My Accuracy Challenge

Which is the more accurate source of information?

  • The Bible

  • The real world


Results are only viewable after voting.

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,674
5,236
✟301,750.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I give up, do they?

No they don't.

I don't think they do.

And rabbits aren't even mentioned in the Bible.

And once again you are quibbling over minutiae.

Leviticus 11:5,6
11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.​

It mentions hares and coneys. And what is a coney? According to Wikipedia, it is a rabbit. Coney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even Answers in Genesis seems to think that it's a rabbit, so much so that they've got a page in a rather lame attempt to dispel the contradiction...

So stop playing games and answer the question.
 
Upvote 0

Aureus

Regular Member
May 20, 2014
801
61
✟9,262.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
Would this explain the NDE experiences of brain dead people?

Yes. In order for someone to tell us about their 'Near Death Experience', they have to have recovered. There is absolutely no reason at all to believe that they had any kind of experience when they were brain dead. It is far more likely that what we call a near death experience is just the jumbled nonsensical interpretation/experience/memory that our brain creates as it comes back to consciousness.

Edit : welp, thread has 3 pages, not 1.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,050
51,497
Guam
✟4,907,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Even Answers in Genesis seems to think that it's a rabbit,
Answers in Genesis wasn't there.

Neither were the contributors to Wikipedia.

Neither were you nor I.

And neither, in fact, was Mr. Linnaeus.

The "coney," like the "gopher wood," could have been something indigenous and/or proprietary to just that period of time (like the dispensations) and/or to that specific area (known as ecological niches).
 
Upvote 0

Aureus

Regular Member
May 20, 2014
801
61
✟9,262.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
Answers in Genesis wasn't there.

Neither were the contributors to Wikipedia.

Neither were you nor I.

And neither, in fact, was Mr. Linnaeus.

The "coney," like the "gopher wood," could have been something indigenous and/or proprietary to just that period of time (like the dispensations) and/or to that specific area (known as ecological niches).

No.

Coney is a specific word that originated in the 12th century and we know exactly what it means. It means rabbit. Your Kings James Bible was written in 1611. 'Coney' means rabbit. There is literally no question as to its meaning.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,050
51,497
Guam
✟4,907,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
'Coney' means rabbit. There is literally no question as to its meaning.
The so-accurate NIV must have a question then ... as it translates this "specific word that you know exactly what is meant" as ...

Leviticus 11:5 [NIV] The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.
 
Upvote 0

Aureus

Regular Member
May 20, 2014
801
61
✟9,262.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
The so-accurate NIV must have a question then ... as it translates this "specific word that you know exactly what is meant" as ...

Leviticus 11:5 [NIV] The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.

Since when were we arguing about some other version of the bible or translation choices from the hebrew? We were arguing "coney." Coney is an english word that is *still* in usage in England colloquially for Rabbits. The Kings James Version uses 'Coney' because they thought that's what the hebrew translated as.

Regardless, we know what a Hyrax is. Its not some fabled unknown creature. Its also the accurate translation. They also don't chew their own cud.

Though are you now saying AV, that the Kings James Bible is not the one true and correct in every way word of God?
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The so-accurate NIV must have a question then ... as it translates this "specific word that you know exactly what is meant" as ...

Leviticus 11:5 [NIV] The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.

Thank you for admitting that sometimes another translation can be preferable to the King James translation.

Surely you didn't put out a red herring, something you don't yourself accept, as an argument for your own point of view? You wouldn't do THAT . . . it would be inconsistent.

Some King James proponents go so far as to assert that the KJV is God's chosen inerrant translation for the English language. I'm so glad to see you are not one of those. If you were, you would confine your arguement to defending and discussing the word "Coney".
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,050
51,497
Guam
✟4,907,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Thank you for admitting that sometimes another translation can be preferable to the King James translation.

Surely you didn't put out a red herring, something you don't yourself accept, as an argument for your own point of view? You wouldn't do THAT . . . it would be inconsistent.

Some King James proponents go so far as to assert that the KJV is God's chosen inerrant translation for the English language. I'm so glad to see you are not one of those. If you were, you would confine your arguement to defending and discussing the word "Coney".
You guys don't get it, do you?

I don't believe "rabbit" ... and I don't believe "hyrax."

Both are not what the KJ writers wrote.

If "rabbit" is the correct word, why do those with more authority (i.e., the NIV writers) disagree with him?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Did you know that rabbits eat some of their poo which is undigested giving rise to the similarity of those who regurgitate. Both are referred too as chewing their cud

It is never called chewing the cud except by creationists trying to defend the inerrancy of the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Aureus

Regular Member
May 20, 2014
801
61
✟9,262.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
You guys don't get it, do you?

I don't believe "rabbit" ... and I don't believe "hyrax."

Both are not what the KJ writers wrote.

If "rabbit" is the correct word, why do those with more authority (i.e., the NIV writers) disagree with him?


