middle Eastern reliefs of hares).

Below is some material which strongly adds to the article published by E.P. Schulz in the Bible-Science Newsletter published above:

Professor Yedulah Felix of the Israeli Bar-Ilan University writes:

"In our generation we have learned that the local hares of the genus called lepus are accustomed to eating a large amount of greens each morning. These are only partially digested and the remants are excreted in the form of balls on a flat open surface and later the hare returns to chew them, after these greens have undergone a process of chemical breakdown caused by bacteria."

A key quote of Professor Yedulah Felix above is "in our generation we have learned". This raises a vital question of course. Namely, "How much do we really know about the hares of Palestine in order to declare that they do not chew the cud?" First of all, it should be said that the hyrax and the hare both have two chambered stomachs. And remember, it was not reported in the peer reviewed scientific literature until 1965 that the hyrax with its two chambered stomach chews the cud. Here is a quote from the Bible Science newsletter which was cited from the first half of the 20th century which I think still applies today:


"Finally, in this note he [Engelder, who published in the theological journal Concordia Monthly, in July, 1941] cites Dr. P.E. Kretzman: "Careful scientists, even distinguished biologists, such as one at a leading state university which I attended, have admitted that our knowledge of certain mammals of this class would not warrant our declaring the statement of Leviticus 11:6 untrue. While mammals of this class do not have a digestive apparatus of those that chew the cud, there is evidently a process of total or partial regurgitation, together with a second chewing of the food, which fully substantiates the statement found in Scripture. It is not a mere semblence of chewing the cud with which we are dealing but an actual chewing of the food previously swallowed."


At his webpage, Professor Brand, chairman of the department of Biology at Loma Linda University, points out that lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) produce special pellets which they reingest to gain additional nutritional benefits. Regarding when these special pellets are created Dr. Brand says the following: "...when they cease their activity and retire to their burrows or resting areas, they begin producing soft pellets which they eat as soon as they are passed." As a side note, Professor Brand published in the journal Origins that Jules Carles, one of the foremost geneticists of our time, studied the biological processes of rabbits. And based on Mr. Carles study, Mr. Carles stated the following: "it is difficult to deny that rabbits are ruminants".

It appears to me that the different species of hares practice different behaviors. For example, Professor Yehuda Felix in the Life Sciences Department at the Israeli Bar-Illan University indicates that local hares in Israel spit up "food balls" on rocks and then reingest those "food balls". Professsor Brand mentions that lagomorphs practice refection. Professor Reutimeyer, an authority of ruminants said, "That the hare chews its cud is not new to me." Here is a possibilty: Perhaps hares in Israel practice the folowing behaviors: spitting "food balls" up on rocks and then reingesting those "food balls", refection, and regurgitating food into their mouth and reingesting food while it is still in their mouth! You can say I am "splitting hares" but I think the science is too cloudy in this area based on my hyrax/hare and Israeli hare research. For example, I know from my reading one of the writers at Investigator Magazine that in the 18th century, European scientists declared that the Bible was in error because it declared that ants store up their food. The 18th century scientists assumed that just because the Northern European ants do not store up their food, that all ants do not store up their food. This proved to be a bad assumption because there are species of ants in other areas that do store up their food. Perhaps the steady tortoise like research of patient scientist will eventually discover all the behaviors of hares in the Middle East and other hares as well in relation to Leviticus 11: 6.

In the meantime, there is excellent evidence that the Bible has a superb track record in terms of accurately describing animal behavior. Investigator Magazine has a letter from Britannica, published on their website, that based the new research Britannica has examined they will (and subsequently have) revise(d) their encyclopedias which formerly said that cobras cannot hear charmers but respond to vibrations produced by the charmers instruments. The Bible proved correct again in that the best evidence supports that cobras do hear the charmers just as the Bible declared. Also, consider this as reported by a writer to Investigator Magazine: naturalists spent thousands of hours observing lions (I assume that they used binoculars and high tech cameras and lens. The lion investigator Schaller spent 2,900 hours investigating lions and still came to the wrong conclusions as evidenced by a 1972 publication of Schaller's). Even with all the advantages the scientists had, they wrongly assumed that lions primarily killed their prey by biting their neck and breaking their neck. Most Bible translations, especially the literal ones, say in Nahum 2: 12 that lions strangle their prey. The current consensus view of naturalists is that lions kill their prey though strangulation.

