• 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."​
 
View attachment 49771

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."​

Let’s drop the excuses and deal with the facts. The Bible explicitly claims that hares chew the cud (Leviticus 11:6, Deuteronomy 14:7). That statement is biologically false—not debatably, not arguably—objectively, provably false. Hares are not ruminants, do not regurgitate food, and do not chew cud in any scientifically valid sense of the term.

Trying to defend this error by appealing to 19th-century Bible dictionaries and Victorian poets instead of modern science is intellectually embarrassing. No serious zoologist would equate caecotrophy—the hare’s practice of eating its own soft feces to re-digest nutrients—with rumination, a complex process involving a multi-chambered stomach, regurgitation, and re-chewing partially digested food. They are not “similar”; they are categorically different mechanisms evolved in completely different lineages.

Quoting Cowper watching his pet hares “chew all day” proves nothing except he didn’t understand mammalian digestion. Hares, like all herbivores, chew. So do horses, guinea pigs, and tortoises. That doesn’t make them ruminants.

And let’s address this pathetic fallback that the Israelites “weren’t using modern scientific classification.” That’s not the issue. The issue is that the law makes a specific anatomical claim—that the hare brings up food to chew again—which is simply not true. It’s not about classification; it’s about biological function. Saying hares “bring up” food is not a cultural description; it’s an anatomical assertion—and it’s wrong.

This isn’t a translation quirk or interpretive nuance. It’s a straightforward factual error. Either the writer of Leviticus believed hares chewed cud and was wrong, or God dictated a biological mistake. Take your pick.

This kind of clumsy retroactive rationalization—equating feces-eating with cud-chewing—is not only desperate, it’s insulting to any thinking person’s intelligence. It’s the theological equivalent of claiming the sun literally does rise in the east because “that’s just how people described it back then.” No. We know better now. And pretending otherwise is willful ignorance.

If your worldview needs to contort biological definitions and ignore centuries of zoological understanding just to protect a line of text from scrutiny, that’s not faith—it’s intellectual cowardice.

NHC
 
Well yes, ancient Jews nor anyone else used modern classifications and modern science.

That's not the basic e issue. The issue is when creationists and biblical literalists argue against modern science in favor of an ancient collectionof incojnsistent unscientific writins.

Aristotle was important in the history of philosophy and science, but nobody today goes by Aristotle.


Though Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, none of it intended for publication. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. His teachings and methods of inquiry have had a significant impact across the world, and remain a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.

Greek, Persian, Arab, and Egyptian civilizations made significant contributions to science and math. Ancient Jews not so much. A superstitious culture.

Biblical believers try to ''make a silk purse out of sow's ear'' of the bible.
 
And to invoke an old phrase, DLH is constantly 'chewing the cud'. Or ruminating.
 
I'll have to go with DLH on this one (and because I'm biblically bias).

I have borrowed the excerpts below courtesy to the website Spruce Pets who give a good article of rabbits, that ingest their food two times:


"..Rabbits eliminate waste material on a regular basis just like other animals and humans. Fecal matter typically exits a rabbit as a round pellet but will change shape if adequate fiber and water amounts are not ingested. Fecal matter is produced throughout the day as a rabbit is hopping around or visiting the litter box, but these constantly produced fecal pellets are not what a rabbit consumes.

In addition to the regular fecal pellets that rabbits produce during the day, a special type of poop is also excreted in the night. Cecotropes, also referred to as night feces, are a specific kind of poop that is different than regular rabbit stools. Cecotropes are softer, stickier, and are usually not even seen by a rabbit owner, because a rabbit often consumes them almost as they are exiting the body.

The cecotropes are produced in the cecum, a part of the intestinal tract of a rabbit, by Fermentation of the food a rabbit eats. They are also only produced at night, so a rabbit will be seen eating them late at night or early in the morning. Usually, the only time you will see cecotropes in your rabbit's cage or on its fur is if your rabbit is not feeling well and therefore not eating its cecotropes.

