Science and the Bible: Rabbit Cud

The Hebrew word translated as 'hare' is arneveth. It is a gnawing animal of the Leporidae family, closely related to but larger than the rabbit. Unlike rabbits, hare young are usually not born in underground burrows; they are fully furred, active, and have open eyes at birth. The average length of a hare is about 2 ft (0.6 m), and it has a grayish or brownish color. It features a divided lip, a cocked tail, long ears, and elongated hind limbs and feet. Hares can reach speeds of up to 43 mph (70 km/h).

The Law of Moses prohibited hares as food, referring to them as chewers of the cud (Leviticus 11:4, 6; Deuteronomy 14:7). Although hares and rabbits lack a multichambered stomach and do not regurgitate food for rechewing—characteristics associated with ruminants—the Hebrew term for 'chewing' literally means 'bringing up.'

The modern scientific classification was not the basis for what the Israelites in Moses' day understood as 'cud chewing'. According to The Imperial Bible-Dictionary: "It is obvious that the hare does in repose chew over and over the food which it has taken at some time; and this action has always been popularly considered a chewing of the cud. Even our poet Cowper, a careful observer of natural phenomena, who has recorded his observations on the three hares which he domesticated, affirms that they 'chewed the cud all day till evening.'" - Edited by P. Fairbairn, London, 1874, Vol. I, p. 700.

Francois Bourliere (The Natural History of Mammals, 1964, p.41) notes, "The habit of 'refection,' or passing the food twice through the intestine instead of only once, seems to be a common phenomenon in rabbits and hares. Domestic rabbits usually eat and swallow their night droppings without chewing, which in the morning can form up to half the total contents of the stomach. In wild rabbits, refection occurs twice daily, and the same habit is reported for the European hare... It is believed that this habit provides the animals with large amounts of B vitamins produced by bacteria in the food within the large intestine." - Mammals of the World by E.P. Walker (1964, Vol. II, p. 647) suggests, "This may be similar to 'chewing the cud' in ruminant mammals."​

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Michael

I am not interested in any private discussions. Especially with a circumspect snoot.

Those on the forum who do not say what they believe and argue on the religion forum are typically closet theists or possessing odd mixes of beliefs.

I am dismissive of someone who argues on religious topics without revealing personal beiefs.

While he attacks atheists it took a while to coax out what DLH believes.

As to your posts they are more like a sophomore philosophy paper out to impress the teacher. You made a lot of academic hay over hares.

If you can not articulate what you believe and why you are in no position to be critical on religious debates.

To cast, or not to cast, that is the question.

 

[NoHolyCows]

It's a rumination; a deep or considered thought about something.

Then let’s treat it like one.

If your “no” is meant as a considered response, then where’s the reasoning behind it? Where’s the demonstration that anything I said was false or misrepresented? You can call it rumination—but if there’s no content, no counterargument, and no correction, then it’s just a dressed-up dismissal.

A real rebuttal engages with the claim. I said that defending a text as infallible while reinterpreting its errors into oblivion is inconsistent. You replied with one word: “No.” Now you call that a deep thought. But unless you unpack it, challenge it, or disprove it, it’s not rumination—it’s evasion.

So if you’ve thought deeply, then speak clearly. Otherwise, the silence between your “no” and your argument says more than you think.

Sigh] Yes I did. Respond. Stop wasting time.

If you did, then point to it directly. Quote the specific sentence I misrepresented and explain how it’s false. That’s how a real correction works.

You keep insisting that I misrepresented your position, but when pressed, you don’t identify what was misrepresented or how. Vague frustration isn’t an argument. If you want your objection to carry weight, it has to do the work: show the claim, show the distortion, show the correction.

Until then, sighing isn’t a response. It’s a placeholder for one.

Show me where I defend the Bible as infallible.

It's possible that somewhere I wrote infallible where I meant fallible. I used to do that for some reason. And I used to always call Jonah Noah. And I used to write was when I meant wasn't. Is when I meant isn't. That's because I'm infallible.

Fair enough—if you’re saying you don’t believe the Bible is infallible, then that’s a meaningful clarification. But it raises a new question: if you’ve always accepted the Bible contains errors, why did you spend so much time trying to reinterpret or defend one of them?

You opened this discussion by quoting Hebrew, invoking digestive processes like refection, citing Cowper, and linking to apologetics sites—all in an effort to show that the Bible might not be wrong when it says hares chew cud. That’s not the behavior of someone who casually accepts the Bible contains mistakes. That’s the behavior of someone trying to defend a specific statement as accurate.

So which is it?

If you believe the Bible can be wrong, then the verse in Leviticus is just one of those cases—no need for reinterpretation, circumstantial framing, or linguistic gymnastics. But if you don’t believe it can be wrong, then your entire defense was a way to preserve that belief.

You can’t spend 20 posts trying to protect a claim and then say, “Oh, I never believed it had to be right.” That’s not just shifting the goalposts—that’s pretending they were never on the field.

Laughs]

A laugh isn’t an argument either.

You can laugh to deflect, to stall, or to avoid, but it doesn’t change the fact that you’ve offered no counterpoint, no correction, and no defense—just noise.

You’re laughing because the argument backed you into a corner. And instead of addressing it, you’re performing detachment.