Ultimately though, I think it is safe to say that hares appear to chew the cud at the very least, since Creation Magazine has stated that Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy, initially classified hares as ruminants based on the motions of their jaws. And it is patently obvious that the ancient Israelites would be no different than Linnaes in terms of his observation regarding hare cud chewing.

The next obvious question is: "Are there any peer reviewed science journals that say that rabbits, hares, or Israeli hares chew the cud?" I will admit at this point that I am in need of a scientist who is adept at doing scientific research to see if such findings are available. I would caution the person who says that the ancient Middle Eastern hares or that other species of hares do not chew the cud to remember the example of the 1965 peer reviewed hyrax citation in the scientific literature and the recent discoveries about Israeli hares. To be more precise, in order to say that hares/Middle Eastern hares do not chew the cud you must find a study where the hares are closely observed for several continuous 24 hour period in order to assert that hares do not chew the cud. Otherwise, you merely have more chuzpah than evidence.

A vital question in this whole hyrax/hare cud chewing issue in order to properly frame the issue as alluded to earlier is, "What does the correct translation of the term that is typically rendered "chew the cud"?" Here is some useful commentary from the Bible-Science Newletter from Pastor Schultz:

"....One may proceed to the next work [sic] in the text, the Hebrew conjunction ki, and here it should be noted that the Hebrew language is very economical in words, often making one word serve a variety of purposes. Thus the word ki, translated in the passage under discussion as "because," may and sometimes does signify (among other things) "if" or "although" and we are perfectly justified in render the clause: "if he cheweth the cud" or "although he may cheweth the cud". "

I think Pastor Schultz makes a excellent point that few or no other commentators raise. Because what if some species of hares chew the cud and others do not! And it seems as though the possibility that are hares are not created with the same behavior in terms of exactly how they reingest food (Professor Felix says that Israeli hares spit up "food balls" on rocks which they later reingest after bacteria has worked on the "food balls". Professor Brand says that hares practice refection. Professor Ruetimeyer, the expert on Ruminants said, "that the hare chews the cud is not new to me").

Regarding the remaining relevant words of the Leviticus 11: 5-6 and related passages excellent commentary is provided by both Christian and Jewish sources. Two sources I suggest that are provided by Tektonics Apologetics Ministries or linked to their site are: http://www.tektonics.org/cudchewers.html and http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet2.html (Torat Emet, Jewish Site).

As we stated before, the words "ma'alah gerah" and "gerah lo yigor" are commonly translated "chew the cud". The Jewish Site Torat Emet raises 3 important questions. The first question is the following: "Is it likely or possible that the Hebrew words "ma'alah gerah" words can be translated other ways as well?" Also, "Is likely or possible that the precise definition of words "ma'alah gerah" was lost with the passage of time?" Lastly, is it likely or possible that many translators and commentators overly restricted the translation of the Hebrew words: "ma'alah gerah" over time? The Jewish site Torat Emet list four different views that the Jewish/rabbinical scholars take regarding the Hebrew phrase "ma'alah gerah". Why are there four different views? One of the reasons is that the word gerah is used very sparingly in the Old Testament text and it is ONLY used in the in the phrases "mal'alah gerah" and "gerah lo yigor" ("gerah lo yigor" is only used in connection with swine and scholars have different explanations on why this is the case). I think if you review the two weblinks provided above you will come to the conclusion that at least three out of the four rabbinical views have merit. In addition, you could reasonably say that Samuel Clark's view of the Hebrew words ma'alah gerah also has merit (Samuel Clark said the Hebrew words ma'alah gerah became expanded over time). Thus, I think we can safely say that the precise meaning of the words ma'alah gerah has become partially lost through the passage of time and thus can be translated other ways as well. On the other hand, the following important point needs to be made - I have noticed that as scholars have taken a closer view of the words in recent times a lot more light has been shed on the Hebrew phrase ma'alah gerah so let us continue our study of the words.

