How is my link http://creation.com/do-rabbits-chew-their-cud vague
and ambiguous in its explanation? Don't just make assertions, back
it up.
In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called
ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first
eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is
partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and
swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include
cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs.
Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern
sense. Obviously, rabbits do not share the digestive
anatomy of modern ruminants. However, to describe rabbits chewing
the cud is not incorrect. Simply stated, it is not reasonable to
accuse a 3500-year-old document of error because it does not adhere
to a modern man-made classification system.
However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means
‘raising up what has been
swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through
such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of
modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them
as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise
refection, which is essentially the same principle as
rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been
swallowed’. The food goes right through the
rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are
re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been
partly digested. Is this the same as cud? In the final analysis, it
is. Cud-chewing completes the digestion of partially digested food.
Why would it be strange to think that centuries ago, the idea of
“cud” had a somewhat broader meaning than a modern definition.
But does the rabbit actually chew the cud? The Hebrew
word translated “chew” is the word ‘alah. With any attempt
to translate one language to another, it is understood that there
is often more than one meaning for a given word. A cursory glace at
any Hebrew lexicon reveals that ‘alah can mean go up,
ascend, climb, go up into, out of a place, depart, rise up, cause
to ascend, bring up from, among others. Here it carries the
implication of moving something from one place to another. So the
phrase translated to English as “chew the cud” literally means
something on the order of “eats that which is brought forth
again.”
So is the Bible in error here? No it is not. It
is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more
restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and
hares do ‘chew the
cud’ in an even more specific sense. Rabbits
re-ingest partially digested foods, as do modern ruminants. They
just do so without the aid of multiple stomach compartments. Once
again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.
It doesn't address the fact that coneys are neither ruminants
nor pratise refection, which is an observable and verifiable
fact.
Seeing that your are parroting the same arguments from your
link shows that you did not read the counter
arguement of my link, or see the strawman attempts of what your link
actually argue.
Where one sets any point to be reference, bias is also
set....
I'm not even playing the devil's advocate... I'm just eager to
rid the faux in objective truth.