But underneath the laugh, the question still stands:

If the Bible makes a factual error, what does that mean for its authority?

You haven’t answered that. You’ve avoided it. And now, you’re trying to laugh your way past it.

That’s not a rebuttal. That’s an exit strategy.

You're so funny sometimes. Everything is a silly argument to you isn't it? You have that silly "us vs them" mentality that blinds you to even the obvious.

Not everything is a “silly argument.” Just the ones where someone dances around a clear contradiction and calls it nuance.

You spent days defending the biblical claim about hares. You brought up language, digestion, historical context, and interpretation—all to cast doubt on a simple biological fact. That’s not neutral observation. That’s defense.

And now, when called on it, you switch to calling the whole conversation silly or tribal. That’s not a correction—it’s a retreat behind tone and attitude to avoid the content.

So no—it’s not “us vs. them.” It’s claim vs. evidence.

You made a claim. The evidence refuted it.

What you call “us vs. them” is just accountability, and that’s not silly at all.

Just make your case. The jury will decide. You don't tell a judge and jury what your opposition meant in what they did. At least not to the extent you do. You never produce an original thought, just reams of anal - analytical speculation. Bullshit. Spin. I told you some time ago that your argument would be greatly improved by not doing that. Is that all you got? Reems of bullshit? C'mon. You're not stupid, you just have stupid arguments because you're an ideologue.

Do some work. Put the argument and ideology (the dumb fake atheism) behind you, satan. You would be a much more interesting challenge if you used your head for a real argument and debate.

Let’s be clear: I have made the case—repeatedly, and with clarity. Here it is again, in plain, original language:

Leviticus 11:6 says the hare chews the cud. That statement is biologically false.

It isn’t nuanced. It isn’t interpretive. It’s a straightforward claim about animal behavior that doesn’t match reality. Full stop.

What followed was your effort to reinterpret, reframe, or blur the issue—suggesting ancient people understood it differently, or that “bringing up” food could mean anything from cecotrophy to poetic chewing. That’s not correction. That’s backpedaling dressed up as philosophy.

Calling that observation “spin” doesn’t rescue your position—it just proves you don’t want to engage with it directly. You’re asking for a “real argument,” but the real argument already happened—you just didn’t like the result.

Now you’re calling names and invoking Satan because the facts aren’t going your way. That’s not debate. That’s deflection in desperation.

So here’s the “work” you say I’m not doing:

The Bible made a testable claim. That claim was false. And every word you’ve typed since has been to distract from that one, immovable fact.

Sighs]

And like a laugh a sigh isn’t an argument—it’s a placeholder for one.

You can sigh all you want, but it won’t change what’s already been established: The Bible made a specific claim about animal behavior. That claim is false. You tried to defend it. That defense collapsed. Now you’re reacting, not reasoning.

If your only reply to a direct point is an exhale of frustration, that’s not a sign of superiority—it’s a sign you’ve run out of answers.

So let’s be honest: either you defended [snip]

If you believe something I said was misrepresented, quote it and explain. “Snip” isn’t an argument. It’s a cutaway from accountability.

You say “make your case.” I did. I’ve stated the claim. I’ve provided the evidence. And I’ve responded to every evasion, deflection, and retreat you’ve offered. What you haven’t done is address the core issue head-on:

Leviticus 11:6 makes a factual statement. That statement is false. You tried to defend it. Now that the defense has failed, you want to mock the process, ignore the content, or reduce everything to sighs and dismissals.

If you want to be taken seriously in this debate, stop snipping and start answering. Otherwise, you’re not debating—you’re dodging.

Maybe I overestimated your intelligence. All one has to do to establish that is read the text. Guess what? No one needs you to tell them what anything says. Me or the Bible. You don't win a prize for that. Sorry.

And yet—despite admitting the verse says it, despite admitting it’s wrong, and despite admitting it doesn’t matter to you—you still spent days trying to reinterpret, reframe, and redirect.

You say no one needs me to tell them what the Bible says. Fine. But apparently you did—because your entire opening post was built around trying to justify that very verse.

So no, I don’t get a prize for pointing it out. But you don’t get to pretend you never cared after the fact exposed the flaw. That’s not insight. That’s retreat.

The problem isn’t that the verse is wrong. The problem is what you do once it’s proven to be. And so far, all you’ve done is flinch, pivot, and pretend you weren’t standing there defending it in the first place.

You asked for clarity. Now you’ve got it.

Buddha.

Looks like The Mad Cow Argument is going to have a sequel.

Then let the sequel begin—with the same question you still haven’t answered directly:

If hares don’t chew the cud, and Leviticus 11:6 says they do, then why are you still dodging the fact that it’s a mistake?

You can invoke Buddha, toss out jokes, or mock the discussion—but none of that erases the error. The claim was biological. The claim was wrong. And you’ve spent all this time trying to change the subject instead of owning the result.

You can name it whatever you want—“Mad Cow Argument,” “Sequel,” “SighFest Part III”—but it always comes back to this:

You defended a falsehood. You lost the argument. And the record shows it.

How does it matter?

If the book is fictional it matters how and why? If divinely inspired how and why?

Keep it simple, keep it short. Just the facts.

It matters because a false claim disqualifies divine authority.