The Jewish website provides the following commentary regarding the Hebrew phrase "ma'alah gerah" :


"The early grammarian R' Menachem ben Sarak connects the phrase ma'alah gerah with the phrase in 2 Samuel 14:14 uchemayim hanigarim. The latter phrase refers to water being drawn. Evidently, R' Manachem ben Sarak understands the word gerah as meaning something that is pulled in. Similarly, R' Yonah Ibn Janach in his Sefer Hashorashim (sv GRH translated gerah as mesichah - dragging. They would presumably translate the phrase ma'alah gerah as "raising something that is drawn into the mouth"......

Modern scholars follow these latter two lines."


Next let us take a closer look at the Hebrew word alah. Strong's concordance says the word alah can be translated: ascended up, carry up, cast up, fetch up, get up, recover, restore, take up, and much more. In other words, the Hebrew word alah is very flexible in its usage. It is not restricted to the Leviticus 11: 5-6 verses but is found in a very large amount of verses. For example, in Joshua 24:17 the word alah is used in the following way: "It was the Lord our God who brought us and our fathers up out of Eygpt." Isaiah 8:7 uses the word alah in the following manner: "therefore the Lord is about to bring against them the mighty floodwaters of the River..." JP Holding at the Tektonics Apologetics Ministries webiste offers the following useful commentary: "So: the Hebrew word in question is NOT specific to the process of regurgitation; it is a phrase of general movement."

So let's tie our understanding of the Hebrew word alah with the commentary on the Jewish site Torat Emet. The Jewish site Torat Emet says "Evidently, R'Manachem be Saruk understands the word gerah as meaning something that is pulled in". We have also seen alah can mean the following: take up, fetch up, recover. So here is my conclusion:

After reading the two links regarding the Hebrew words "gerah ma'alah" and "gerah lo yigar" (which many translators translate "chew the cud") I think you can see that that the Hebrew phrase "ma'alah gerah" is very compatible or at the very least possibly compatible with Professor Felix's observation that some or all of species of local hares in Israeli spit up "food balls" on rocks and then redigest those "food balls". In addition, the actual Hebrew words are also very compatible or at the very least possibly compatible with Professor Brand's comments on lagomorphs (hares and rabbits) practicing refection. And of course, the Hebrew words fit what the expert on rumination Professor Ruetimeyer said. If you may recall Professor Reutimeyer said "that the hare chews the cud is not new to me". Perhaps, God used Hebrew words that are VERY flexible for a reason. Namely, because the circumstances of the hares reingestion are diverse. Granted, the Hebrew words have caused some debate among scholars. On the other hand, it seemed to fit the ancient Israeli needs well. We hear of no Israeli grumbling in the wilderness regarding the words "gerah ma'alah" or "gerah lo yigar" and what they exactly mean. And the ancient Israeli's were experts at grumbling in the wilderness! I don't think much has changed as far as human nature since the Jewish exodus from Egypt judging by the behavior of some regarding the "cud controversy". Lastly, it seems apparent to me that the translators and commentators being unaware of the diverse circumstances regarding hare reingestion of food inadvertently restricted the translation of the words "ma'alah gerah."

In summary, one of the problems regarding this issue and others like it is that you have to understand the following: the Hebrew scholarship, the available scientific literature, and lastly understand the current limitations in our current scientific understanding. I will say that this was the most challenging Bible controversy I have encountered but like most things it will yield to patient study. I hope this piece was helpful in clarifying the issue. If others wish to scour the databases and stacks of the available scientific literature and/or conduct further experiments to clarify things further, I would enjoy seeing the issue further clarified.

Request to readers: If you could forward this infomation to publishers of the following material I would be indebted to you: Bible's with commentary, Bible Dictionaries, Bible Encyclopedias, Christian apologetic books, Encyclopedias, and Christian websites.