Why Do Rabbits Eat Poop?
Cecotropes are full of nutrients that a rabbit needs. These special feces contain more protein and vitamins than normal poops have, so by consuming its cecotropes (and a healthy diet), a rabbit is getting all of the important nutrients that it needs to stay healthy. It is completely normal behavior for rabbits to eat cecotropes at night or early in the morning, but it is not normal for them to eat their normal stools during the day..."



I think the bible is correct categorizing animals 'in context' that ingest food twice... despite the few words in text that gives little explanation in this regard and the use of 'language' of the times.
 
  • I Agree
Reactions: DLH
Just as a useless aside, William Cowper wasn't a Victorian poet, as he died nineteen years before the Queen was born.
 
Just as a useless aside, William Cowper wasn't a Victorian poet, as he died nineteen years before the Queen was born.

Fair point on the date—William Cowper wasn’t technically a Victorian, he was late 18th century, dying in 1800. But the correction doesn’t change the actual issue: the argument from Cowper is still utterly useless. Whether he lived in the Georgian, Victorian, or Stone Age, he was a poet, not a zoologist, and observing pet hares making chewing motions does not establish them as ruminants or validate a biological claim.

Appealing to Cowper’s anecdotal observation is just as unscientific now as it was then. The original poster could’ve said “some guy saw a hare chew,” and it would carry the same weight: none. Digestive anatomy isn’t verified through poetry.

So yes—thanks for the historical aside. Now, maybe let’s focus on the actual point: the Bible makes a biological error, and no amount of poetic backup or era-specific labeling changes that.

NHC
 
Rabbits eliminate waste material on a regular basis just like other animals and humans. Fecal matter typically exits a rabbit as a round pellet but will change shape if adequate fiber and water amounts are not ingested. Fecal matter is produced throughout the day as a rabbit is hopping around or visiting the litter box, but these constantly produced fecal pellets are not what a rabbit consumes.

In addition to the regular fecal pellets that rabbits produce during the day, a special type of poop is also excreted in the night. Cecotropes, also referred to as night feces, are a specific kind of poop that is different than regular rabbit stools. Cecotropes are softer, stickier, and are usually not even seen by a rabbit owner, because a rabbit often consumes them almost as they are exiting the body.

The cecotropes are produced in the cecum, a part of the intestinal tract of a rabbit, by Fermentation of the food a rabbit eats. They are also only produced at night, so a rabbit will be seen eating them late at night or early in the morning. Usually, the only time you will see cecotropes in your rabbit's cage or on its fur is if your rabbit is not feeling well and therefore not eating its cecotropes.

Why Do Rabbits Eat Poop?
Cecotropes are full of nutrients that a rabbit needs. These special feces contain more protein and vitamins than normal poops have, so by consuming its cecotropes (and a healthy diet), a rabbit is getting all of the important nutrients that it needs to stay healthy. It is completely normal behavior for rabbits to eat cecotropes at night or early in the morning, but it is not normal for them to eat their normal stools during the day..."



I think the bible is correct categorizing animals 'in context' that ingest food twice... despite the few words in text that gives little explanation in this regard and the use of 'language' of the times.

1. Do you agree that “chewing the cud” refers specifically to the act of regurgitating partially digested food from the stomach to the mouth to be re-chewed, as seen in ruminant animals like cows and sheep?

2. Can you point to a single modern zoologist or veterinary textbook that classifies rabbits or hares as ruminants, or states that they “chew the cud” in any scientific sense of the term?

3. If a rabbit consuming cecotropes (which are feces) counts as “chewing the cud,” would that also mean animals like dogs, gorillas, or elephants—who also engage in coprophagy or food regurgitation—should be classified as cud-chewers too?

4. When the Bible groups hares with ruminants like cows and goats and uses the exact same wording—“chews the cud”—why should we assume the meaning is different for hares only after we discover that hares don’t actually do it?