If the book is fictional, then its biological errors prove it’s just that—fiction.

If it claims divine inspiration, then even one factual error proves it isn’t infallible.

And Leviticus 11:6 contains a factual error. That’s the fact. That’s why it matters.

Times up.

When someone declares “Time’s up,” it’s not because they’ve won—it’s because they’ve run out of ways to avoid losing.

You were asked a direct question. You couldn’t answer it. So now you’re calling time on the clock, not because the argument is over, but because you have no move left that doesn’t concede the point.

The Bible said the hare chews the cud. That is biologically false. You know it.

You tried to defend it. That failed. You tried to dismiss it. That didn’t hold.

Now you’re walking off the field, not because you won, but because you were outplayed—and everyone saw it.

NHC

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Gladly.

Leviticus 11:6 states: “The hare, because it chews the cud but does not have a divided hoof, is unclean for you.”

Last chance. I usually don't do this for anyone. I didn't do it with you in the pi thread. I won't do it again. If you really want to have a discussion/debate respond to the following.

How does it matter?

If the book is fictional it matters how and why? If divinely inspired how and why?

Keep it simple, keep it short. Just the facts.

Were you looking for something along these lines?

1) It is possible that Lev 11:6 is an error of biological fact. In that case:

1a) If the entire Bible is divinely inspired, then the inspired person got a biological fact wrong. If a divinely inspired expression is erroneous, then how do we know which if any other divinely inspired expressions are correct? Reckon that at the end of the day we have to figure things out for ourselves. How such figuring is to be conducted is a separate issue.

1b) If the entire Bible is a collection of stories, then there is a Biblical story which got a biological fact wrong. If some such story is erroneous, then how do we know which if any other stories in the Bible are correct? Reckon that at the end of the day we have to figure things out for ourselves. How such figuring is to be conducted is a separate issue.

2) It is possible that Lev 11:6 is not an error of biological fact. Rather, it could just be an instance of a correct fact expressed differently than how we express the fact. In that case:

2a) We can consider the story/expression in terms of possibilities for what was the perspective and the understanding of the writer along with the same for the audience being addressed. We can also consider the story/expression in terms of what was the point that the expressing person (whether divinely inspired or not) was trying to impart of emphasize.

2b) Reckon that at the end of the day we have to figure things out for ourselves. How such figuring is to be conducted is a separate issue.

Simple enough? Short enough? Close to what you had in mind?

 

[NoHolyCows]

Gladly.

Leviticus 11:6 states: “The hare, because it chews the cud but does not have a divided hoof, is unclean for you.”

Last chance. I usually don't do this for anyone. I didn't do it with you in the pi thread. I won't do it again. If you really want to have a discussion/debate respond to the following.

How does it matter?

If the book is fictional it matters how and why? If divinely inspired how and why?

Keep it simple, keep it short. Just the facts.

Were you looking for something along these lines?

1) It is possible that Lev 11:6 is an error of biological fact. In that case:

1a) If the entire Bible is divinely inspired, then the inspired person got a biological fact wrong. If a divinely inspired expression is erroneous, then how do we know which if any other divinely inspired expressions are correct? Reckon that at the end of the day we have to figure things out for ourselves. How such figuring is to be conducted is a separate issue.

1b) If the entire Bible is a collection of stories, then there is a Biblical story which got a biological fact wrong. If some such story is erroneous, then how do we know which if any other stories in the Bible are correct? Reckon that at the end of the day we have to figure things out for ourselves. How such figuring is to be conducted is a separate issue.

2) It is possible that Lev 11:6 is not an error of biological fact. Rather, it could just be an instance of a correct fact expressed differently than how we express the fact. In that case:

2a) We can consider the story/expression in terms of possibilities for what was the perspective and the understanding of the writer along with the same for the audience being addressed. We can also consider the story/expression in terms of what was the point that the expressing person (whether divinely inspired or not) was trying to impart of emphasize.

2b) Reckon that at the end of the day we have to figure things out for ourselves. How such figuring is to be conducted is a separate issue.

Simple enough? Short enough? Close to what you had in mind?

Yes—it’s simple, but it ultimately circles back to the same truth you’re still avoiding.

1a and 1b both rightly admit that a biological error undercuts trust in divine inspiration or factual reliability. But instead of following that through, you soften the blow by saying “we just have to figure things out for ourselves.” That’s not an answer to the error. That’s a retreat into relativism.

2a tries to reframe the error as just a difference in expression, but that doesn’t hold. “Chewing the cud” is not a subjective cultural metaphor—it’s a biological process. The verse uses it as a factual justification for a dietary law. That makes it a truth claim, not just a linguistic flourish.

2b again punts to “we’ll figure it out,” which isn’t resolution—it’s evasion. And that’s the pattern: admit the implications but never fully confront them.

So yes, it’s simple. But until someone says clearly that a divine claim proven false matters, and that it calls the source into question, it’s not honest.

NHC

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

“Chewing the cud” is not a subjective cultural metaphor—it’s a ... truth claim

A truth claim about what? And what are the operative conditions for truth that are being employed in the above statement?

a divine claim proven false

Establish that a divinely inspired statement is necessarily identical to a divine claim.

 

[steve_bank]

Michael

I am not interested in any private discussions. Especially with a circumspect snoot.