There was a hebrew word. The KJ writers were not familiar with the 'hyrax', they are not native to or present in England. They thought the correct translation of the word was 'coney'. Coney is an English word, still used today, that means 'Rabbit.'

The NIV writers do not disagree with the meaning of 'coney', the NIV writers disagree that 'coney' is an accurate translation of the hebrew. They correctly translate it to "hyrax" a creature that is native to that area of the middle east.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,588
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
The so-accurate NIV must have a question then ... as it translates this "specific word that you know exactly what is meant" as ...

Leviticus 11:5 [NIV] The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.
There was a hebrew word. The KJ writers were not familiar with the 'hyrax', they are not native to or present in England. They thought the correct translation of the word was 'coney'. Coney is an English word, still used today, that means 'Rabbit.'

The NIV writers do not disagree with the meaning of 'coney', the NIV writers disagree that 'coney' is an accurate translation of the hebrew. They correctly translate it to "hyrax" a creature that is native to that area of the middle east.
The NIV is the Bible I started out with. I have since graduated to studying the Hebrew and Greek texts myself.
[Might be one reason I am a "Preterist" ehehe]

Kosher animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leviticus 11:3-8 and Deuteronomy 14:4-8 both give the same general set of rules for identifying which land animals (Hebrew: בהמות Behemoth) are ritually clean. According to these, anything that "chews the cud" and has a cloven hoof is ritually clean, but those animals that only chew the cud or only have cloven hooves are unclean.
  • The camel, for chewing the cud without its hooves being divided.[1][2]
  • The hyrax, for chewing the cud without having cloven hooves.[2][3] (The Hebrew term for this animal - שפן shaphan - has been translated by older English versions of the bible as coney; the existence of the hyrax wasn't known to early English translators. The coney was an exclusively European animal, not present in Canaan, while the shaphan was described by the Book of Proverbs as living on rocks[4] like the hyrax, but unlike the coney.)
  • The hare, for chewing the cud without having cloven hooves.[2][5]
The words "rabbit", "hare", or "coney" may sometimes appear as terms for the hyrax in some English translations of the Bible. Early English translators had no knowledge of the hyrax (Hebrew שָּׁפָן shaphan),[14] and therefore no name for them.
There are references to hyraxes in the Old Testament,[15] particularly in Leviticus 11, where they are described as lacking a split hoof and therefore being not kosher. The NIV translation incorrectly claims that the hyrax chews its cud. Some of the modern translations refer to them as rock badgers. Shaphan was also the name of a scribe of King Josiah.

http://biblehub.com/topical/c/coney.htm

Coney (shaphan), a gregarious animal of the class Pachydermata, which is found in Palestine, living in the caves and clefts of the rocks, and has been erroneously identified with the rabbit or coney.
Its scientific name as Hyrax syriacus . The hyrax satisfies exactly the expressions in (Psalms 104:18; Proverbs 30:26)
Its color is gray or brown on the back, white on the belly; it is like the alpine marmot, scarcely of the size of the domestic cat, having long hair, a very short tail and round ears. It is found on Lebanon and in the Jordan and Dead Sea valleys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyrax

All modern hyraxes are members of the family Procaviidae (the only living family within the Hyracoidea) and are found only in Africa and the Middle East. In the past, however, hyraxes were more diverse, and widespread. The order first appears in the fossil record at a site in the Middle East in the form of Dimaitherium, 37 million years ago.[17]


Hyrax on Mount Kenya




.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The NIV is the Bible I started out with. I have since graduated to studying the Hebrew and Greek texts myself.
[Might be one reason I am a "Preterist" ehehe]

Btw, are we allowed to eat rabbit and/or camel meat?

Deu 14:7
'Only, this ye do not eat, of those bringing up the cud,
and of those dividing the cloven hoof: the camel, and the hare, and the rabbit,
for they are bringing up the cud, but the hoof have not divided; unclean they are to you;

Kosher animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leviticus 11:3-8 and Deuteronomy 14:4-8 both give the same general set of rules for identifying which land animals (Hebrew: בהמות Behemoth) are ritually clean.



According to these, anything that "chews the cud" and has a cloven hoof is ritually clean, but those animals that only chew the cud or only have cloven hooves are unclean.
  • The camel, for chewing the cud without its hooves being divided.[1][2]
  • The hyrax, for chewing the cud without having cloven hooves.[2][3] (The Hebrew term for this animal - שפן shaphan - has been translated by older English versions of the bible as coney; the existence of the hyrax wasn't known to early English translators. The coney was an exclusively European animal, not present in Canaan, while the shaphan was described by the Book of Proverbs as living on rocks[4] like the hyrax, but unlike the coney.)
  • The hare, for chewing the cud without having cloven hooves.[2][5]
The words "rabbit", "hare", or "coney" may sometimes appear as terms for the hyrax in some English translations of the Bible. Early English translators had no knowledge of the hyrax (Hebrew שָּׁפָן shaphan),[14] and therefore no name for them.
There are references to hyraxes in the Old Testament,[15] particularly in Leviticus 11, where they are described as lacking a split hoof and therefore being not kosher. The NIV translation incorrectly claims that the hyrax chews its cud. Some of the modern translations refer to them as rock badgers. Shaphan was also the name of a scribe of King Josiah.

