Jamie
Reputation: 6
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 484
|
Hi everyone,
I was recently looking over some ridiculous atheistic replies to a religious topic on a website and someone raised a point which apparently showed error in the Bible.
Every time this happens I can simply look up the Haydock or the Vulgate (with a good Latin->English dictionary) and find the error in the atheists thinking. However, I have just stumbled upon a quote I can't work out.
The quote is from Leviticus 11 verse 6 and it reads thus: "The hare also: for that too cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof."
The Haydock refers to the hoof but ignores the chewing of the cud. Hares don't chew their cud - so what is going on here? I know that the answer to this conundrum exists because far wiser men and saints in the past have dealt with every possible controversy in the Sacred Scriptures but, alas, I can't find their arguments online.
Can someone please explain this verse to me? I have looked at the Vulgate and the DR (Haydock) to no avail so far.
Thanks.
|
|
| Posted Jun 20, 2012, 1:14 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
lefebvre_fan
Reputation: 213
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 446
|
| Jamie said: | Hi everyone,
I was recently looking over some ridiculous atheistic replies to a religious topic on a website and someone raised a point which apparently showed error in the Bible.
Every time this happens I can simply look up the Haydock or the Vulgate (with a good Latin->English dictionary) and find the error in the atheists thinking. However, I have just stumbled upon a quote I can't work out.
The quote is from Leviticus 11 verse 6 and it reads thus: "The hare also: for that too cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof."
The Haydock refers to the hoof but ignores the chewing of the cud. Hares don't chew their cud - so what is going on here? I know that the answer to this conundrum exists because far wiser men and saints in the past have dealt with every possible controversy in the Sacred Scriptures but, alas, I can't find their arguments online.
Can someone please explain this verse to me? I have looked at the Vulgate and the DR (Haydock) to no avail so far.
Thanks. |
This is why it's sometimes helpful to refer to the work of Protestants, when Catholic sources don't appear to answer the question. Without discrediting our Catholic scholars, Protestants seem to have a firmer grasp of the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Old Testament, and this often proves illuminating.
Look, for instance, at this page: Is the Bible Wrong About a Rabbit/Hare Chewing Cud? Hopefully this answers your question!
|
.........................
"The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age."--G. K. Chesterton
|
| Posted Jun 20, 2012, 2:03 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
JohnGrey
Reputation: 362
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 450
|
| lefebvre_fan said: | | Jamie said: | Hi everyone,
I was recently looking over some ridiculous atheistic replies to a religious topic on a website and someone raised a point which apparently showed error in the Bible.
Every time this happens I can simply look up the Haydock or the Vulgate (with a good Latin->English dictionary) and find the error in the atheists thinking. However, I have just stumbled upon a quote I can't work out.
The quote is from Leviticus 11 verse 6 and it reads thus: "The hare also: for that too cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof."
The Haydock refers to the hoof but ignores the chewing of the cud. Hares don't chew their cud - so what is going on here? I know that the answer to this conundrum exists because far wiser men and saints in the past have dealt with every possible controversy in the Sacred Scriptures but, alas, I can't find their arguments online.
Can someone please explain this verse to me? I have looked at the Vulgate and the DR (Haydock) to no avail so far.
Thanks. |
This is why it's sometimes helpful to refer to the work of Protestants, when Catholic sources don't appear to answer the question. Without discrediting our Catholic scholars, Protestants seem to have a firmer grasp of the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Old Testament, and this often proves illuminating.
Look, for instance, at this page: Is the Bible Wrong About a Rabbit/Hare Chewing Cud? Hopefully this answers your question! |
So, let me see if I have this right...it's perfectly alright for the the mistaken classification of hares as ruminants to be explained away as being a phenomenological description by someone ignorant of the actual cecotrophy in which Lagomorpha engage, but the geocentric movement of the Sun around the Earth or the Hexameron must be viewed as being absolutely literal and scientifically factual? Does that not strike anyone else as particularly disingenuous or is it just me?
|
|
| Posted Jun 20, 2012, 5:04 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
|
|