Those on the forum who do not say what they believe and argue on the religion forum are typically closet theists or possessing odd mixes of beliefs.

I am dismissive of someone who argues on religious topics without revealing personal beiefs.

While he attacks atheists it took a while to coax out what DLH believes.

As to your posts they are more like a sophomore philosophy paper out to impress the teacher. You made a lot of academic hay over hares.

If you can not articulate what you believe and why you are in no position to be critical on religious debates.

To cast, or not to cast, that is the question.

Oh, we are talking fishing? I din some fly fishing when I was living in New Hampshire in the 80s.

It was a small town, Keene NH. A friend kept a canoe on the top of his truck he drove in case he got the urge to go fishing.

Got my flies at LL Bean.

I checked, too bad LL Bean stopped its lifetime return policy. Used to be when you bought a pair of rubber duck boots they were good for life.

The only thing about being outdoors in NH was those monster mosquitos. They could drive a moose crazy.

God in his, hers, or its infinite wisdom saw fit to create mosquitos. Go figure.

 

[NoHolyCows]

A truth claim about what? And what are the operative conditions for truth that are being employed in the above statement?

A truth claim about the biological behavior of an animal—specifically, that a hare “chews the cud.”

The operative condition for truth here is correspondence to observable reality.

If the claim describes an observable biological behavior, it can be tested against reality.

• If hares actually regurgitated and re-chewed partially digested food like ruminants do, the claim would be true.

• Since hares do not do that, the claim is false by the standard definition of truth: a statement corresponds to reality if, and only if, what it asserts matches what actually happens.

That’s the standard for all factual claims, biblical or otherwise.

Establish that a divinely inspired statement is necessarily identical to a divine claim.

You asked me to establish whether a divinely inspired statement must be identical to a divine claim. Here’s the answer: when a text is presented as inspired by God, the meaning conveyed by the inspired human author is understood as carrying divine authority. That’s what inspiration means. If the words are not conveying divine truth, then inspiration becomes meaningless. It would be irrational to call something divinely inspired while simultaneously claiming it doesn’t reliably communicate the divine will or divine facts. Inspiration is not simply an aesthetic feeling or a vague impulse; it is the transmission of truth under divine guidance.

Therefore, when the Bible claims that the hare “chews the cud” as a justification for a divine dietary law, that is not just the private error of a scribe or the subjective cultural perception of ancient Israelites. It is presented as the basis for divine instruction — not myth, not metaphor, but command. And because the fact stated is verifiably false, the problem is not merely one of human misinterpretation. The factual mistake is embedded in the text itself. If that is the product of inspiration, then inspiration — by definition — has failed to preserve truth.

You can try to stretch the idea of inspiration until it means nothing. You can claim it allows errors, cultural misunderstandings, biological mistakes, and failed observations. But the moment you say inspiration permits factual falsehood, you destroy any coherent claim that the text is uniquely trustworthy or divinely authoritative. You concede that the Bible can assert falsehoods while still expecting belief in its divine origin — a standard you would never accept from any other source claiming absolute truth.

So here is the reality: if a text that claims divine backing asserts an error about the natural world, it proves that either the divine source was wrong — which is impossible if God is perfect — or that the text is human, fallible, and historically conditioned, like every other religious or mythological work. Either way, it shatters the special pleading that tries to shield the Bible from ordinary standards of truth.

False in fact means flawed in source. No amount of word games, historical rationalizations, or philosophical hand-waving changes that basic reality. If the Bible claims hares chew cud and hares don’t chew cud, then the Bible made a factual mistake. If you claim divine inspiration despite factual mistakes, you are not defending divine truth — you are defending an institution, a tradition, or a feeling. But not truth. Not anymore.

NHC

 

[pood]

Correspondence theory of truth. That truth inheres in propositions that describe the world. All such propositions have truth values — true or false. If a proposition in the bible returns a truth value of false, then the text cannot be divinely inspired, if the claim is that God is infallible and cannot err. If one takes the fallback position, as DLH has, that God is infallible but humans are not, and that they have mistranslated something God said, then the entire veracity of the bible is thrown into question anyway, since there is no way to determine which parts of it were God’s word or human error.

 

[pood]

Funnily, DLH claims that the bible contains errors, but the claim that God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman is absolutely true. How does he know? How does he know that’s not another error? (Hint — it is. We now know there was. never a first man and woman.)

 

[DLH]

Were you looking for something along these lines?

I would like to have a real discussion of a thoughtful, rational nature rather than a tit for tat smart ass "debate" among religious or irreligious ideologues. Not a dog and pony show.

1) It is possible that Lev 11:6 is an error of biological fact. In that case:

1a) If the entire Bible is divinely inspired, then the inspired person got a biological fact wrong. If a divinely inspired expression is erroneous, then how do we know which if any other divinely inspired expressions are correct? Reckon that at the end of the day we have to figure things out for ourselves. How such figuring is to be conducted is a separate issue.

Ahem. Yes. This will do.

Okay, lets say the inspired person got a biological fact wrong. That would be the same as getting any other sort of fact wrong, correct? Consider this.

