Re: [creat] Re: publishing
- 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
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
>Uh, if they are leporids (genus lepus) then they do not reprocessHH: Part of the problem is translation. "Cud" is an English word used
>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.
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 couldirrelevant and we have GOD deceiving us about rabbits.
>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
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.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- On 22 Apr 2004 at 13:29, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:
> Dear Dave,Sarfati is reaching here. Ruminants regurgitate their food and
> 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.
reprocess it that way. Rabbits ingest their feces.
> The rabbit produces two types of fecal pellet-a hard one and aOr it's another example of how evolution produces features complex
> 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.
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 theBut certainly does not "raise it up" in the manner of ruminants.
> 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.
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.