"hare" in the KJV's Deu. 14:7

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by robycop3, Jun 1, 2005.

  1. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    While reading about the coney, this passage in the KJV caught my attention:

    Deu. 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."

    The Hebrew here translated "hare" is 'arnebeth'. Now we know no known hare chews the cud, while God is always right. My rabbi friend tells me that arnebeth is of uncertain meaning, but it certainly isn't 'hare'. Any thoughts?
     
  2. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am told that hares do indeed chew the cud "after a fashion".
    They will re-chew their own partially digested dung thus technically "chewing the cud".

    I don't think it really matters though. Whether I understand these creatures or not really hasn't much bearing on my everyday faith in God.

    I'll return with the link for info about hare "cud-chewing", K?

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  3. Brian30755

    Brian30755
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now we know no known hare chews the cud, while God is always right.

    I've always read that passage as largely rhetorical: someone might point to the "hare" and say, "Look, it's chewing the cud, it must be kosher," so the text goes further and points out it doesn't have split hooves, either. Thus the question of whether the hare's chewing actions are actual rumination become moot.
     
  5. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
  6. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    Also, a hare has no hooves, cloven or otherwise. It appears the AV translators simply used their best guess with hare, a critter known to them.
     
  7. obscureone

    obscureone
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see the Septuagint (Gk OT) went with a word meaning "shaggy-of-foot." Every Hebrew resource I have goes with "rabbit" or "hare."
     
  8. Psalm145 3

    Psalm145 3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2001
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Hebrew word for hare is arnebeth. I don't care what any unregenerate rabbi says. Men such as Dr. Bedwell and Dr. Miles Smith, translators of the KJV, understood Hebrew better than us dummies.

    Just believe what the KJV says and you'll not be ashamed.
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    I believe a modern rabbi who was raised from childhood speaking/reading Hebrew knows what he's talking about. The man learned english as a second language.I believe he knows more about his own language than someone who lived 400 years ago.

    Psalm 145 3: The Hebrew word for hare is arnebeth.

    Whose word are YOU taking for it?

    I don't care what any unregenerate rabbi says.

    Unless it agrees with your KJVO myth. Then, suddenly, you would proclaim him a genius. remember, your precious Masoretic Text was kept by such rabbis.


    Men such as Dr. Bedwell and Dr. Miles Smith, translators of the KJV, understood Hebrew better than us dummies.

    But there's been 400 years of knowledge acquired since then.

    Just believe what the KJV says and you'll not be ashamed.

    But you might look more than slightly foolish. I haven't seen any hares with hooves yet. Would you please show me one?
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    The hare differs from the rabbit in that its young are born able to see, and with hair, while rabbits are born blind and naked. The adult hare has longer legs& ears than the rabbit, is larger, and can run faster.The rabbit builds nests, while hares do not. The hare lives in more open habitat than the rabbit does, and relies on its speed to escape predators while the rabbit maintains "runways" in its territory where it can easily scamper, where most other animals, such as dogs or foxes, cannot.

    There are no rabbits in Palestine, so the translators of those BVs who used rabbit in Deu.14:7 made a booboo.There are, however, at least two species of hare.

    The Hebrew rendered "chew the cud" is "alah"(bring up, draw up, ascend)"gerah"(cud). This is quite specific. A modern Hebrew speaker would say exactly the same thing if he meant 'chew the cud'.The fact is quite plain that hares do not chew the cud, nor do they have hooves. And the fact is that some modern people have twisted the meaning of 'arnebeth' to fit someone's English definition instead of the PROPER method of the English fitting the Hebrew meaning.

    It's well-known that in the time of ancient Israel, there were many more species of animals living in the Palestine area, including lions, bears, and various species of deer, gazelles, & antelopes than there are now. Seems as if the arnebeth was some animal no longer found there.

    Here's what Strong's says about 'arnebeth':probably an extinct animal because no known hare chews its cud, exact meaning is unknown, and best left untranslated as "arnebeth"

    There are several points to be made here...that the arnebeth was not kosher, it was neither a hare nor a rabbit, and translators, old or modern, are humans who make mistakes same as anyone else.
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    Psalm 145:3: Just believe what the KJV says and you'll not be ashamed.

    Can you look someone straight in the eye & tell him/her, "Jesus was slain and hanged"?

    Do you believe you know the Jewish dietary laws better than someone who's been taught those laws from childhood as part of his heritage, and who's studied those laws forward and backward in the Hebrew language most of his life, along with the Hebrew language itself? Yeah, right...

    That rabbi was not trying to prove nor disprove a writing in any Bible version. He was explaining a particular Hebrew word, and a little about the law of kosher and non-kosher. He said that since the hare doesn't have hooves anyway, God would not have to had made any special statement declaring it nonkosher. For mammals, the requirements for kosher are split hooves and cud-chewing, which automatically eliminates all non-hooved land mammals.

    He insists the arnebeth is neither hare nor rabbit.
     
  12. Orvie

    Orvie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hare today, gone tomorrow? :rolleyes:
     
  13. Psalm145 3

    Psalm145 3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2001
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
    The apostle Peter told the high priest, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree."

    Peter also told a group of Gentiles, "And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree."

    That's what the Bible says. What does that have to do with the word hare in Deuteronomy 14:7?

    Do you really have a question about the word hare, or is that just a starting point to show your contempt for the KJV?