2 Thessalonians 2:11 refers to what is called an operation of error. That is where God allows the person, so to speak, to believe the lie they want to believe even though the truth is made available to them. The most notable case of this in the Bible that I can think of is the case of 1 Kings 22:20-23, listed as a cross reference in the link:

And the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab to march up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ So one was saying this and another was saying that.

“Then a spirit came forward, stood in the Lord’s presence, and said, ‘I will entice him.’

“The Lord asked him, ‘How?’

“He said, ‘I will go and become a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’

“Then he said, ‘You will certainly entice him and prevail. Go and do that.’

“You see, the Lord has put a lying spirit into the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has pronounced disaster against you.”

I think I've mentioned in this thread, if not one of the other "Science and the Bible" threads, that the Bible also says things that aren't true because it gives the perspective of someone, like Eve, Saul, Balaam, the scouts sent out to scout the land. This isn't often readily apparent. Eve thought the serpent spoke to her, Balaam thought the donkey spoke to him, Saul thought the "spirit" of Samuel was speaking to him, and the scouts lied and said the Nephilim were there because they were afraid.

Then there are - sort of - innocent untruths. Like the angels guarding Eden with swords. No such thing existed. Metal hadn't been invented. They had something that appeared to us later as swords. Or the mention of a River near Syria that didn't exist at the time but was known to the later reader. You can say those aren't correct. They weren't meant to be, they couldn't be for the reader to understand. I mentioned Jesus tricking doubting Thomas. The miracles Jesus performed didn't have some great immediate purpose. It was tricks to get the attention of those he was sent to address. Not the unbeliever, the lost believing Jews.

A lot of writers have been quoted saying all art is propaganda. People think of propaganda as lies of the government, but it's more than that, it's a point of view. Whether Marilyn Manson, Norman Rockwell or Andy Warhol. Picaso said art is the lie to show us the truth.

Then there is the fact that the Bible says to test even the inspired expression (literally God breathed) because many false prophets have gone forth. (1 John 4:1) John was warning the Christian congregation not to blindly believe even them because there were imposters. There are imposters, either intentionally translating with apostate deviations or unintentionally. (1 John 5:7) Other spurious verses I have referred to, like he who is without sin cast the first stone. Never happened. Suddenly appears in later manuscripts.

The idea that the Bible, the uninspired fallible translation of the divinely inspired infallible text is hardly anything new. I think it might be a sort of lazy excuse for uninformed critics to cause doubt in uninformed believers, or to justify their own infidelity.

Just because the Bible says something doesn't mean it comports with truth or God.

1b) If the entire Bible is a collection of stories, then there is a Biblical story which got a biological fact wrong. If some such story is erroneous, then how do we know which if any other stories in the Bible are correct? Reckon that at the end of the day we have to figure things out for ourselves. How such figuring is to be conducted is a separate issue.

Excellent! We have to figure things out for ourselves. With help. Figuring out things for ourselves can go in the wrong direction as well. I've heard the most absurd stuff about some vague insubstantial "God" figure or concept. God is love is used to that end. Reading it in the Bible and then superimposing your own idea of what that means, or the omni's are a good example. Not supported by the Bible, not the exaggerated religious nonsense. God is everywhere. God is in your heart. Things that may or may not be in the Bible turned into a bumper sticker slogan for some idiot who either wants attention, is just quixotic or wants to pony up some cash by selling it to the masses.

2) It is possible that Lev 11:6 is not an error of biological fact. Rather, it could just be an instance of a correct fact expressed differently than how we express the fact. In that case:

Bingo!

2a) We can consider the story/expression in terms of possibilities for what was the perspective and the understanding of the writer along with the same for the audience being addressed. We can also consider the story/expression in terms of what was the point that the expressing person (whether divinely inspired or not) was trying to impart of emphasize.

Exactly. People think of the Bible in a nonsensical religious sense. Even the atheists. Like it's carved in stone. Don't eat shellfish. It's much more like an old newspaper. Not to be disrespectful. It just isn't directed for us. It doesn't address us. As Jude say, it was to be used as an example. History, in effect. The circumstances aren't the same for angels as us, for Adam as David, for David as Paul, for Paul as us.

2b) Reckon that at the end of the day we have to figure things out for ourselves. How such figuring is to be conducted is a separate issue.

Philip the Etheopian is a good example along with the noble minded Bereans (Acts 17:11) and the references mentioned or listed above. But if you don't care why bother. Faith separates those who would seek undeserved rewards and those who sincerely want to inherit a place in Jehovah God's kingdom.

Simple enough? Short enough? Close to what you had in mind?

Perfect! A good conversation. Thanks, I appreciate it. A breath of fresh air.

 

[DLH]

Gladly.

Leviticus 11:6 states: “The hare, because it chews the cud but does not have a divided hoof, is unclean for you.”

Last chance. I usually don't do this for anyone. I didn't do it with you in the pi thread. I won't do it again. If you really want to have a discussion/debate respond to the following.

How does it matter?

If the book is fictional it matters how and why? If divinely inspired how and why?

Keep it simple, keep it short. Just the facts.

Were you looking for something along these lines?

1) It is possible that Lev 11:6 is an error of biological fact. In that case:

1a) If the entire Bible is divinely inspired, then the inspired person got a biological fact wrong. If a divinely inspired expression is erroneous, then how do we know which if any other divinely inspired expressions are correct? Reckon that at the end of the day we have to figure things out for ourselves. How such figuring is to be conducted is a separate issue.