5. If the Bible had said “the hare chews the cud and has a split hoof,” would you still say it was just “language of the time,” or would you finally admit that would be a biologically incorrect statement?

6. Is there any possible biological claim the Bible could make that, if proven wrong by modern science, you would admit was simply an error?

NHC
 
the actual point: the Bible makes a biological error
Seriously? A biological error? If the rabbit cud issue were actually intended to be a biology lesson, then sure.

The way I see the rabbit cud matter is this: Someone is ruminating and salivating over the prospect of eating a rabbit or hare or whatever, notices that it kind of looks as if the rabbit or hare or whatever chews a cud, and concludes that rabbit or hare of whatever is therefore legitimate food (besides looking like it might be tasty).

Then someone else says: No, you've got it all wrong. Chewing cud is not sufficient to qualify an animal as acceptable food. The animal also has to have a divided hoof, and a rabbit or hare or whatever doesn't even have a hoof. So, no, you are not to eat it. And stop drooling already. There was simply no need to correct the drooler's notion that the rabbit or hare of whatever chews a cud since the hoof issue was the more efficient way to make clear the injunction against eating rabbits or hares or whatever.

Maybe it is just me, but I never got the impression that any part of the Bible was intended as some sort of scientific treatise. Consequently, all of this Bible versus science stuff strikes me as insane. Or maybe just inane. No, I've got it: insane inanity. This Bible versus science stuff most definitely reveals absolutely nothing about God (except maybe in some sort of via negativa way).
 
the actual point: the Bible makes a biological error
Seriously? A biological error? If the rabbit cud issue were actually intended to be a biology lesson, then sure.

The way I see the rabbit cud matter is this: Someone is ruminating and salivating over the prospect of eating a rabbit or hare or whatever, notices that it kind of looks as if the rabbit or hare or whatever chews a cud, and concludes that rabbit or hare of whatever is therefore legitimate food (besides looking like it might be tasty).

Then someone else says: No, you've got it all wrong. Chewing cud is not sufficient to qualify an animal as acceptable food. The animal also has to have a divided hoof, and a rabbit or hare or whatever doesn't even have a hoof. So, no, you are not to eat it. And stop drooling already. There was simply no need to correct the drooler's notion that the rabbit or hare of whatever chews a cud since the hoof issue was the more efficient way to make clear the injunction against eating rabbits or hares or whatever.

Maybe it is just me, but I never got the impression that any part of the Bible was intended as some sort of scientific treatise. Consequently, all of this Bible versus science stuff strikes me as insane. Or maybe just inane. No, I've got it: insane inanity. This Bible versus science stuff most definitely reveals absolutely nothing about God (except maybe in some sort of via negativa way).
I agree emphatically. Why people are seriously engaging in these threads is beyond me. Discussion forums used to have a general rule: don't feed the trolls.

DLH isn't interested in honest debate. He's interested in control. The more people argue with him, the more he likes it. He's getting exactly what he wants. He needs to feel right, to feel correct. If you show him he's wrong, he won't admit it. He'll just start another useless thread. His arrogance, and his shameless condescension, should be keeping people away, but instead they keep lining up to beat their heads against the wall.
 
the actual point: the Bible makes a biological error
Seriously? A biological error? If the rabbit cud issue were actually intended to be a biology lesson, then sure.

The way I see the rabbit cud matter is this: Someone is ruminating and salivating over the prospect of eating a rabbit or hare or whatever, notices that it kind of looks as if the rabbit or hare or whatever chews a cud, and concludes that rabbit or hare of whatever is therefore legitimate food (besides looking like it might be tasty).

Then someone else says: No, you've got it all wrong. Chewing cud is not sufficient to qualify an animal as acceptable food. The animal also has to have a divided hoof, and a rabbit or hare or whatever doesn't even have a hoof. So, no, you are not to eat it. And stop drooling already. There was simply no need to correct the drooler's notion that the rabbit or hare of whatever chews a cud since the hoof issue was the more efficient way to make clear the injunction against eating rabbits or hares or whatever.

