CathInfo.com

This guy gives an argument similar to the first one I posted, with the added distinction between the use of the Hebrew words garar and 'alah:

Quote

RABBITS DO NOT CHEW CUD
(KJV) Contradiction: And the hare, because he cheweth the cud... Leviticus 11:6

The error in this translation is the use of the word cud from the Hebrew word gerah which basically means partially digested material. Rabbits
do alah (move) their gerah (undigested food) with the fact they eat their own feces in order to reabsorb the nutrients of the undigested
material. This process, known as refection (See: note 2a), differs from our modern definition of the process of rumination (See: note 2). In
this case, the translators of the KJV used the word they felt best suited this process although it technically is not what we know today as
chewing cud.

Skeptic Interjection: Rabbits do not chew their pellets- they swallow them whole.
Answer: The actual infinitive literally meaning to chew the cud is gerar (See: note 2) and is only used in Leviticus 11:7 as a reference to cud
chewing. Gerar is not the term used when referring to the refection process of rabbits/hares in Leviticus 11:6. The word used in this case is
alah which does not remotely mean chew (though the translators of the KJV thought it did!). Alah encompasses many definitions referring to
movement of some sort (to ascend, to depart, to withdraw, etc.) but never as a reference to chewing. Critics view the English translations
which state chew the cud in both verses and think Ah ha! But they ignore the original Hebrew which differentiates between the two
processes. I cannot be anymore clear than this. Skeptics are trying to correctly merge 17th century A.D. English definitions with 15th century
B.C. Hebrew terminology but common sense tells us there are many errors in this line of thinking.

http://www.thedevineevidence.com/skeptic_contradictions.html

I think that's the best I can find. Sorry.

That is actually a rather thorough and convincing case.  I do not see how somebody of good will could not be convinced by it.  The translation problem might come from the Vulgate, which says "lepus quoque nam et ipse ruminat sed ungulam non dividit."  The Oxford Dicitionary says this about the etymology of the word ruminate : "Origin:
mid 17th century: from Latin ruminant- 'chewing over again', from the verb ruminari, from rumen 'throat' (see rumen)."

Now, why would Saint Jerome have chosen this word, meaning "to chew again" ?  Well, assuming he was using the Septuagint informed by the original Hebrew manuscripts, written in a language he learned in the desert, let us consult the Septuagint.  The relevant verses are as follows :

"11:5 και τον δασυποδα οτι αναγει μηρυκισμον τουτο και οπλην ου διχηλει ακαθαρτον τουτο υμιν
11:6 και τον χοιρογρυλλιον οτι αναγει μηρυκισμον τουτο και οπλην ου διχηλει ακαθαρτον τουτο υμιν."

Now, apparently they are reversed in the Septuagint, since 11:6 refers to the "χοιρογρυλλιον," which in my reading of the Greek transliterates into English as "choirogryllion (choirogryllios)," which in the Vulgate must be the "chyrogryllius" of Leviticus XI, v, which in the Douay-Rheims is called the "cherogrillus."  The commentator of the Douay-Rheims says that the cherogrillus, according to St Jerome, is "another kind of animal common in Palestine, which lives in the holes of rocks or in the earth," and not a rabbit or a hedgehog.  Therefore, we must look instead at 11:5.

The animal mentioned in 11:5 is the "δασυποδα/dasypoda," which is, of course, the rabbit/hare, which is then said to "αναγει" -- which means "to bring up/bring forth/go out/guide to" and many other meanings, certainly implying movement like the posted comments have already affirmed -- and "μηρυκισμον" -- which means "to ruminate," which we have seen means "to chew again."

I would be curious to know what the original meaning of the Greek word "μηρυκισμος" is, since it was chosen as the translation of the word "alah," which means to move, apparently in the sense of progressing or bringing forward.

Likewise, the word "gerah," after some brief research, apparently was a unit of measurement in ancient Hebrew, such as the smallest unit of currency -- equivalent to a penny -- or else a "grain," such as a "grain of wheat" :

"[gerah -- ]a bean, probably of the carob tree, the smallest weight, and also the smallest piece of money, among the Hebrews, equal to the twentieth part of a shekel (Ex. 30:13; Lev. 27:25; Num. 3:47). This word came into use in the same way as our word "grain," from a grain of wheat."

Given this meaning, it seems to me that the word could be understood in the sense of "bit," which would signify in this instance a "mouthful."

Thus, the meaning seems to be that the hare/rabbit moves forward its [not fully digested] mouthful in the digestion process, which was wisely written by Moses in the original Hebrew as "ki-ma'alat gerah," so to retain the meaning that he intended, which cannot be said to be erroneous, despite its original sense in Hebrew being obscured by later Greek, Latin, and then English translations, which no doubt were made with the only appropriate words those languages contain -- most of which derive from experience in settled agricultural communities, whereas the Hebrews in the time of the Patriarchs lived in tents in the deserts of North Africa and Southwest Asia.

How all of this would lead somebody to believe that the meaning assigned by the Church to those passages that deal with the progress of the heavenly bodies -- the "alah" of the heavenly bodies, if you will -- is somehow false, I do not know.

Furthermore, it seems clear that St Jerome was not using the same categories of latter day taxonomists since Carolus Linneaus.  Why would somebody try to discredit the translations of Saint Jerome and the Seventy according to modern taxonomical categories ?  Apparently the ancient world had a broader understanding of these things than modern scientists -- who seem to be unable to imagine that their categories may arbitrary and less than objective.  Catholics would do well to not give modern science more credit than it is due, especially when it leads to the discredit of Saints and the authority of the Church.

For the record, I am not well-versed in the Old Testament and do not know Greek or Latin -- I can only read the Greek alphabet from my brief time in Greece.  Otherwise, all research was done over the course of half an hour looking at the Septuagint and the Hebrew texts on the internet.

There is nothing objective* about taxonomic classification, it is based on demonstrable morphology.  Hares, camels and hyraxes have dissimilar digestive systems.  Their only commonality is an observable behavior which seems consistent when, in fact, it most likely isn't.

*should read "subjective"

I think the best explanation is that the Bible, while divinely inspired, is a book of spiritual truths, not scientific truths. Sorry the rabbit eats its feces not cud, the earth goes around the sun not the other way around, etc. The fact that the divinely inspired human authors got their science wrong does absolutely nothing to negate the spiritual truths in the Bible, namely that God is all and is in all, that His son died for our sins and only through him can we be saved, etc etc. People seem to think that because Scripture is inspired, that it must be completely without scientific error. Why? Who cares? The point of scripture is to lead to belief in and obedience to God, nothing more, nothing less. The Bible is without error- where we NEED it to be. It will never say Christ died for our sins except those of Jason Smith, who Christ can't stand. It will never say that God is not mostly-mighty, or that anything that is necessary for salvation is not necessary. At least thats the kind of inerrancy that I see it having. People are WAY to literal with a book that was specifically written for nomadic people living several thousand years ago...