Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [creat] Re: publishing

Expand Messages
  • Harold R. Holmyard III
    Dear Dave, This topic seems to involve fine distinctions and really illuminates the issue in the Bible to some extent. ... HH: They are and they aren t. Both
    Message 1 of 131 , Apr 1 5:07 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Dave,

      This topic seems to involve fine distinctions and really illuminates
      the issue in the Bible to some extent.

      >Hares and rabbits are the same critters.

      HH: They are and they aren't. Both of them are leporids, but the
      Lepus is a subdivision of leporids that includes hares but not
      rabbits. I was taught they were different, and I checked in
      encyclopedias, which distinguish between rabbits and hares, just as
      Jacob Milgrom did. Here is Encyclopedia.com

      hare

      name for certain herbivorous mammals of the family Leporidae, which
      also includes the rabbit and pika . The name is applied especially to
      species of the genus Lepus, sometimes called the true hares. Hares
      generally have longer ears and hind legs than rabbits and move by
      jumping rather than by running. Unlike rabbits, hares are born
      covered with fur and with their eyes open.

      Here is the Encyclopedia Britannica (1911):

      HARE, the name of the well-known English rodent now designated Lepus
      europaeus (although formerly termed, incorrectly, L. timidus). In a
      wider sense the name includes all the numerous allied species which
      do not come under the designation of rabbits (see RABBIT).

      HH: The fact that some people can equate hares and rabbits, while
      others distinguish them, suggests that we are simply dealing with
      matters of human classification, and people can classify things
      differently.

      >Uh, if they are leporids (genus lepus) then they do not reprocess
      >their food by chewing cud. In fact novice rabbit-keepers sometimes
      >make a serious error in caring for their pets because of the way
      >they DO reprocess it.

      HH: Part of the problem is translation. "Cud" is an English word used
      to translate a Hebrew word that might have slightly broader
      connotations. Evidently the Hebrew word could encompass the hare's
      activity, whereas the English word "cud" really does not. This is
      what Encyclopedia.com says about the hare's eating habits:

      Like rabbits, they reingest their own droppings so that food passes
      twice through the digestive system.

      HH: You're right. The process is different than a cow's.

      >EXACTLY MY POINT. You can't see the difference and neither could
      >the writer of Leviticus. But you see that's not really an issue
      >for me. I don't think the man was infallible or that his writings
      >are inerrant. That's YOUR claim. If this man was simply
      >channelling GOD's words onto paper, then his lack of insight is
      irrelevant and we have GOD deceiving us about rabbits.

      HH: But there is a reinjestion with both the cow and the hare. So the
      processes are comparable. The Israelite did not necessarily fail in
      insight, but he looked at things and classified things a bit
      differently than we do. It need not constitute an error.

      Yours,
      Harold Holmyard


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dave Oldridge
      ... Sarfati is reaching here. Ruminants regurgitate their food and reprocess it that way. Rabbits ingest their feces. ... Or it s another example of how
      Message 131 of 131 , Apr 24 2:42 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        On 22 Apr 2004 at 13:29, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:

        > Dear Dave,
        >
        > I found this interesting comment by Jonathan Sarfati relating to
        > chewing the cud. It is about rabbits, unfortunately, not hares, but
        > perhaps they are similar in this regard:
        >
        > Rabbits have a special pouch called the caecum, containing bacteria,
        > at the beginning of the large intestine. These bacteria aid
        > digestion, just as the bacteria in the rumen of cattle and sheep aid
        > digestion. Indeed, rabbits "chew the cud" in a manner that parallels
        > sheep and cattle.

        Sarfati is reaching here. Ruminants regurgitate their food and
        reprocess it that way. Rabbits ingest their feces.

        > The rabbit produces two types of fecal pellet-a hard one and a
        > special soft one coming from he caecum. It is only the latter that is
        > eaten to enrich the diet with the nutrients produced by the bacteria
        > in the caecum. In other words, this ability of rabbits is a design
        > feature; it is not something that they have learned to do because
        > they have "digestive systems that function so poorly." It is part of
        > the variety of design, which speaks of creation, not evolution.

        Or it's another example of how evolution produces features complex
        enough that we mistake them for deliberate design. This seems a
        popular mistake among those who would ignore all the OTHER evidence
        that screams evolution.

        > Skeptics have claimed that the Bible is in error in saying that the
        > rabbit "chews the cud' (Lev 11:6). The Hebrew literally reads,
        > "raises up what has been swallowed." The rabbit does re-eat what has
        > been swallowed-its partly digested fecal pellets.

        But certainly does not "raise it up" in the manner of ruminants.
        Like I said, Sarfati is stretching here. And the REASON he is
        stretching is that he is defending the FALSE DOCTRINE that the
        Bible is a literally infallible oracle in all matters.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.