Friendly challenge to readers: In my essay, I said that the Hebrew phrase "gerah lo yigor" (commonly translated "chew the cud" ) regarding how swine process their food is only used in connection with the swine. The site Torat Emat website and the Tektonics Apologetics Ministry web links given above should give you some very helpful commentary (the site Torah Emat has commentary that provides an argument that would strengthen my essay). In addition, my essay should help elucidate this Bible riddle as well. I also think the website www.tikkun.org/renewal/index.cfm/Perashatid/26/action/display_torah_commentary.html which speculates that the swine will chew the cud in a future age is somewhat interesting (the site claims the Hebrew words "gerah lo yigor" are couched in the future tense). Imagine! Kosher swine! I also think that perhaps Jeremiah 31:31 (New Covenant) and the New Testament could enter into the debate. I do not pretend to know the answers regarding "gerah lo yigor" at this point. It should be said that I am a Christian and I do not believe Christians are required to eat kosher (I believe this position is supported by several Bible passages).

ENDNOTES

African Wildlife Foundation's webpage, re: hyraxes are very adaptable: www.awf.org/wildlives/142

An Ultimate Ungulate Fact Sheet (webpage fact sheet), re: hyraxes having sentries, 21 vocalizations: http://www.ultimateungulate.com/Hyracoidea/Procavia_capensis.html

Bible-Science Newsletter, VIII [Jan. 15, 1970], E.P. Schultz, "The Ruminting Hare", page 6, website for publisher: www.creationmoments.com .

Brand, Leonard, R., Chaiman of Department of Biology, Loma Linda University: webpage: "Do Rabbits Chew the Cud? http://grisda.org/origins/04102.htm

Brand, Leonard R. (1977), "Do Rabbits Chew the Cud?, Origins, 4 (2): 102-104

Clark, Samuel, (1981, "Leviticus," The Bible Commentary, ed. F.C. Cook, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker)

Creation Magazine, Vol. 20, Issue 4, "Do Rabbits Chew the Cud" by Jonathon Sarfati. posted at website: www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp

Easton Bible Dictionary, online version, Coney (hyrax): www.searchgodsword.org/dic/ebd/view.cgi?number=T878

Encyclopedia.com: re: hyraxes living in colonies: http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/h1/hyrax.asp

Engelder, Verbal Inspiration (Concordia Theological Monthly, July 1941, pages 490-491).

Felix, Prof. Yedulah, Israel's Bar-Ilan University: webpage on shafan and arnevet: http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Eparasha/shmini/felix.html

Grzimek, Bernard, ed. (1975), Gzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold).

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, online Version: Coney (hyrax): www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T2255

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, online version: Hare: http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T4100


Investigator Magazine, 2000, March, Vol 70: re: ants: The Bible: Tested, True, and Triumphant, (anonymous writer for this piece), P.O, Box 3243, Port Adelaide, Australia 5015: http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm

Investigator Magazine, 1994, September, Vol. 38, re: cobras, "Revising the Britannica to Agree with the Bible", Port Adelaide, Australia, 5015, http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BBritannicaCobra38.htm

Investigator Magazine, 1991, May, Vol.18: "The Hyrax Supports the Bible!", (anonymous writer for this piece), P.O. Box 3243, Port Adelaide, Australia 5015 http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BHyrax18May1991.htm

Investigator Magazine, 2000, March, Vol 70, re: Hyrax spends about an hour a day regurgitating and rechewing food, The Bible: Tested, True and Triumphant (anonymous writer for this piece),
http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm

Investigator Magazine, 2002, November, Vol. 87, re: lion behavior and the Bible as described by the Bible: "Lions and the Bible" (anonymous writer for this piece), P.O.Box 3243, Port Adelaide, Australia, www.adam.com.au/bstett/BLions87.htm

Library Journal, 9/1/2002, "Could Librarian's Help Prevented Hopkins Tragedy?"