Maybe it is just me, but I never got the impression that any part of the Bible was intended as some sort of scientific treatise. Consequently, all of this Bible versus science stuff strikes me as insane. Or maybe just inane. No, I've got it: insane inanity. This Bible versus science stuff most definitely reveals absolutely nothing about God (except maybe in some sort of via negativa way).
I agree emphatically. Why people are seriously engaging in these threads is beyond me. Discussion forums used to have a general rule: don't feed the trolls.

DLH isn't interested in honest debate. He's interested in control. The more people argue with him, the more he likes it. He's getting exactly what he wants. He needs to feel right, to feel correct. If you show him he's wrong, he won't admit it. He'll just start another useless thread. His arrogance, and his shameless condescension, should be keeping people away, but instead they keep lining up to beat their heads against the wall.

Some of us like to satirize him.
 
... 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." ...​

Are these two sources saying the same thing?

1. "...chew over and over the food which it has taken at some time..."
2. "...eat and swallow their night droppings without chewing..."

Compare to Wikipedia:
Cecotropes are eaten directly from the anus.[19] They usually do not touch the ground. They are not chewed; instead, they are swallowed whole so the mucus is not disturbed.[6] They are held in the fundic region of the stomach for 3 to 6 hours where they continue to ferment.[6][22] Once that is complete, they move into the small intestine[6] where the nutrients are absorbed,[2] about 17 hours after the original meal.[13]

It would appear that the Imperial Bible-Dictionary is wrong--it is not obvious that the hare does in repose chew over and over the food which it has taken at some time, because there is not any chewing involved in consuming cecotropes. Now, if this Imperial Bible-Dictionary--whatever the heck that is--is later truthful in the portion of the claim that "...this action [chewing over and over the food which it has taken at some time] has always been popularly considered a chewing of the cud," then it does not follow from the statement that what rabbits/hares do is chewing the cud.

That is, they say A ==> B, but then we see that one of the other sources the op used says "not A" instead of A and then we look further into it and find confirmation that "not A." So we cannot then use the Imperial Bible-Dictionary's logic to conclude B.
 
the actual point: the Bible makes a biological error
Seriously? A biological error? If the rabbit cud issue were actually intended to be a biology lesson, then sure.

The way I see the rabbit cud matter is this: Someone is ruminating and salivating over the prospect of eating a rabbit or hare or whatever, notices that it kind of looks as if the rabbit or hare or whatever chews a cud, and concludes that rabbit or hare of whatever is therefore legitimate food (besides looking like it might be tasty).

Then someone else says: No, you've got it all wrong. Chewing cud is not sufficient to qualify an animal as acceptable food. The animal also has to have a divided hoof, and a rabbit or hare or whatever doesn't even have a hoof. So, no, you are not to eat it. And stop drooling already. There was simply no need to correct the drooler's notion that the rabbit or hare of whatever chews a cud since the hoof issue was the more efficient way to make clear the injunction against eating rabbits or hares or whatever.

Maybe it is just me, but I never got the impression that any part of the Bible was intended as some sort of scientific treatise. Consequently, all of this Bible versus science stuff strikes me as insane. Or maybe just inane. No, I've got it: insane inanity. This Bible versus science stuff most definitely reveals absolutely nothing about God (except maybe in some sort of via negativa way).
I agree emphatically. Why people are seriously engaging in these threads is beyond me. Discussion forums used to have a general rule: don't feed the trolls.

DLH isn't interested in honest debate. He's interested in control. The more people argue with him, the more he likes it. He's getting exactly what he wants. He needs to feel right, to feel correct. If you show him he's wrong, he won't admit it. He'll just start another useless thread. His arrogance, and his shameless condescension, should be keeping people away, but instead they keep lining up to beat their heads against the wall.

