Does that mean that they had them but didn't care enough about cats to mention them, or does it mean that there were no cats back then?
2007-08-13 11:55:52 · 15 answers · asked by clever nickname 6 in Pets ➔ Cats
Cats were one of the last animals domesticated by humans and it was allegedly done by the Egyptians. It is likely that other cultures did not adopt them until much later when their vermin control properties became valued, most likely by sailors protecting their cargo on ships. This might explain the omission.
2007-08-13 12:02:56 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Really? The bible doesn't mention alpacas, llamas, ferrets or chickens either.
Actually it mostly mentions riding and herding animals found in the Middle East since that's the area the bible takes place in. Dogs were owned by people there for herding so they'd be mentioned too, but cats were used for rat control and were too minor to mention most likely.
2007-08-13 17:46:23 · answer #2 · answered by Elaine M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the main concentration of rules which point out animals is the guidelines of eating. in straight forward terms 4 particular land animals are concentrated because of the fact their characteristics might reason confusion. The cat is an fairly standardly non-kosher animal and subsequently does not might desire to be concentrated. different places that animals are stated are poetry referencing risky animals. in this context, the Lion comes up besides as in metaphors of splendor and kingship. The canine comes up because of the fact the neighboring "idolatrous" faith had "canine clergymen" -- which grew to become right into a sort of gay temple prostitute. The Jewish faith does not choose human beings to pass jointly with those fellows. i assume that that's good that cats are actually not stated in this context -- possibly the Jewish faith had not something undesirable to assert on the subject of the worshipers of Bast. Realy -- I even have owned cats for 14 years now and earlier that my grandparents had cats. I do exactly not see them as being particularly metaphorable (as damaging to assert Lion=majesty or canine=loyalty Donkey=tireless labour)...
2016-10-15 05:43:42 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cats weren't domesticated until 1,500 years ago, when Scandanavians first started the practice. That's probably why nothing is said about them in the Bible, which takes place in the Middle East.
2007-08-13 12:03:05 · answer #4 · answered by Lisa 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I don't know, but did they mention hamsters? Or rabbits? Or even dogs? I didn't see them in the bible. Maybe they are, I just missed them. But I love Cats!!!
2007-08-13 12:01:09 · answer #5 · answered by Hollyberry♥ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they may not be mentioned in the bible, but the egyptians had cats at the same time they had the children of israel captiv and before, even...there is alot that is not mentioned in the bible...doesn't mean it isn't so...
unicorns are mentioned in the bible...does that mean they are not a mythical creature...
2007-08-13 13:07:44 · answer #6 · answered by captsnuf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There had to be cats then, there were cats in Ancient Egypt, look at Bast, she's a cat goddess. Perhaps it was something that the people who wrote the bible overlooked.
2007-08-13 12:02:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
It's because cats are the spawn of Satan.
And, yes, there were cats back then. The Egyptians had domesticated them long before the Bible.
2007-08-13 12:04:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
of course there were cats back then! dont you remember how the egyptians worshipped cats? and they were around for a long time before christ showed up
2007-08-13 12:03:12 · answer #9 · answered by electragirl 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is drawings of cats in caves thousands of years old, even before Christ. I don't know why they don't talk about it....they don't talk about moose either, doesn't mean they didn't exist.
2007-08-13 12:03:09 · answer #10 · answered by Jane Marple 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