    Is your rabbi friend born again by the Spirit of God through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ? If not, then why would you be persuaded by the darkened counsel of a rabbi who has practiced false religion most of his life and does not know the God of the Bible?

    The Lord Jesus Christ said, "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

    Instead of playing textual critic games with your rabbi friend, encourage him to believe the Scriptures and come to the only Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, whom the Jews slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
     
  14. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    Psalm 145 3:The apostle Peter told the high priest, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree."

    No, he didn't. First, Peter didn't use English, second, he knew Jesus was NOT slain and hanged, but he supposed that He was slain BY being hanged.

    Peter also told a group of Gentiles, "And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree."

    Once again, Peter told them, in his & their language, that Jesus was slain BY hanging. He was present at Jesus' crucifixion, and so knew He was hanged while ALIVE.

    That's what the Bible says.

    That's what one version of the Bible incorrectly says.


    What does that have to do with the word hare in Deuteronomy 14:7?

    Both are examoles of booboos in the KJV, same as is Easter in Acts 12:4.

    Do you really have a question about the word hare, or is that just a starting point to show your contempt for the KJV?

    It's a real question. Are you admitting you have no answer?

    Is your rabbi friend born again by the Spirit of God through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ? If not, then why would you be persuaded by the darkened counsel of a rabbi who has practiced false religion most of his life and does not know the God of the Bible?

    He is a man who knows the Hebrew language far better than all but maybe a few other USA citizens. He is a member of the people whom God placed in charge of His oracles. He is a member of the people who kept the Masoretic Text, from which most of the KJV's OT is translated. His failure to recognize the Messiah has nothing to do with his interpretation of Old Testament text.

    The Lord Jesus Christ said, "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

    Moses was a Levite; most of the Levites moved to Judah after Jeroboam set up the golden calves and were soon numbered with the Jews. Virtually every modern Jew named Cohen is a Levite; "cohen" is Hebrew for "priest".

    Jesus' human heritage is Jewish.

    Are you anti-Semitic?

    Instead of playing textual critic games with your rabbi friend, encourage him to believe the Scriptures and come to the only Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ,

    This rabbi is well-acquainted with my views. But it will take the HOLY SPIRIT to cause him to come to Jesus. He looks upon Jews who are Christians as heretics. But that has nothing to do with this discussion. God has often used outright pagans such as the Assyrians, Egyptians, and Babylonians to perform His will.


    whom the Jews slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

    He was NOT slain and hanged on a tree. He was slain (as was supposed) by being hanged on a tree. Actually, He wasn't slain by anyone; He yielded up His spirit when all prophecy about His first coming, and all aspects of His mission had been fulfilled, except for His death and resurrection. This was after taking enough physical abuse to have killed three ordinary men.
     
  15. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,246
    Likes Received:
    1,324
    So, are you claiming that Christ was not beaten prior to being crucified?
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    Please read the last sentence of my last post from which you quoted: "This was after taking enough physical abuse to have killed three ordinary men."

    I believe He wasn't simply beaten; His beard was yanked out as was revealed to Isaiah by God, His face was beaten beyond recognition,& so was his body.

    Isaiah 52:14, NKJV-Just as many were astonished at you,
    So His visage was marred more than any man,
    And His form more than the sons of men;


    He DEFINITELY was not slain & then hanged. Despite all the abuse, He was alive when crucified. "Slain & hanged" is in contrast to every "play-by-play" account of His crucifixion and death.

    And I said "supposed" because many thought that the crucifixion had killed Him, when actually He yielded up His spirit when His time had come.
     
  17. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,246
    Likes Received:
    1,324
    You are going to have to make up your mind. Either they "slew" Him then hanged Him on the tree, or they didn't.

    I am certain any man who would charge the bible with being wrong would know the etymology of the English word "slew" but just in case you didn't do your homework, the word "slew" is past-tense for "slay" which comes from the Old English slean which in turn comes from the Old High German "slahan" meaning "to strike" or "beat."

    In fact, the noun "slay" still refers to the instrument used to "beat" the fabric on a loom when weaving.

    The problem is not with the grammar of the KJV, the problem is that you don't know the meaning of "slew" as it was used in the early 17th century.
     
  18. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wouldn't the 22nd Psalm testify to that?
     
  19. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,246
    Likes Received:
    1,324
    I am not sure what you mean. The Greek word translated "slew" in the KJV means to "take up" or "take away" with violence implying a beating that takes away the senses. Just as the English word "slew" meant in the early 17th century. [​IMG]
     
  20. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    From examining all instances of "slay" or "slew" in the KJV, the term *always* implies the death of the one slain. On the other hand, the distinct term "smite" or "smote" implies striking that may but not necessarily does result in death. Where these two terms appear together, the distinction is clear, leaving little room for etymological equivocation regarding "slay" or "slew" elsewhere within the KJV. The same should hold in Ac 5:30 (also Ac 10:39).

    E.g,

    Jos 10:26 Joshua smote them, and slew them, and hanged them on five trees

    Jos 11:17 All their kings he took, and smote them, and slew them

    1Sa 17:50 So david ... smote the Philistine, and slew him.

    2Sam 4:7 They smote him, and slew him.

    2Sam 14:6 the one smote the other, and slew him

    In particular, cf. 1Sam 17:35 I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth: and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and smote him, and slew him.
     

Share This Page

Loading...