• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Science and the Bible: Rabbit Cud

rabbitcud.jpg

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."​
 
The Bible says God is love. What does that mean? That he won't kill the wicked? No, that wouldn't be love, that would be counterproductive to love. God is love. God also has and will kill many. That isn't a contradiction unless you see his killing of the people who would destroy the planet he created as unloving. On that you can disagree with God, but it isn't your call. You don't get to decide what love is, to God or anyone else, and you don't get to tell God what he should do.
Love!! Kill!! Love!! Kill!! LOVE!! KILL!! KILL!! FOR GOD IS LOVE.
Damn, that is twisted. Just plain crazy as a craphouse rat.
Caligula, Pol Pot, Charlie Manson, Bashar al-Assad, and Dr. Evil couldn't have said it better. Love Kill. I guess that means that Luke 6:27-8 is pure anti-God bullshit, right?
 
It goes way beyond 'kill the wicked,' as I'm sure you know. Do you deny that?

It doesn't even make sense. What does "goes beyond kill the wicked" mean? God created Adam to live forever in paradise, to fill the earth. He will see that happen. Sin is only a temporary obstacle. If he allows the wicked to do, without interference, whatever they think is okay, they will eventually "kill everyone." The wicked along with the rest. He won't allow that. He will "kill all the wicked" instead.

Do you not know that?

It means that we have descriptions of God killing the innocent and 'guilty' alike. We have God ordering genocide, women, children, infants....were they wicked and deserving of slaughter?

We are told that God punishes generations for the actions of their forefathers. Is that justice? Is that mercy? Forgiveness, tolerance?


1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''

1 John 4:7-8; Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

As opposed to

''Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ - 1 Samuel 25:3

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, Exodus 20:55

''...so YHWH will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nothing; (Deut 28:63)
 
Two of my favorite Godkills in the Bible are the Slaughter of the Fussy Eaters (Numbers 11) and the Census Slaughter (I Chron 21.)
The Fussy Eaters are the people who bitched to Moses about 'Enough already with the manna! Give us meat!" Moses gets disgusted and takes the whole thing to God, who finally sends a huge flock of quail to the wanderers. But God is pissed off that the manna wasn't enough, so he sends an epidemic into the camp to kill off the whiners and complainers.
In Chronicles, God kills 70,000 people, because David had ordered a census done of Israel. Yes, that's the stated reason. It gets crazier, though. Chronicles says that Satan told David to do the census. (So, obviously, God had to kill 70,000 people, right? According to DHL, that's love in action.) But when the story is told in II Sam 24, it's God who ordered the census. In fairness to the Bible writers, they couldn't always tell the difference.
Such a primitive book.
 
It goes way beyond 'kill the wicked,' as I'm sure you know. Do you deny that?

It doesn't even make sense. What does "goes beyond kill the wicked" mean? God created Adam to live forever in paradise, to fill the earth. He will see that happen. Sin is only a temporary obstacle. If he allows the wicked to do, without interference, whatever they think is okay, they will eventually "kill everyone." The wicked along with the rest. He won't allow that. He will "kill all the wicked" instead.

Do you not know that?

It means that we have descriptions of God killing the innocent and 'guilty' alike.

So? Let me inform you if you did not know. Soon God will destroy the world. That means, babies, fetuses (not abortion like you might approve of, but killing the mother and fetus), old people, young people, innocent, guilty - even puppies and kittens.

We have God ordering genocide, women, children, infants....were they wicked and deserving of slaughter?

Some of them. There was a reason for doing so. Clearly stated.

We are told that God punishes generations for the actions of their forefathers. Is that justice? Is that mercy? Forgiveness, tolerance?


1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''

1 John 4:7-8; Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

As opposed to

''Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ - 1 Samuel 25:3

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, Exodus 20:55

''...so YHWH will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nothing; (Deut 28:63)

We've done this. Think about it.
 
It goes way beyond 'kill the wicked,' as I'm sure you know. Do you deny that?

It doesn't even make sense. What does "goes beyond kill the wicked" mean? God created Adam to live forever in paradise, to fill the earth. He will see that happen. Sin is only a temporary obstacle. If he allows the wicked to do, without interference, whatever they think is okay, they will eventually "kill everyone." The wicked along with the rest. He won't allow that. He will "kill all the wicked" instead.

Do you not know that?

It means that we have descriptions of God killing the innocent and 'guilty' alike.

So? Let me inform you if you did not know. Soon God will destroy the world.
Oh... is that the reason for the sell off in the US bond market? Should I stop putting money into my 401K?
That means, babies, fetuses (not abortion like you might approve of, but killing the mother and fetus), old people, young people, innocent, guilty - even puppies and kittens.
Suppose it is a good thing God said he wouldn't kill all things again... via water in Genesis 9, or else he'd look like a real schmuck.
 

So? Let me inform you if you did not know. Soon God will destroy the world. That means, babies, fetuses (not abortion like you might approve of, but killing the mother and fetus), old people, young people, innocent, guilty - even puppies and kittens.

