Author Topic: Error in the Bible? I cant find a solution to this one... (Read 4082 times)

Jamie · « **on:** June 20, 2012, 07:14:24 AM »

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.

lefebvre_fan · « **Reply #1 on:** June 20, 2012, 08:03:03 AM »

Quote from: Jamie

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!

JohnGrey · « **Reply #2 on:** June 20, 2012, 11:04:14 AM »

Quote from: lefebvre_fan

Quote from: Jamie
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?

lefebvre_fan · « **Reply #3 on:** June 20, 2012, 02:36:28 PM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

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?

Well, from what I can tell, the author of that website isn't arguing that the verse in question is "a phenomenological description by someone ignorant of the actual cecotrophy in which Lagomorpha engage" (as you put it), although he does mention that as being one of the weaker arguments that have been made in defense of this verse.

No, the author's argument seems to center on the idea that the Hebrew word being used in this verse, gerah, has a broader meaning than that which it is generally given by Biblical lexicographers, and can refer to refection as well as rumination. He also argues that the Hebrew word 'alah, which in Strong's is defined as 'to bring up, to ascend,' could also have the broader meaning of movement in general. Now whether his arguments have any merit is a whole other question. He doesn't appear to be a scholar; indeed, he seems to make a lot of assumptions. Perhaps I could have found a better source.

lefebvre_fan · « **Reply #4 on:** June 20, 2012, 02:41:35 PM »

Easton's Bible Dictionary gives the weaker argument:

Quote

Hare

(Heb. 'arnebeth) was prohibited as food according to the Mosaic law (Lev. 11:6; Deut. 14:7), "because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof." The habit of this animal is to grind its teeth and move its jaw as if it actually chewed the cud. But, like the cony (q.v.), it is not a ruminant with four stomachs, but a rodent like the squirrel, rat, etc. Moses speaks of it according to appearance. It is interdicted because, though apparently chewing the cud, it did not divide the hoof.

As does Smith's:

Quote

Hare

(Heb. arnebeth) occurs only in (Leviticus 11:6) and Deuteronomy 14:7 Amongst the animals disallowed as food by the Mosaic law. The hare is at this day called arnel by the Arabs in Palestine and Syria. It was erroneously thought by the ancient Jews to have chewed the cud. They were no doubt misled as in the case of the shaphfan (hyrax), by the habit these animals have of moving the jaw about.