New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, 1990, Thomas Nelson Publshers, Nashville

Torat Emat, webpage, re: Bible animal identification: www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet2.html

Wildlife Campus's webpage: re: hyraxes are small and gregarious, http://www.wildlifecampus.com/Glossary/Glossary.asp?Letter=h

Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, 1983, Animals of the Bible, Beasts of the field: hare, page 80, Moody Press, Chicago, IL

[ February 03, 2004, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: Squire Robertsson ]

 

Gentleman:

I agree with you wholeheartedly that we are not under the law. Of course, to maintain that would be unbiblical. I can also very much detect that you feel the Bible being right or wrong on a small point is not worth much bothering about. I am almost tempted to agree. However, this is why I think I raise a relevant point. Jesus said, "He who is faithful in little is faithful in much and who is unfaithful in little is unfaithful in much." Now if the Bible is not faithful in accuracy on even the little points which we can check, a legitimate question is the following: "How can we trust then the bigger more harder to verify claims?" I do believe and with good reason that the God of the Bible has shown Himself to be faithful in little and faithful in
much. I also believe that the Bible has excellent evidence in its support. I also believe that works that support why we can trust the Bible have their place. As far as the 5-6 page length of my essay I think that is a reasonable amount given that I have to discuss science and the Hebrew language.

 

A final note:

I also believe that if someone is going to take issue with the claims I make in my essay they should state why and give proper support. Expressing your opinion is a great thing but supporting that opinion while more difficult is even a greater thing.

Sincerely,

Ken

 

A short addition:

I would also like to say that I also included in my essay several cases where the consensus of scientific opinion ultimately was misplaced and the Bible turned out to be right in the long run. So I did not solely discuss this one issue. Lastly, if you go to various christian answer sites on the web you will find that many people have this question and so I felt that providing information that is not widely known can help people develop the Abraham type faith that pleases God. Of course, this is an extremely important thing.

 

Dear Readers:

This was an early draft of my essay. Hares and hyraxes do not have 2 chambered stomachs and I retract that statement. However, both hares and hyraxes have a fermentation chamber which could be said to be analygous to having a extra stomach.
For details please see these two websites:

http://www.grisda.org/origins/04102.htm

http://www.apologeticspress.org/faq/r&r8912a.htm


As far as the gentleman above saying rabbits do not chew the cud there are indications that they do if you read my essay.

Lastly, in regards to the Hebrew words "ma'alah gerah" I gave a quote from a Jewish site which said "modern scholars follow these two lines". Actually, I should have ended the quote a sentence before. Modern rabbinical scholars do not by in large hold Sarak's view. See the Jewish site for the details. This of course, does not mean, however, that Sarak was mistaken as the Hebrew word gerah is used very sparingly in the Old Testament and is a hard word to translate.

Also, if anyone speaks German and wants to track down the source of the Prof. Ruetimeyer quote I would be much oblidged. Here is the Pasche reference: Erklaerung etlicher Stellen in den Buechern Mosis (Lehre und Wehre, June-July, 1923, page 188.

 

Dear Readers:

If anyone is interested in rabbit anatomy and physiology further I recommend the following site:

http://www.gw.org/Rabbit.htm

 

Dear Readers:

Here is another site which clarifies this issue further:

http://www.tektonics.org/TK-LEV.html

Sincerely,

Ken

 

Dear John:

We do agree that Christians can eat hares. I do know that many Christians have struggled regarding this hare/cud issue and they have ruminated on it and even mistakenly said the Bible could be in error on this point. If you scan the Christian sites you will see this point is raised over and over. In fact, I discovered this BaptistBoard because this issue was raised on this very board! I believe the Bible's critics have had a "hare-trigger" in regards to declaring the Bible to be in error on this point and this is a harebrained objection to the Bible's accuracy.

I know that even the most analytical people can come to wrong conclusions regarding the Bible due to incomplete information. I greatly appreciate the Baptist Boards help in claryfying this issue and I also like the fact that it is listed in the search engines! If you can keep this post string alive I would be indebted to you.