Delusional. You need cultists, but this isn't the place to recruit them.
 
Oh... is that the reason for the sell off in the US bond market?

Stupidity is the reason for that.

Should I stop putting money into my 401K?

Yes. It's a scam. People in the know have an inside joke about it.

"What is a four letter word that starts with f and ends with k?"
"What?"
"401K"

Because a 401k is the company's way of fucking you. You give your money to greedy cock suckers to gamble away or make them money.

Suppose it is a good thing God said he wouldn't kill all things again... via water in Genesis 9, or else he'd look like a real schmuck.

To you maybe. But that's okay.
 

That “no” isn’t a rebuttal. It’s a reflex.

You didn’t show how anything was misrepresented. You didn’t identify a flaw in the logic. You just denied it—because denial is all that’s left when the reasoning is airtight and the conclusion is unavoidable.

I didn’t twist your position—I exposed it: You defend the Bible as infallible, but when it makes a factual error, you shift to saying the reader is at fault or that the error doesn’t matter. That’s not misrepresentation. That’s a spotlight on the contradiction.

You can say “no” all you want. But without an argument, it’s just a sound—not a defense.

Correct, but that isn't what I do, is it. I've never said it was infallible. It isn't. Obviously. I've published that many times. I've stated it here.

Then what exactly have you been defending?

You opened this discussion not by admitting the Bible was wrong, but by trying to explain why the hare might “chew the cud” after all—citing Hebrew terms, digestion processes, and old zoological references. That wasn’t the posture of someone who “obviously” accepts the Bible contains errors. That was the posture of someone trying to defend a specific claim as potentially valid.

And now that the claim has been shown false, you pivot to “Well of course the Bible isn’t infallible. I’ve said that many times.”

You can’t have it both ways. If you truly believe the Bible has errors—and always have—then your entire original defense was meaningless from the start. Because you weren’t trying to correct a misreading. You were trying to preserve credibility for a statement you now admit is just one of many mistakes.

So let’s be honest: either you defended something you knew was wrong, or you’ve changed your position and want to pretend you didn’t.

Either way, the outcome is the same:

The verse is wrong. You couldn’t defend it. And now you’re rewriting your stance to cover the collapse.
Two problems with that "logic."

1. No other infallible text ever existed so you don't know if that is the case. The infallible text that allegedly existed you deny as infallible, but the Bible isn't it. The Bible is a translation of it.
2. We aren't infallible so it wouldn't matter if the Bible was.
3. This one is the one you should think carefully about because it's the one where you are having the problem. The Bible says a hare chews cud, but that isn't what Moses wrote. You see, he didn't know English. In fact, English didn't exist. Moses wrote וְאֶת-הָאַרְנֶבֶת, כִּי-מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה הִוא, וּפַרְסָה, לֹא הִפְרִיסָה; טְמֵאָה הִוא, לָכֶם.

You see? If that were infallible, could you read it? It was translated. The translation would have to be infallible. But even then it would say what Moses wrote, not what he meant. If an infallible person were trying to explain what hares do in that specific context it wouldn't matter that they were infallible if they were talking to a fucking idiot.

I'm pretty sure about that. But I'm not infallible.

So whatever Moses meant by what he wrote, was allegedly divinely inspired. Infallible. The people, not so much.

Thomas doubted Jesus had been resurrected. He wouldn't believe until he seen the wounds. The thing is, the angels had taken the body. So, in order for Thomas to believe Jesus made wounds appear to him. Some didn't recognize him, they thought he was the gardener. Because he was resurrected in a new body. You don't usually sacrifice something and then take it back.

Does your logic consider the possibility that Moses, under divine authority, didn't trick them for some reason.

Jesus also said "Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended." (Matthew 19:8) How does your logic see those two cases as relating to one another.

What does your "logic" say of כִּינָה הַכְּתוּב?

The Tiqqune Sopherim, or emendations of the scribes, or as Wikipedia calls it Tiqqun soferim where the scribes or copyists of the scrolls, changed the text because they found it in various ways, as offensive to God.

Shoot, for example, in chapter 8 of Ezekiel. The original text said they, the worshipers of Tammuz, was thrusting the "shoot" in his face. If you look up the definition of "shoot" it says:

You’ve thrown a tidal wave of tangents, etymology dumps, ancient symbolism, and reinterpretive scaffolding—all to avoid the most basic question: Did the Bible say the hare chews the cud? Yes. Do hares chew the cud? No.

Everything else—whether it’s the evolution of Hebrew, the nuance of the Tiqqun Sopherim, or obscure phallic imagery from Tammuz—is an attempt to make noise where clarity already exists.

You say we can’t know what Moses meant. But Leviticus 11:6 doesn’t just record a vague impression—it offers a biological claim as the reason for a dietary law. Not a metaphor. Not a mystery. A reason: “because it chews the cud but does not have a split hoof.” That is a straightforward justification—and it’s factually wrong.

