kurious_kathy explain this.

[TobiasTheViking]

3 Do not eat any detestable thing. 4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, 5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope and the mountain sheep. [a] 6 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and that chews the cud. 7 However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. 8 The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses.

The hare does not eat the cud, and it doesn't have hoofs. So, i guess either the bible is wrong, or god isn't perfect.


:/

Sincerely
Tobias

Sorry for being childish.

 

[Beerina]

One would have to start with an analysis of the word translated as "cud" and the phrase "chewing his cud". Were these intended to refer to chewing regurgitated food that was scarfed down earlier into a temporary holding stomach, to be re-swallowed and digested in a regular stomach?

Assuming so, then yes, this is incorrect, and hence the Bible cannot be considered the inerrant Word of God.

 

[KingMerv00]

There are two possible explanations

1)I predict that a different meaning of "cud" will be found if you study Greek or Hebrew or whatever hard enough.

2)Jesus died for your sins. Therefore the OT does not apply anymore. Yes the factual assertions too. Clearly rabbits stopped chewing cud when Jesus died. For your sins.

 

[El Greco]

As usual, what you can't explain literally you can explain metaphorically, as long as the conclusion continues to be that there is an omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God. You know that your interpretation is correct when you reach the aforementioned conclusion.

 

[Bri]

The hare does not eat the cud, and it doesn't have hoofs. So, i guess either the bible is wrong, or god isn't perfect.

When examining apparent contradictions, it helps to go back to a Hebew version of the Bible because the translations are more accurate, and also because the commentary doesn't have problems pointing out and addressing apparent contradictions in the text.

The commentary of Leviticus 11:6 in a Hebrew version that I have acknowledges that the hyrax, rabbit, and hare do not chew their cud in the same manner that a cow does. It provides two possible explanations: 1) it is difficult to identify exactly which animals are referred to in this passage since these Hebrew words are not used elsewhere in the Bible, so it is possible that the animal in question isn't a "hare" as is commonly translated, and 2) rabbits and hares do, in fact, excrete moist pellets from their stomachs to their mouths, so it is possible that the Bible's definition of "bringing up its cud" simply refers to bringing food back to its mouth from its stomach whether or not it is like the way a cow does it.

Also, the translation in this version doesn't imply that rabbits or hares have hooves (just that they don't have split hooves).

-Bri

 

[slingblade]

Rabbits and hares chew pellets, don't they? Pellets are partially digested grass, but instead of being regurgitated, they're excreted. So, if by "chewing the cud," you mean "redigesting cellulose," then rabbits and hares do that.

It's just that I've seen this argument elsewhere, and it doesn't seem to have a definitive answer, but depends on how one looks at it.

Besides, God supposedly gave humans dominion over the animals, so where does He get off telling me which of my animals I can eat, and which I can't?

And let's not forget some other favorites:

Is your chicken salad made with hard-boiled eggs? Blasphemer!
('thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk,' so it was suggested to me that no animal products of a parent-child nature should be mixed, like chicken and eggs, or beef and cheese.)

Do you wear linen and wool together? Blasphemer!
(The extent to which this last is taken in the Jewish faith is amazing to me. See here: http://www.beingjewish.com/mitzvos/shatnez.html)

I went to many churches which said they had the answer to all of the above. The Old Testament is for the Jews, they told me, and the only reason it's included in the Christian bible is so we can read all the many prophecies about Christ's birth. But we don't have to follow any of the rules in the OT, not being Jews. The really important stuff, like the 10 Commandments, are repeated in the NT so we know we're still supposed to obey those, because God thinks it's funny to phrase everything like a riddle, and make us guess what he "really" means, instead of just saying it straight out like a mature divine being might do.

Then there was the time my late MIL told me, while reading her bible, that God said it is a sin to buy a puppy.

I looked up from my own (horribly secular) reading, puzzled. "It's what?"

"Right here," she says. " 'You shall not bring the cost of a prostitute or the price of a dog (into) the house of YHWH your god, for any vow, for surely both of them are an abomination to YHWH your god.*' So it's a sin for Christians to buy and sell dogs, and that includes puppies. Good Christians should never be dog breeders, unless they give the puppies away."

"What about kittens?" I asked, trying to yank on a chain.

"Noooo...kittens are all right, I guess; it doesn't say anything here about kittens. But most people don't sell kittens anyway."

"Why," I asked, truly bumfoozled now, "would buying a puppy be a crime worthy of eternal damnation and hellfire?"

"I don't know," she says, "but the bible says it is, and that's good enough for me."

I had to go get another of her books, some bible concordance, and show her that the word dog means 'male prostitute,' not 'poodle.'

 

[KingMerv00]

When examining apparent contradictions, it helps to go back to a Hebew version of the Bible because the translations are more accurate, and also because the commentary doesn't have problems pointing out and addressing apparent contradictions in the text.

The commentary of Leviticus 11:6 in a Hebrew version that I have acknowledges that the hyrax, rabbit, and hare do not chew their cud in the same manner that a cow does. It provides two possible explanations: 1) it is difficult to identify exactly which animals are referred to in this passage since these Hebrew words are not used elsewhere in the Bible, so it is possible that the animal in question isn't a "hare" as is commonly translated, and 2) rabbits and hares do, in fact, excrete moist pellets from their stomachs to their mouths, so it is possible that the Bible's definition of "bringing up its cud" simply refers to bringing food back to its mouth from its stomach whether or not it is like the way a cow does it.

Also, the translation in this version doesn't imply that rabbits or hares have hooves (just that they don't have split hooves).