1b) If the entire Bible is a collection of stories, then there is a Biblical story which got a biological fact wrong. If some such story is erroneous, then how do we know which if any other stories in the Bible are correct? Reckon that at the end of the day we have to figure things out for ourselves. How such figuring is to be conducted is a separate issue.

2) It is possible that Lev 11:6 is not an error of biological fact. Rather, it could just be an instance of a correct fact expressed differently than how we express the fact. In that case:

2a) We can consider the story/expression in terms of possibilities for what was the perspective and the understanding of the writer along with the same for the audience being addressed. We can also consider the story/expression in terms of what was the point that the expressing person (whether divinely inspired or not) was trying to impart of emphasize.

2b) Reckon that at the end of the day we have to figure things out for ourselves. How such figuring is to be conducted is a separate issue.

Simple enough? Short enough? Close to what you had in mind?

Yes—it’s simple, but it ultimately circles back to the same truth you’re still avoiding.

1a and 1b both rightly admit that a biological error undercuts trust in divine inspiration or factual reliability. But instead of following that through, you soften the blow by saying “we just have to figure things out for ourselves.” That’s not an answer to the error. That’s a retreat into relativism.

2a tries to reframe the error as just a difference in expression, but that doesn’t hold. “Chewing the cud” is not a subjective cultural metaphor—it’s a biological process. The verse uses it as a factual justification for a dietary law. That makes it a truth claim, not just a linguistic flourish.

2b again punts to “we’ll figure it out,” which isn’t resolution—it’s evasion. And that’s the pattern: admit the implications but never fully confront them.

So yes, it’s simple. But until someone says clearly that a divine claim proven false matters, and that it calls the source into question, it’s not honest.

NHC

You've only made science your religion and yourself a guru. You just don't have enough sense to see that, or you don't want to. Probably both. My personal motto is never argue with a narcissistic ideologue. Sometimes I break that rule for various reasons. I think it's important for you to go on believing what you believe so you should do that.

 

[steve_bank]

Well DLH, your recurring theme that atheists and the religious are stupid ideologues, while your religiosity is not ideological is not exactly a basis for rational debate.

In your first threads you declared atheists and religious are both ideologues, and you are not.

Keep in mind your belief in a god creator is utterly meaningless to us atheists. To me your claims are about as valid as saying the Earth is flat and the Sun foes around the Earth.

There is a theological point and interpretation I am puzzled by. Jesus told his followers he would make them fishers of men. Was that metaphorical, or was he talking about cannibalism?

A simple question with what should be a simple answer. How do you know what is a correct interpretation of the bible?

I know my interpretation is correct because
1...
2...
3...

All your poss and words are hand waving and misdirection to avoid the question. The art of the pivot. Politicians use it all the time to avoid public questions they do not want to answer.

You are not clever, you are transparent. Ever hear the story of The Emperor's New Clothes?

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

The operative condition for truth here is correspondence to observable reality.

That might not be an adequate description for the purposes of this discussion. If it is not, then we can return to this point. We'll see.

If hares actually regurgitated

That might not be what was being claimed, because that might not be what they thought was the important observation. I do not think that you regard the ancients as being incapable of observation or reasoning. We know that they observed many matters that we tend to ignore. And, of course, they very much wanted to have explanations for what they observed. That being the case, it can be within their realm of observability and conceivability that they were aware that hares do not regurgitate, and that what they concluded as being noteworthy (biologically or nutritionally) was that hares were not suffering from what we now call pica. Whether or not dogs eating excrement is actually pica, it could have been readily apparent to ancients that such canine behavior was not related to nutrition (if only because of the relative infrequency). Would those ancients - could those ancients - have proven that what hares do is necessary for their well-being? It certainly was not necessary for their purposes to produce such proof. Even if they could have, for their purposes, observation was sufficient for them to make this distinction between hare diet and pica as well as to reason that nutritionally what hares do seems similarly purposed to what camels, oxen, sheep, and goats do.

The point is that there is ready reason for thinking that for them, from their perspective, the regurgitating was not the most note-worthy aspect of - or even a necessary condition for - what has been interpreted as "cud chewing". Today, the phrase "cud chewing" first brings to mind, the chewing pattern of ruminants and then the regurgitation (or maybe the other way around). The dietary benefit of re-eating hardly comes to mind for most people, but the benefit of re-eating can be surmised from observation and without knowing how it is of benefit. (And anyone familiar with rumen knows that it is one nasty smelling substance - different, but in its way, as nasty as feces.)

To put it another way, until you can establish that their observations were limited to the regurgitation, then - logically - you must take account of reasoning of which they could have been capable which would have placed focus elsewhere than on the regurgitation. And, as has already been mentioned, what they could have been most aware of and regarded as most significant was that re-eating was important to the well-being of hares as well as camels and the "clean" ruminants. This means that you are currently - logically - faced with two possibilities. Possibility #1: they were wrong about the cud designation. Possibility #2: they had observed the significance of re-eating. Well then, an objection might go, they should have described it better, or it should have been translated differently. Fine. But - logically - we have here two possibilities. Not one. To claim an error is itself an error if the second possibility is not taken into account or cannot be eliminated. This is a logic issue; it is not a Bible issue.