Some of us like to satirize him.
I know. You do a great job of it, by the way. And here I am posting in one of his threads, again, though I have tried to keep my remarks irrelevant and irreverent.

What I refuse to do is try to make an actual argument against him, not because the so-called battle between superstition and science is always no-contest, but because of this particular poster, who I feel (not know, but suspect) is here as the result of some kind of manic compulsion that causes him to feel bullet proof, and on a mission that cannot fail.

Long before your time here, I went through a few manic phases, which were also periods of religious mania in particular, where I claimed Spinoza had led me to God, and subsequently that I had become a Christian. During those times I was not afraid to post even the wildest nonsense, and I was ridiculed by most of the members then; but there was no way I could feel that I'd been bested.

This poster reminds me of me back then, before medication and therapy cleared my head.
 
the actual point: the Bible makes a biological error
Seriously? A biological error? If the rabbit cud issue were actually intended to be a biology lesson, then sure.

The way I see the rabbit cud matter is this: Someone is ruminating and salivating over the prospect of eating a rabbit or hare or whatever, notices that it kind of looks as if the rabbit or hare or whatever chews a cud, and concludes that rabbit or hare of whatever is therefore legitimate food (besides looking like it might be tasty).

Then someone else says: No, you've got it all wrong. Chewing cud is not sufficient to qualify an animal as acceptable food. The animal also has to have a divided hoof, and a rabbit or hare or whatever doesn't even have a hoof. So, no, you are not to eat it. And stop drooling already. There was simply no need to correct the drooler's notion that the rabbit or hare of whatever chews a cud since the hoof issue was the more efficient way to make clear the injunction against eating rabbits or hares or whatever.

Maybe it is just me, but I never got the impression that any part of the Bible was intended as some sort of scientific treatise. Consequently, all of this Bible versus science stuff strikes me as insane. Or maybe just inane. No, I've got it: insane inanity. This Bible versus science stuff most definitely reveals absolutely nothing about God (except maybe in some sort of via negativa way).
I agree emphatically. Why people are seriously engaging in these threads is beyond me. Discussion forums used to have a general rule: don't feed the trolls.

DLH isn't interested in honest debate. He's interested in control. The more people argue with him, the more he likes it. He's getting exactly what he wants. He needs to feel right, to feel correct. If you show him he's wrong, he won't admit it. He'll just start another useless thread. His arrogance, and his shameless condescension, should be keeping people away, but instead they keep lining up to beat their heads against the wall.

Some of us like to satirize him.
I know. You do a great job of it, by the way. And here I am posting in one of his threads, again, though I have tried to keep my remarks irrelevant and irreverent.

What I refuse to do is try to make an actual argument against him, not because the so-called battle between superstition and science is always a no-contest, but because of this particular poster, who I feel (not know, but suspect) is here as the result of some kind of manic compulsion that causes him to feel bullet proof, and on a mission that cannot fail.

Long before your time here, I went through a few manic phases, which were also periods of religious mania in particular, where I claimed Spinoza had led me to God, and subsequently I had become a Christian. During those times I was not afraid to post even the wildest nonsense, and I was ridiculed by most of the members then; but there was no way I could feel that I'd been bested.

This poster reminds me of me back then, before medication and therapy cleared my head.

Another benefit you should consider, however, is the wonderful and explicit step-by-step demolition NoHolyCows did of his nonsense. That sort of eloquence and specificity has merit in its own right, so much so that those who read it might be inspired to a career in science.
 
Rabbits eliminate waste material on a regular basis just like other animals and humans. Fecal matter typically exits a rabbit as a round pellet but will change shape if adequate fiber and water amounts are not ingested. Fecal matter is produced throughout the day as a rabbit is hopping around or visiting the litter box, but these constantly produced fecal pellets are not what a rabbit consumes.