-Bri

Could someone please inform Randi that I would like my million in 10s and 20s?

 

[Roadtoad]

Guys, guys, guys. You're asking Kurious Kathy to actually think and reason and respond.

That ain't gonna happen.

 

[KingMerv00]

Guys, guys, guys. You're asking Kurious Kathy to actually think and reason and respond.

That ain't gonna happen.

Well she'll probably respond. Once.

 

[ceo_esq]

Guys, guys, guys. You're asking Kurious Kathy to actually think and reason and respond.

That ain't gonna happen.

She may think she doesn't need to now, since sensible responses to the problem posed in the OP have already been given.

 

[kmortis]

Guys, guys, guys. You're asking Kurious Kathy to actually think and reason and respond.

That ain't gonna happen.

Well she'll probably respond. Once.

And one outta three ain't bad.

 

[KingMerv00]

And one outta three ain't bad.

My omission was not unintentional.

 

[kmortis]

My omission was not unintentional.

Wasn't sure, so I figured I'd help.

Didn't mean to step on toes.

Just here to help.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

She may think she doesn't need to now, since sensible responses to the problem posed in the OP have already been given.

Yeah, and some of them responded with facts.. so where does that leave me.

@Bri:

Ok, first off, i've heard this argument before, hence i picked thise one.

Second off, i don't understand hebrew, hence i can't read the original, sadly :/

Third off, i don't think that the pelets hares eat constitute eating cud, doesn't that definition also require multiple stomachs(i don't know, asking here).

Fourth off, Well, if they don't have hoves, they can't have split hoves, hence, they are dirty, no?

 

[Bri]

Second off, i don't understand hebrew, hence i can't read the original, sadly :/

Nor do I, so I must rely on the translation provided. But it also has the Hebrew as well as commentary, so I assume the translation is fairly accurate.

Third off, i don't think that the pelets hares eat constitute eating cud, doesn't that definition also require multiple stomachs(i don't know, asking here).

There are two similar passages (Liviticus and Deuteronomy) in the Bible, both using the Hebrew word "gerah." Aside from these two places, there are no other mentions of the word "gerah" in the Bible. Therefore, its use in these two passages is the only source of information concerning the meaning of the word. Translators often translate "gerah" as "cud" even though it may not be entirely accurate.

The Hebrew word that is often translated as "hare" is "arnevet." Again, it is unknown whether this word really means "hare" or refers to some other animal.

Fourth off, Well, if they don't have hoves, they can't have split hoves, hence, they are dirty, no?

Whatever an arnevet is, it is clear from the passage that it is not kosher because it doesn't have split hooves. According to the passage, only animals that have both split hooves and chew their cuds are kosher. The point of the lines containing references to the arnevet is to list examples of unkosher animals that DO chew their cud, but DON'T have split hooves. The OP implied that the passage must be wrong because it indicates that hares have hooves, which is simply not the case according to my translation. The passage simply indicates that arnevet do not have split hooves, which is entirely true even if an arnevet is a hare.

Hares don't chew their cuds like cows do (a process called rumination) but they do chew on pellets of partially-digested food (a process called refection). The Bible may be using the Hebrew phrase that is commonly translated as "chewing cud" as the act of chewing partially digested food, which would apply to both a hare and a cow. It is also possible that the arnevet isn't a hare at all, but some other animal that does chew its cud (perhaps even one that is now extinct).

Here is a pretty good article on the subject.

-Bri

 

[kurious_kathy]

Guys, guys, guys. You're asking Kurious Kathy to actually think and reason and respond.

That ain't gonna happen.

Excuse me? I just dont have any idea where he is getting this info from.

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whos consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives tales: rather, train yourself to be godly. For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come. This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance,(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.
1 Timothy 4:1-10

 

[Ducky]

Excuse me? I just dont have any idea where he is getting this info from.

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whos consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives tales: rather, train yourself to be godly. For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come. This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance,(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.
1 Timothy 4:1-10

Careful Kathy, that quote could be interpreted to say that Christian Leaders wanting to forbid gay marriage are false prophets. I'll requote the pertinent passage:

Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whos consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

Hmm....

 

[Danhalen]

Excuse me? I just dont have any idea where he is getting this info from.

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whos consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives tales: rather, train yourself to be godly. For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come. This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance,(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.
1 Timothy 4:1-10

Wow! Does it hurt?

 

[kurious_kathy]

Careful Kathy, that quote could be interpreted to say that Christian Leaders wanting to forbid gay marriage are false prophets. I'll requote the pertinent passage:




Hmm....

Well I still like this take on marriage better...January 16

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Genesis 5:1–2

In calling Adam and Eve “Adam,” God called them one. You see, knowing our propensity to think the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, and knowing our tendency to want to trade this year’s car for next year’s model, God made it really simple for us. He ordained marriage for life. Those who understand this find glorious peace and freedom when they look at their spouse, because they know there’s no one down the line or around the corner who will give them a greater thrill. There’s not another person on earth who will make them happier, more content, or more fulfilled. Such is the amazing mystery of matrimony.

Kurious Kathy has taken the above quote from http://www.joncourson.com. KK, please do not use material copied from other sources as it violates the membership agreement.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Cosmo]

God talks more about the sin of adultery than about any other single sin because adultery uniquely brings long-term, irreversible repercussions.

Murder doesn't bring long-term, irreversible repercussions as well?

And, incidentally, you need to cite your source for this text. Plagiarism is not tolerated well here.