Here’s the answer: when a text is presented as inspired by God, the meaning conveyed by the inspired human author is understood as carrying divine authority.

Again. That is only one possibility, and I expect that you have observed that not all people who think of the text as divinely inspired think of it as having necessarily expressed scientific facts. And, at the same time, sure, they will accede to the notion of the Bible as having something to do with divine authority - but, whatever that authority is (in their minds), it is something apart from, independent of statement of scientific fact. The distinction between divinely inspired and divinely dictated is important for the reasons of logic already discussed.

All this put together means that - logically - your argument as expressed by you has an extremely narrow scope with a soundness far short of what you seem to have desired. To say it again: this is about logic. Well, that also ties in to characteristics of truth. But I do not think we have need to go further into that at present. Regardless, it is about logic - not the Bible.

 

[NoHolyCows]

You've only made science your religion and yourself a guru. You just don't have enough sense to see that, or you don't want to. Probably both. My personal motto is never argue with a narcissistic ideologue. Sometimes I break that rule for various reasons. I think it's important for you to go on believing what you believe so you should do that.

Your reply once again avoids the substance entirely. When confronted with a factual contradiction between a biblical claim and reality, you don’t rebut the evidence, you psychoanalyze the messenger. You call it “science as religion” because you cannot engage the argument without deflecting into ad hominem attacks. You call me a “narcissistic ideologue” because it’s easier than answering the point: that truth claims must match reality if they are to be taken seriously.

This isn’t about me. It isn’t about “science as a religion.” It isn’t about feelings. It’s about whether a claim made under the supposed guidance of divine authority — like saying hares chew cud — stands up when tested against observable fact. It doesn’t. And nothing you’ve written changes that.

If your defense against a clear factual error is to psychoanalyze the person who noticed it, you aren’t defending the Bible. You’re defending your own refusal to confront it. That’s the real “religion” on display here — loyalty to a belief even when it collides head-on with truth.

You can say you don’t want to argue with “narcissistic ideologues,” but the reality is simpler: you cannot refute the argument. So you attack the person instead.

And that says everything.

NHC

 

[steve_bank]

DLH is back to one of his fall back positions.

Science is a religion....

 

[bilby]

Soon God will destroy the world.

I am slightly more concerned about the no less plausible risk that Darth Vader will destroy the world.

I mean, that guy has some serious form, and has built not one, but two, fully operational Death Stars.

Of course, the skeptics will argue that he is in a galaxy far, far away. But that was a long time ago...

 

[bilby]

My personal motto is never argue with a narcissistic ideologue. Sometimes I break that rule for various reasons.

Talking to yourself is the first sign of madness...

 

[NoHolyCows]

That might not be an adequate description for the purposes of this discussion. If it is not, then we can return to this point. We'll see.

If correspondence to observable reality is not an adequate standard for evaluating a truth claim — especially one involving a concrete biological assertion like “the hare chews the cud” — then you need to explain what standard is.

You don’t get to leave that open-ended just to avoid the uncomfortable conclusion. If a statement about physical behavior is made, and observable reality contradicts it, that is a factual error. No amount of philosophical hedging changes that.

So if you think there’s some other “operative condition” that excuses the Bible’s factual inaccuracy here, then say it plainly. Otherwise, you’re just stalling because you know that under any honest standard of truth, the claim fails.

I’m not letting you hide behind “we’ll see.” Either you accept that observable reality matters when judging factual claims, or you admit you’re abandoning truth standards to protect a belief.

Which is it?

The point is that there is ready reason for thinking that for them, from their perspective, the regurgitating was not the most note-worthy aspect of - or even a necessary condition for - what has been interpreted as "cud chewing". Today, the phrase "cud chewing" first brings to mind, the chewing pattern of ruminants and then the regurgitation (or maybe the other way around). The dietary benefit of re-eating hardly comes to mind for most people, but the benefit of re-eating can be surmised from observation and without knowing how it is of benefit. (And anyone familiar with rumen knows that it is one nasty smelling substance - different, but in its way, as nasty as feces.)

To put it another way, until you can establish that their observations were limited to the regurgitation, then - logically - you must take account of reasoning of which they could have been capable which would have placed focus elsewhere than on the regurgitation. And, as has already been mentioned, what they could have been most aware of and regarded as most significant was that re-eating was important to the well-being of hares as well as camels and the "clean" ruminants. This means that you are currently - logically - faced with two possibilities. Possibility #1: they were wrong about the cud designation. Possibility #2: they had observed the significance of re-eating. Well then, an objection might go, they should have described it better, or it should have been translated differently. Fine. But - logically - we have here two possibilities. Not one. To claim an error is itself an error if the second possibility is not taken into account or cannot be eliminated. This is a logic issue; it is not a Bible issue.

You are once again trying to build a shelter out of speculation, not evidence.

You propose that maybe the ancient Israelites weren’t focusing on regurgitation at all, but rather on “nutritional reprocessing” — that maybe they observed hares re-eating something and inferred a similarity with ruminants based on the purpose, not the process. But this is pure invention. There is no textual support, historical evidence, or linguistic basis suggesting that ancient Israelites made a detailed nutritional distinction between fecal re-eating (coprophagy) and regurgitated cud chewing. You’re not offering a fact — you’re offering a guess designed solely to preserve the Bible’s credibility at any cost.