Hyrax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All modern hyraxes are members of the family Procaviidae (the only living family within the Hyracoidea) and are found only in Africa and the Middle East. In the past, however, hyraxes were more diverse, and widespread. The order first appears in the fossil record at a site in the Middle East in the form of Dimaitherium, 37 million years ago.[17]


Hyrax on Mount Kenya




.

Inerrancy defenders will assert the rabbit habit of chewing its own feces counts as chewing the cud. Does the Hyrax have the same habit as the rabbit in this respect? If anyone knows, please comment.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,588
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Inerrancy defenders will assert the rabbit habit of chewing its own feces counts as chewing the cud. Does the Hyrax have the same habit as the rabbit in this respect? If anyone knows, please comment.
Here is a rathe neat site concerning the coney and hyrax:

http://biblehub.net/searchtopical.php?q=hyrax

Topical Bible: Coney

◄ Coney ►

Jump to: Smith's • ATS • ISBE • Easton's • Webster's • Concordance • Thesaurus • Hebrew • Library • Subtopics • Terms



(shaphan), a gregarious animal of the class Pachydermata, which is found in Palestine, living in the caves and clefts of the rocks, and has been erroneously identified with the rabbit or coney. Its scientific name as Hyrax syriacus . The hyrax satisfies exactly the expressions in (Psalms 104:18; Proverbs 30:26) Its color is gray or brown on the back, white on the belly; it is like the alpine marmot, scarcely of the size of the domestic cat, having long hair, a very short tail and round ears. It is found on Lebanon and in the Jordan and Dead Sea valleys.
Its scientific name as Hyrax syriacus . The ... 7). The animal intended by this
name is known among naturalists as the Hyrax Syriacus. ...

The animal intended by this name is known among naturalists as the Hyrax Syriacus. It is neither a ruminant nor a rodent, but is regarded as akin to the rhinoceros. When it is said to "chew the cud," the Hebrew word so used does not necessarily imply the possession of a ruminant stomach. "The lawgiver speaks according to appearances; and no one can watch the constant motion of the little creature's jaws, as it sits continually working its teeth, without recognizing the naturalness of the expression" (Tristram, Natural History of the Bible).
It is about the size and color of a rabbit, though clumsier in structure, and without a tail. Its feet are not formed for digging, and therefore it has its home not in burrows but in the clefts of the rocks. "Coney" is an obsolete English word for "rabbit."

But whereas hares have a pair of front teeth on each jaw, the hyrax has one pair above and two below. These teeth differ also in structure from those of the hare and rabbit, not having the persistent pulp which e
nables the rabbit's front teeth to grow continually as they are worn away. They do not hide among herbage like hares, nor burrow like rabbits, but live in holes or clefts of the rock, frequently in the faces of steep cliffs. Neither the hyrax nor the hare is a ruminant, as seems to be implied in Leviticus 11:5 and Deuteronomy 14:7, but their manner of chewing their food may readily have led them to be thought to chew the cud.

The hyrax has four toes in front and three behind (the same number as in the tapir and in some fossil members of the horse family), all furnished with nails that are almost like hoofs, except the inner hind toes, which have claws. The hyraxes constitute a family of ungulates and, in spite of their small size, have points of resemblance to elephants or rhinoceroses, but are not closely allied to these or to any other known animals.



.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,050
51,497
Guam
✟4,907,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Did you know that rabbits eat some of their poo which is undigested giving rise to the similarity of those who regurgitate. Both are referred too as chewing their cud
I'm sure there are explanations other than your basic run-of-the-mill GOD GOTTIT WRONG, that these guys are so used to.

If they would just slow down and set their zeal to criticize aside, they could probably figure most of this stuff out on their own.

And if not, I can always pull rank on them and say: THE BIBLE SAYS IT, THAT SETTLES IT.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I'm sure there are explanations other than your basic run-of-the-mill GOD GOTTIT WRONG, that these guys are so used to.

If they would just slow down and set their zeal to criticize aside, they could probably figure most of this stuff out on their own.

And if not, I can always pull rank on them and say: THE BIBLE SAYS IT, THAT SETTLES IT.

Actually that is the way that AV admits defeat.

We all know that he is wrong and even AV admits it in his own way at times.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,050
51,497
Guam
✟4,907,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It is never called chewing the cud except by creationists trying to defend the inerrancy of the Bible.
"Is never" being the key phrase, Paul?

I noticed you didn't say, "was never."

Perhaps it was back in the 12th century (or whenever), when you weren't there?
 
Upvote 0