Your appeal to language evolution and ancient perception misses the mark. If God was truly behind the words, He would not need to rely on misperceptions of the time. If He wanted to say, “It looks like cud chewing,” He could have inspired that. Instead, He declared it was cud chewing—and that is false.

You say science and logic are “bullshit.” But you’re standing on centuries of linguistic, zoological, and historical scholarship while trying to dismiss the very tools that revealed the error in the first place. That’s not a rejection of science—that’s a misuse of it when convenient, and contempt for it when it contradicts your text.

You’re not exposing a flaw in logic. You’re demonstrating what happens when a belief system can’t withstand a simple factual test—and so it builds a fortress of endless speculation to protect itself from ever having to say the obvious:

The Bible made a mistake. And that matters.

NHC
 
It goes way beyond 'kill the wicked,' as I'm sure you know. Do you deny that?

It doesn't even make sense. What does "goes beyond kill the wicked" mean? God created Adam to live forever in paradise, to fill the earth. He will see that happen. Sin is only a temporary obstacle. If he allows the wicked to do, without interference, whatever they think is okay, they will eventually "kill everyone." The wicked along with the rest. He won't allow that. He will "kill all the wicked" instead.

Do you not know that?

It means that we have descriptions of God killing the innocent and 'guilty' alike.

So? Let me inform you if you did not know. Soon God will destroy the world. That means, babies, fetuses (not abortion like you might approve of, but killing the mother and fetus), old people, young people, innocent, guilty - even puppies and kittens.

We have God ordering genocide, women, children, infants....were they wicked and deserving of slaughter?

Some of them. There was a reason for doing so. Clearly stated.

We are told that God punishes generations for the actions of their forefathers. Is that justice? Is that mercy? Forgiveness, tolerance?


1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''

1 John 4:7-8; Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

As opposed to

''Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ - 1 Samuel 25:3

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, Exodus 20:55

''...so YHWH will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nothing; (Deut 28:63)

We've done this. Think about it.

Think about it? I think that in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable, you are saying whatever comes to mind.
 
That “no” isn’t a rebuttal. It’s a reflex.

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

You didn’t show how anything was misrepresented.

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

You defend the Bible as infallible, but when it makes a factual error, you shift to saying the reader is at fault or that the error doesn’t matter. That’s not misrepresentation. That’s a spotlight on the contradiction.

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.

You can say “no” all you want. But without an argument, it’s just a sound—not a defense.

[Laughs]

Then what exactly have you been defending?

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.

You opened this discussion not by admitting [snip]

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.

And now that the claim has been shown false, you pivot to [snip]

[Sighs]

You can’t have it both ways. If you truly believe [snip]


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

Either way, the outcome is the same:

The verse is wrong. You couldn’t defend it. And now you’re [snip]

You’ve thrown a tidal wave of [snip]

Did the Bible say the hare chews the cud? Yes.

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.

Do hares chew the cud? No.

Buddha.

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

Everything else—whether it’s the evolution of Hebrew, the nuance of the Tiqqun Sopherim, or obscure phallic imagery from Tammuz—is an attempt to make noise where clarity already exists.

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.

You say we can’t know [snip]

Times up.
 
DLH's craziness is coming out. The typical confused mix of the political and theology among religious extremists.

The world is going to end, soon.

It is better to keep gold under your bed then money in the bank.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Think about it? I think that in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable, you are saying whatever comes to mind.

Do you honestly think you or I have the merit to justify our creator's actions?
I'm judging the source material and calling it arrant, racist, sadistic fiction.
 
DLH may not fully grasp we do not believe in a god in the first place, regardless of what is in the bible.

It do0es not affect us. At the end of the day it matters to DLH who is desperately trying to justify his beliefs to us all.

On of the old fall back theist position when pressed on god. I know god exists, but understand god is beyond us humans.
 
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.
Already answered.
 
DLH may not fully grasp we do not believe in a god in the first place, regardless of what is in the bible.

It do0es not affect us. At the end of the day it matters to DLH who is desperately trying to justify his beliefs to us all.

On of the old fall back theist position when pressed on god. I know god exists, but understand god is beyond us humans.
Indeed. I'm reminded of an online discussion I had regarding the 'a fool builds his house on sand', which is one of the most ridiculous statements in the New Testament. Sand is a very nice material to build on. The alleged theologian argued that it was talking to the local crowd only (because apparently god had small plans).

The issue with the Tanakh and New Testament aren't the this or that which are demonstrably wrong. Nor the dubious 'historical' tales of Moses and Jesus of which the later the New Testament is allegedly based upon, but can only muster four remixes of his life.

No, it is the much larger picture of all the deities and all the reasons they had to exist, and how most of them lack followers today and the ones that have followers still, bickering and arguing with those who follow a different god. The Hebrew God was stolen by the Christians and Muslims and reshaped for their political causes. Yeah... political. The whole personal turn not so personal turn out right negligent presence of god is typical of the mythological structure of the holy books. The initial hands on approach prehistory, turn the actual situation and it is no where to be seen and all of the obfuscation required to justify the belief.
 
Back
Top Bottom