In Lev 11:5 rabbits are said to chew cud. Can anyone give an example of a rabbit that chews cud because I am told that there are not any?
2007-02-20 02:45:48 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I don't have an answer for you but Randys response makes no sense, If the asker is reading KJV and the footnote is in the NIV, how can they not be smart enough to read the footnote in another book which they aren't reading at the time? Hello???
2007-02-20 02:55:33 · answer #1 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That whole set of rodents have pouches on each side of their mouth. They carry meals with them and eat the meals at leisure without losing those meals when a predator comes around and they have to run and hide. Its part of survival evolution and something unscientific nomads wouldn't notice.
1. Rabbits in cages eat their own offal if not feed correctly, not wild rabbits.
2. The hyrex is also a rodent (coney) with cheek pouches.
3. The Oxford Study Bible's footnote states that the statements on "Rock Badgers and Hares" is an error by the writers of the Old Testament because they are cheek pouched rodents that "appear to chew cud."
4. Another version of LEV 11:5 from a digital Bible: 11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you.
11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you.
It's beginning to seem like someone was trying to square an obvious error by changing the names of creatures. Rock Badger and Hyrex leave quite a different perception to a reader then coney. Coney is and has been in common use in modern times. The Direct Hebrew translation is Coney.
2007-02-20 02:55:00 · answer #2 · answered by Terry 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It was thought at the time and for centuries afterward that rabbits did chew their cud. Ever just sit and watch a rabbit? It kinda looks like they are almost always chewing instead of sniffing/breathing.
2007-02-20 02:50:05 · answer #3 · answered by macruadhi 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is known that rabbits practice what is called "refection," in which indigestible vegetable matter is mixed with bacteria and is passed as droppings and then eaten again. This process enables the rabbit to better digest their food. This process is very similar to rumination, and it gives the impression of chewing the cud. So, the Hebrew phrase "chewing the cud" should not be taken in the modern technical sense, but in the ancient sense of a chewing motion that includes both rumination and refection in the modern sense.
2007-02-20 02:49:26 · answer #4 · answered by Suzanne: YPA 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Rabbits, just like wine, were different in the Old Testament.
Isn't it clear that the Bible is trying to tell us that animal have changed over the years......They aren't big changes but little mutations that happen over quite some time. 4000 years ago, rabbits looked like little cows and chewed on cuds. But over time they evolved into.........
Wait no they didn't evolution is wrong, and just a bunch of scientists trying to fabricate data so that they won't feel guilty when they smoke marijuana.
Rabbits do have cuds, don't give me your scientific trickery, the bible says they have cuds so they must, I reject your reality.
2007-02-20 02:52:14 · answer #5 · answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Rabbits pretend to chew their cud, and that has fooled a lot of people down through the ages.
My understanding is that they got the idea from badgers.
.
2007-02-20 02:52:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Maybe the King James Version was misinterpreted ooh wouldn't that open up a can of worms! After all, this is the sacred word of god....and if people were reading it wrong for hundreds of years wouldn't that raise some questions about infallibility? If people were getting it wrong for centuries, shouldn't god have stepped in and done something to give people a fair chance?
BTW, many people, including pastors, use the KJV exclusively. Not using a more modern translation is certainly not grounds for contempt.
2007-02-20 02:57:12 · answer #7 · answered by Jensenfan 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You are reading the King James, I see. According to the footnote in the NIV, the Hebrew word probably refers to the Rock Badger (hyrax).
You are not the first troll who doesn't know how to read a footnote who noticed this. try using the yahoo search function next time.
-------------------edit-------------
In other words, "christy8075", don't read the KJV, or else use a commentary like Strongs.
2007-02-20 02:51:34 · answer #8 · answered by Randy G 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Suzanne is right, I have a pet rabbit, and she does exactly that.
2007-02-20 02:50:52 · answer #9 · answered by daisyk 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