In addition to the regular fecal pellets that rabbits produce during the day, a special type of poop is also excreted in the night. Cecotropes, also referred to as night feces, are a specific kind of poop that is different than regular rabbit stools. Cecotropes are softer, stickier, and are usually not even seen by a rabbit owner, because a rabbit often consumes them almost as they are exiting the body.

The cecotropes are produced in the cecum, a part of the intestinal tract of a rabbit, by Fermentation of the food a rabbit eats. They are also only produced at night, so a rabbit will be seen eating them late at night or early in the morning. Usually, the only time you will see cecotropes in your rabbit's cage or on its fur is if your rabbit is not feeling well and therefore not eating its cecotropes.

Why Do Rabbits Eat Poop?
Cecotropes are full of nutrients that a rabbit needs. These special feces contain more protein and vitamins than normal poops have, so by consuming its cecotropes (and a healthy diet), a rabbit is getting all of the important nutrients that it needs to stay healthy. It is completely normal behavior for rabbits to eat cecotropes at night or early in the morning, but it is not normal for them to eat their normal stools during the day..."



I think the bible is correct categorizing animals 'in context' that ingest food twice... despite the few words in text that gives little explanation in this regard and the use of 'language' of the times.

1. Do you agree that “chewing the cud” refers specifically to the act of regurgitating partially digested food from the stomach to the mouth to be re-chewed, as seen in ruminant animals like cows and sheep?

Yes I agree in terms of todays definition, but there is a crucial element in the modern use of the phrase. With additional words to the phrase 'chewing the cud' i.e. "regurgitating" and "ruminant" that argument is a flawed notion, a big mistake, and misleading... especially when thousands of years before these additional words came to being...

...The Bible coined the phrase first!

How do you know even with all the science available, that the phrase means what you (atheists in general) think it means?

2. Can you point to a single modern zoologist or veterinary textbook that classifies rabbits or hares as ruminants, or states that they “chew the cud” in any scientific sense of the term?
3. If a rabbit consuming cecotropes (which are feces) counts as “chewing the cud,” would that also mean animals like dogs, gorillas, or elephants—who also engage in coprophagy or food regurgitation—should be classified as cud-chewers too?

Like the above response, I don't think the classification of animals 'chewing the cud' meant rabbits were also ruminants like cows, which would be an obvious mistake. Defining the phrase with "regurgitation" and "ruminant" to rabbits and cows is not the particular context the bible is implying as I see it. It is grouping these two with something different though relating in common:

Both Rabbits and cows when eating food goes through the fermentation process then stored. With cows, fermentation takes place in the rumen, a part of the stomach, and in Rabbits, fermentation in the intestinal tract. Both Rabbits and Cows eat the processed food.

4. When the Bible groups hares with ruminants like cows and goats and uses the exact same wording—“chews the cud”—why should we assume the meaning is different for hares only after we discover that hares don’t actually do it?

The bible coined the phrase first remember? It is their definition/phrase according to them! Again, It doesn't mean the bible emphasizes this on regurgitation and ruminant in both rabbits and cows. That argument should be redundant imo.

5. If the Bible had said “the hare chews the cud and has a split hoof,” would you still say it was just “language of the time,” or would you finally admit that would be a biologically incorrect statement?

If it were actually the case I would admit to either.

6. Is there any possible biological claim the Bible could make that, if proven wrong by modern science, you would admit was simply an error?

NHC

Yes of course, if we can be sure we understand the claims depending on the specifics of the context as I mention previously above.
 
Last edited:
Rabbits eliminate waste material on a regular basis just like other animals and humans. Fecal matter typically exits a rabbit as a round pellet but will change shape if adequate fiber and water amounts are not ingested. Fecal matter is produced throughout the day as a rabbit is hopping around or visiting the litter box, but these constantly produced fecal pellets are not what a rabbit consumes.

In addition to the regular fecal pellets that rabbits produce during the day, a special type of poop is also excreted in the night. Cecotropes, also referred to as night feces, are a specific kind of poop that is different than regular rabbit stools. Cecotropes are softer, stickier, and are usually not even seen by a rabbit owner, because a rabbit often consumes them almost as they are exiting the body.