If anyone has any other questions regarding the Bible's accuracy/truthfulness I highly recommend the following sites:

http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html

http://www.inerrancy.org

http://www.christian-thinktank.com

Also, this site offers great free commentaries that are very much of the conservative/inerrancy bent:

http://www.blueletterbible.org

 

Dear John:

Now that my information is widely available I am "letting it go". I did not start this whole debate/constroversy but I hope I have helped to finish it! I do appreciate your good natured comments and I am glad you liked my "splitting hares" pun in my essay. Many people have liked my pun and I seemed to have injected some much needed humor in this whole debate.

Sincerely,

Ken

 

Dear Readers:

Here is a link to my revised and retitled essay:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16860

 

Dear Readers:

I absolutely know we are not under the Mosaic Law. Paul made that clear in Galations and other places so you can still eat your jumbo shrimp! It appears though as if the Mosaic Law was way ahead of its time in some regards. Here are a few interesting sites:

http://www.godstruth.org/chap08

http://www.pytlik.com/observe/deliverus/signature-05.html

http://acsh.org/publications/priorities/0904/circyes.html

I felt including this auxillary information would make my Leviticus 11:5-6 case stronger.

 

Dear Readers:

Since this is a science/Bible issue I thought some readers might enjoy this link:

http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

The link demonstates that the development of modern science was greatly helped by a Christian worldview.

 

FRIENDLY REQUEST TO READERS AND POSTERS TO THIS STRING:

I have some reasonable request for those who wish to participate in a discussion regarding the hare/cud issue. If you could accommodate my request I would be in indebted to you:

Please focus the debate on the hare/hyrax/rabbit/cud issue. If you want to create a string on another topic and create a well reasoned and well written topic that you wish to defend I would encourage you to do so. However, on this post string, I courteously ask that we talk about this particular issue and keep our focus on this topic.

Please be a courteous discussant and read my essay before responding. I had one gentleman at another forum post a reply to my essay but he only read the title.

Also, if you are going to assert the hare or hyrax does not chew the cud and the Bible made a mistake please meet the standard of evidence I give in my essay. If you do not feel my standard is reasonable, please state why you feel my standard of evidence is unreasonable and be as specific as possible. In addition, if you could address my Felix/Kretzman argument as well this would also be appreciated.

Also, if you state the hare does not chew the cud because it is not a Ruminant I would suggest you read my essay closer due to two reasons: 1) Professor Ruetimeyer, the distinguished authority on Ruminants, said that an animal CAN chew the cud and still not be declared a Ruminant because there is more than one factor that determines if a animal is declared a Ruminant (see my essay for details). 2) Also, Professor Ruetimeyer said, "That the hare chews the cud is not new to me...." 3) Not all scientists (though some) have declared the hyrax is a Ruminant, yet the best evidence which was provided by Hendrichs in peer reviewed journal demonstrates the hare chews the cud. Both hares and hyraxes have a fermentation chamber in addition to having a stomach. If you have better empirical evidence that the hyrax does not chew the cud then please present it. If you still feel the Ruminant objection can be maintained the please fully support this assertion.

Also, if you are going to state that your particular rendering of the Hebrew of "ma'alah gerah is correct, the please state why the other 5 plus translations cited in the rabbinical and Christian literature by scholars is untenable (I give two links regarding this issue in my essay). I would also like to address the issue regarding the fact that the phrase "ma'alah gerah" is used for sparingly in the Old Testament and why this fact of the scarcity of usage would not make translating problematic.

 

Dear Readers:

I am going to do a little more research on this topic, although not much, because I a large publisher has expressed an interest in publishing this information in their materials and website. Their scientists may also be doing additional research. As a result, I may be updating this material a little.

Sincerely,

Ken

 

Before you say the Bible is in error in Leviticus 11:5-6 I would like to see you answer all these questions. If you finish all these questions I will be happy to have a discussion with you.