You also claim that until I prove that their observation was “limited to regurgitation,” you can logically maintain two possibilities. No — that’s backwards. The burden of proof is not on me to prove a negative about what they might have thought. The burden is on you to demonstrate that your rescue hypothesis has actual support in the text, in ancient Jewish commentary, in the context, anywhere. You have none.

What the text says is simple and direct: the hare “brings up” food and chews the cud, just like the ox and the sheep. The Bible links hares with true cud-chewing animals in exactly the same language. It doesn’t hint at, qualify, or nuance that claim into a broader “nutritional reprocessing” observation. It says they chew the cud — a clear, concrete biological behavior — and they don’t. End of story.

You cannot erase a biological mistake by inventing an imagined thought process for people who didn’t even articulate it. That’s not logic. It’s desperation.

The honest conclusion — the one you refuse to accept — is that Leviticus 11:6 makes a false biological claim, because it either misunderstood or inaccurately described the animal’s behavior. No amount of speculative psychology about what they could have been thinking changes that basic, stubborn reality.

Truth is not about the possibilities you can invent to avoid error. It’s about what the evidence actually shows.

And the evidence here is clear.

Again. That is only one possibility, and I expect that you have observed that not all people who think of the text as divinely inspired think of it as having necessarily expressed scientific facts. And, at the same time, sure, they will accede to the notion of the Bible as having something to do with divine authority - but, whatever that authority is (in their minds), it is something apart from, independent of statement of scientific fact. The distinction between divinely inspired and divinely dictated is important for the reasons of logic already discussed.

All this put together means that - logically - your argument as expressed by you has an extremely narrow scope with a soundness far short of what you seem to have desired. To say it again: this is about logic. Well, that also ties in to characteristics of truth. But I do not think we have need to go further into that at present. Regardless, it is about logic - not the Bible.

You’re trying to confuse categories again. No one is arguing that the Bible should be judged by modern scientific standards or that it was supposed to be a science textbook. That’s a red herring. The point is much simpler: when a text claims divine authority and makes an observable claim about nature, its truthfulness matters, because an error directly undermines its claimed source of perfection — not because it fails to do science, but because it fails to describe reality.

It doesn’t matter whether the text was “dictated” or “inspired.” The inspiration model still means that what is conveyed through the human author is supposed to reflect divine guidance — not human mistake. If you think divine inspiration simply licenses factual errors because “humans are fallible,” then the term “inspired” collapses into meaninglessness. Inspiration, if it includes factual error about simple, observable things like animal behavior, has no privileged authority left — it’s indistinguishable from fallible myth-making. You can’t protect divine authority while allowing it to misrepresent reality.

You keep saying my argument has “narrow scope” — but narrow is not the same as weak. Precision is not a flaw. The scope is exactly as large as it needs to be: if a divine claim demonstrably conflicts with observable reality, that calls divine authority into question. Period. You haven’t touched that foundation; you’ve only tried to drown it in speculation and rhetorical fog.

You say “this is about logic, not about the Bible.” But if logic demands that divine truth must align with reality, and the Bible claims divine truth but contradicts reality, then logic takes you right back to the Bible — and to its failure on this point.

You’re not defending logic. You’re evading what logic makes unavoidable.

NHC

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

If correspondence to observable reality is not an adequate standard for evaluating a truth claim — especially one involving a concrete biological assertion like “the hare chews the cud” — then you need to explain what standard is.

Menachem observed a hare that looked like it was chewing cud. He also observed that behavior in countless hares. Therefore, hares chew cud.

If “correspondence to observable reality” is sufficient for you, then acknowledge that hares chew cud. Because, after all, Menachem even went beyond observation and tested his initial hypothesis by observing countless hares.

If after understanding the above, the immediate inclination is to take off onto the theories of truth tangent, then suppress that reflex.

This where it is to be recognized that the principle of philosophical charity is at times a condition necessary for the fullness of any theory of truth. Once that necessity is understood, then it will be understood that charity is also logically necessary. Insofar as your (inhumanist?) philosophy disdains taking account of human perspectives and refuses to take account of human perspectives, your approach will necessarily often be grossly erroneous.

When this is grasped, further discussion is possible.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Another example of the Bible writers' ignorance had lethal consequences for some unfortunate women in Palestine. According to Deuteronomy 22, if a husband accuses his wife of not being a virgin on her wedding night, her defense would be that her parents would show the bloody sheets from the wedding night to the town leaders. In the absence of such evidence, the men of the town are to stone her to death. Most of Deuteronomy, including this chapter, is represented as being conveyed by God to Moses, then by Moses to the people. If this is God-inspired, then "our creator" didn't know that a) it's possible to be born without a hymen; b) it's possible to damage the hymen through a fall or an accident, and c) every virginal woman doesn't bleed at first intercourse. Nonetheless, if she didn't bleed, kill her. This is tribal ignorance given the endorsement of a deity. In NoHolyCows' expression, it tells us that the "text is human, fallible, and historically conditioned," and in this case I would add brutal and primitive.