The cecotropes are produced in the cecum, a part of the intestinal tract of a rabbit, by Fermentation of the food a rabbit eats. They are also only produced at night, so a rabbit will be seen eating them late at night or early in the morning. Usually, the only time you will see cecotropes in your rabbit's cage or on its fur is if your rabbit is not feeling well and therefore not eating its cecotropes.

Why Do Rabbits Eat Poop?
Cecotropes are full of nutrients that a rabbit needs. These special feces contain more protein and vitamins than normal poops have, so by consuming its cecotropes (and a healthy diet), a rabbit is getting all of the important nutrients that it needs to stay healthy. It is completely normal behavior for rabbits to eat cecotropes at night or early in the morning, but it is not normal for them to eat their normal stools during the day..."



I think the bible is correct categorizing animals 'in context' that ingest food twice... despite the few words in text that gives little explanation in this regard and the use of 'language' of the times.

1. Do you agree that “chewing the cud” refers specifically to the act of regurgitating partially digested food from the stomach to the mouth to be re-chewed, as seen in ruminant animals like cows and sheep?

Yes I agree in terms of todays definition, but there is key element in the modern use. With additional words to the phrase 'chewing the cud' i.e. "regurgitating" and "ruminant" that argument is a flawed notion, a big mistake, and misleading... especially when thousands of years before these additional words came to being...

...Because the bible coined the phrase first!

How do you know even with all the science available, that the phrase means what you (atheists in general) think it means?

2. Can you point to a single modern zoologist or veterinary textbook that classifies rabbits or hares as ruminants, or states that they “chew the cud” in any scientific sense of the term?
3. If a rabbit consuming cecotropes (which are feces) counts as “chewing the cud,” would that also mean animals like dogs, gorillas, or elephants—who also engage in coprophagy or food regurgitation—should be classified as cud-chewers too?

Like the above response, I don't think the classification of animals 'chewing the cud' meant rabbits were also ruminants like cows, which would be an obvious mistake. Defining the phrase with "regurgitation" and "ruminant" to rabbits and cows is not the particular context the bible is implying as I see it. It is grouping these two with something in common:

Both Rabbits and cows when eating food goes through the fermentation process then stored. With cows, fermentation takes place in the rumen, a part of the stomach, and in Rabbits, fermentation in the intestinal tract. Both Rabbits and Cows eat the processed food.

4. When the Bible groups hares with ruminants like cows and goats and uses the exact same wording—“chews the cud”—why should we assume the meaning is different for hares only after we discover that hares don’t actually do it?

The bible coined the phrase first remember? It is their definition/phrase. Again, It doesn't mean the bible emphasizes this on regurgitation and ruminant in both rabbits and cows. That argument should be redundant imo.

5. If the Bible had said “the hare chews the cud and has a split hoof,” would you still say it was just “language of the time,” or would you finally admit that would be a biologically incorrect statement?

If it were actually the case I would admit to either.

6. Is there any possible biological claim the Bible could make that, if proven wrong by modern science, you would admit was simply an error?

NHC

Yes of course, if we can be sure we understand the claims depending on the specifics of the context as I mention previously above.

How is rabbit cud even a discussion? Is this all you have?

Please provide evidence for a first man and first woman (there wasn’t any; only a first population), for a literal Garden of Eden in which all was hunky-dory (there was no such place or time; the world has always been organism-eat-organism) and for God (there isn’t any — any evidence, or any God).
 
How is rabbit cud even a discussion?

Because that's where we're at as a society.

"A rabbit is not regurgitating its poop."
"Wrong, you have to look at the original Hebrew word for chewing its poop."
"I don't want to do that. None of this is worth it."
"Yes, you have to. Think carefully and imagine the rabbit! Here's a photo I made with AI to help you."
 
Back
Top Bottom