1) How important is it for this debate from 1 to 100 that professor Ruetimeyer, said, "a animal can chew the cud and still not be a ruminant" for an animal that has a fermentation chamber and has one science book declare a ruminant plus has a peer science journal saying it chews the cud (this is of course the hyrax)

Please justify your answer

2) How important is it for this debate from 1 to 100 that professor Ruetimeyer, said, "a animal can chew the cud and still not be a ruminant" for the hare who has:

a fermentation chamber, it shares in common that fact it has fermentation chamber with the hyrax, it has professsor ruetimeyer declaring it chews the cud and he is an expert in rumination, it has cowper declare he watched its "cousin" the rabbit minutely and it chewed the cud, and jules carles, the world famous geneticist says that based on a comparative study between its "cousin" the rabbit and a cow that "it is hard to declare the hare is not a ruminant.

Please justify your answer

3) How could you tell the difference between an animal just moving its teeth and it ruminating?

Please elaborate

4) How sure could you be regarding question 3 from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty.

Please justify

5) when did hendrichs say the hyrax chewed the cud? How was it distributed throughout the day according to Hendrichs?

6) Is 24 hour continous study for several days better than non- continuous study in order to determine rumination for the hyrax?

Yes? No?

7) How important to have careful empirical data such as hendrichs which was 24 hour continuous monitering for several days if you want to be a careful scientist on a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is very important?

Please fully justify your answer.

8) do you have comparable data to hendrichs in terms of his 24 continuous study for several days?

yes? no?


9) How likely is it that the hyrax does chews the cud on scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty?

Please justify your answer.

(please consider Hendrich data compared to others, please consider the hyraxes fermentation chamber, please consider that an animal can be ruminate but still not be a ruminant according to ruetimeyer, please consider that one science reference source says the hyrax is a ruminant)

10) How likely is it that you are wrong about the number you gave in question #9 on a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty.

Please fully support your answer

11)How confident should the audience reading this post be regarding the number you gave in question 10 from a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty.

please fully support your answer.


12) Is it preferable to have 24 hour continuous study to determine if hares chew the cud?

Yes? No?

13) if it is not preferable then please state why.

14) How important is it on a scale from 1 to 100 to study hares for a 24 hours continuously in captivity for several days if you want to be a careful scientist where 100 is really important?

please justify your answer

15) do you have any data where hares where closely monitered for 24 hours continuously and they did not chew the cud?

Yes? NO?

How much does your reply to this question matter on a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is really important?

16) do you have any data for Middle eastern hares where they were continuously monitered for several 24 hour periods and no cud chewing was observed.

Does it matter? Please justify your answer.

17) How likely is it that the hare chews the cud on scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty?

(please considers Hendrich data compared to others, please consider the hyraxes fermentation chamber, please consider that the hare also has a fermentation chamber,please consider that an animal can be ruminate but still not be a ruminant according to ruetimeyer, please consider that jules carles said it is hard to say that a rabbit does not ruminate and a rabbit could be similar to a hare, please consider one science reference source says the hyrax is a ruminant and the hyrax and hare both have a fermentation chamber)

Please fully support your answer.

18) How likely is it that you are wrong about the number you gave in question 17 on a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty.

Please fully support your answer

19)How confident should the audience reading this post be regarding the number you gave in question 18 from a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty.

please fully support your answer.

20) How likely is it that the hare does chews the cud on scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty?

(please considers Hendrich data compared to others, please consider the hyraxes fermentation chamber, please consider that an animal can be ruminate but still not be a ruminant according to ruetimeyer, please consider that one science reference source says the hyrax is a ruminant)

Please fully support your answer.

21) How likely is it that you are wrong about the number you gave in question #20 on a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty.

Please fully support your answer

22)How confident should the audience reading this post be regarding the number you gave in question 21 from a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty.

please fully support your answer.

23) How likely is it that the hyrax does chews the cud on scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty?

(please considers Hendrich data compared to others, please consider the hyraxes fermentation chamber, please consider that an animal can be ruminate but still not be a ruminant according to ruetimeyer, please consider that one science reference source says the hyrax is a ruminant)

Please fully support your answer.

24) How likely is it that you are wrong about the number you gave in question #23 on a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty.

Please fully support your answer

25)How confident should the audience reading this post be regarding the number you gave in question 25 from a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty.

please fully support your answer.

26) On a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is very competent how competent are you in hebrew?

27) If you gave a high number for question 26 please describe for the readers your Hebrew education or self study.

28) if it is self study how do you propose showing the readers you are competent?

29) If you had hebrew education can you send the transcripts to the moderator or verify it somehow.

30) if you have transcripts can you please post them on the internet.

31) How well could you explain why each of the other 5 plus rabbinical/christian scholars were wrong for each individual scholar on a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is fantastic.

please justify your answer

32) did you explain why each of the other 5 plus rabbinical/christian scholars were wrong for each individual scholar?

yes? no?

33) on a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty how confident are you that "malah gerah" ONLY means chews the cud?

please justify

34)How confident are you in the number you gave in question 33
from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty?

please justify

35) How confident should the readers be in the number you gave in question 34 from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty and why?

Please justify

36) are you taking into account your combined uncertainty regarding the language and the science issues if you determine that the Leviticus 11: 5 is in error and taking into a account the opinion of the scholar Samuel Clark in your opinion?

Who is samuel clark?

37) How confident from 1-100 are you that the Bible made a mistake in Leviticus 11: 5 where 100 is absolutely confident taking answers 1- into account.

Please state why and justify

yes? no?

38) How confident are you that the number you gave in question 37 is correct where 100 is absolute certainty and 0 is no certainty at all .

please justify

39) How confident should the audience be for the number you gave for question 38 where 0 is not confident at all and 100 is complete certainty.

Please justify

40) How confident are you taking into the opinion of samuel clark that Leviticus 11: 6 made a error from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty?

please justify

41) How confident are you in your opinion in #40 from 1 to 100 where 100 is complete certainty?

please justify

42) How confident should the audience be in your answer to question 41 where 0 is not certain at all and 100 is very confident.

please justify

 

Dear Readers:

HERE IS AN EXPLANATION OF THE PREVIOUS POSTS:

Why did you ask all those questions?

I believe that asking questions which is called the Socratic method is sometimes the best way to convey concepts particularly ones that are complex.


DO YOU REALLY WANT THE TRANSCRIPTS?:

Only for difficult people.


Why so many questions? Do you have a mean streak a mile wide?

I think issues that involve science and complex translation issues with ancient text in cases where a word and phrase is used in limited context are more difficult and require more questions. I also think that followup questions to test the validity of key questions are important.

Isn't asking so many questions similar to what a prosecuting attorney would do and isn't likely to breed resentment?

Perhaps. I do think, however, that repeating yourself and trying to force your ideas on others would breed far more resentment. It also clarfies things in the mind of both parties.


When will you have more answers on the Hebrew issues?

I am not well versed in the Hebrew. All my information regarding the Hebrew came from: 3 Jewish sites ( I did not mention one of them), JP Holding, Pastor Schultz, and Strong's concordance. I am self taught. If anyone has further questions regarding the Hebrew I recommend contracting some Jewish sites or local sources.


When will you have more answers on the science issues?

My essay is being peer reviewed by a Christian organization that explores science issues that relate to the Bible. The process could take 2-4 months. They said they would get back to me in the beginning part of 2004. How much they will additional research they will do I do not know. I do know that I am not that familar with doing biological research using the science journals. Most of my science/ mathematics/statistics/logic knowledge comes from high school and the math, statistics and science courses I took to get a Bachelors in Management although the internet has been helpful too.

When will you have more answers regarding the German sources you used in your essay (Pasche, Bettex, Ruetimeyer, Hendrichs)?

The Christian organization that is peer reviewing is worldwide. I am hoping they can provide German translation assistance.

How confident are you in the sources you used and the claims you made?

I believe the sources I used were conservative in the claims. I fact checked each article and then revised my essay after I did some fact checking on my essay. Also, Mr. Stett corrected a misreading of the Schaller data. So I am very confident in the claims I made and I tried to be conservative in those claims so I could be confident.