Rabbits do "chew the cud".

[Bungle_Bear]

God calls it a cud. Therefore it is a cud.

You can support that claim, I assume?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You can support that claim, I assume?

That was my final statement.

 

[Hank77]

OK, let's go to definitions.....

"Cecotropes /siːˈkɒtrəpiːz/, also caecotrophia /siːˈkɒtrəfiːz/, caecal pellets, or night feces, are the product of the cecum..." (Cecotrope - Wikipedia)

Cud: "food that has been eaten by an animal with more than one stomach, such as a cow, and that comes back into the animal's mouth to be chewed again before going into the second stomach" (cud Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary)

It would be nice if you'd acknowledge your error, but I will accept silence as a tacit acceptance


You can redefine the word however you want. But unless you can demonstrate that's what the actual meaning is then you're going nowhere.

No error. We have both used valid sources for the definition of the words feces and cecotropes.

God's laws were given to man not as a scientific definition but relating to what man observed. Observing the chewing of a rabbit is like observing a cow chewing it's cud. God made it clear that though the rabbit chews in like fashion it doesn't have a split hoof.
Maybe you would prefer that God went into a scientific explanation of the different anatomy of these animals and the difference in how they go about reusing their food but He didn't.
I suppose you could ask Him why He didn't.

 

[tas8831]

Don't judge the book by it's cover.

I'm not - I am judging it by its silly, meandering plot, lack of character development, and the fact that all of its chapters have no conclusions.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm not - I am judging it by its silly, meandering plot, lack of character development, and the fact that all of its chapters have no conclusions.

Your opinion is certainly justified, based on what I post on the forums. But know this; these forums are my playpen, not my workshop.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

That was my final statement.

So your support for the claim "God calls it a cud" is the claim "God calls it a cud"? Well, I've seen some poor arguments before but that is one of the worst ever.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No error. We have both used valid sources for the definition of the words feces and cecotropes.

The difference being that the definitions I used support my position where your partial definition doesn't support your position.

 

[Hank77]

The difference being that the definitions I used support my position where your partial definition doesn't support your position.

You can argue with God if you like. Ask Him what He considers cud. Ask Him what He or even Moses meant by saying cud chewing.
If you think something like this will turn a Christian away from their faith you are very mistaken.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So your support for the claim "God calls it a cud" is the claim "God calls it a cud"? Well, I've seen some poor arguments before but that is one of the worst ever.

I live by the words of God*....works for me.

*Imperfectly of course.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You can argue with God if you like. Ask Him what He considers cud. Ask Him what He or even Moses meant by saying cud chewing.
If you think something like this will turn a Christian away from their faith you are very mistaken.

I have no interest in turning anyone away from their faith. But i do have an interest in honesty and accuracy. If you want to claim that man made words mean something other than the man made definition you better be able to support that claim.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I live by the words of God*....works for me.

*Imperfectly of course.

The problem is that man defines cud and feces as separate things. If God had wanted a word to encompass both why didn't he inspire the author to create and use such a word?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The problem is that man defines cud and feces as separate things. If God had wanted a word to encompass both why didn't he inspire the author to create and use such a word?

The bible says the rabbit chews the cud, not the feces.

 

[Hank77]

I have no interest in turning anyone away from their faith. But i do have an interest in honesty and accuracy. If you want to claim that man made words mean something other than the man made definition you better be able to support that claim.

If you were really interested in honesty and accuracy you would at least attempt to define the word as it was written in Hebrew, not modern English. The definition of the word cud [English translation], for the purpose of studying the Bible, should be defined by the Bible, not a modern English dictionary written thousands of years later.
My answer to you...post 43
You can keep repeating yourself, I don't intend to. Have a fruitful day.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If you were really interested in honesty and accuracy you would at least attempt to define the word as it was written in Hebrew, not modern English. The definition of the word cud [English translation], for the purpose of studying the Bible, should be defined by the Bible, not a modern English dictionary written thousands of years later.
My answer to you...post 43
You can keep repeating yourself, I don't intend to. Have a fruitful day.

Oooh, I was waiting for you to bring the Hebrew word up again. I'll allow you to shoot yourself in the foot rather than shooting you down myself. Please, tell us all what the Hebrew word is and what its etymology is.......

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The bible says the rabbit chews the cud, not the feces.

It does indeed. And when we look up the definition of cud we find that it has a specific meaning which applies only to ruminants. Rabbits are not ruminants.

Would you like to stop digging now, or is your hole not deep enough yet?

 

[Francis Drake]

Praise God, having digested all the "crap" on this thread I know I've finally found the perfect panel of experts I need to solve a great theological problem, and my question is surely far more significant to mankind than kosher rabbits.

I am cruelly tormented about the subject of coffee.
Is coffee kosher?
Not any coffee, but Kopi-Luwak or Civet cat coffee.

Kopi Luwak | Luwak Coffee | Civet Cat Coffee | Civet Coffee | Cat Poop Coffee
Kopi Luwak - Wikipedia

Civet Cat Feces
After about 24 to 36 hours the coffee beans eaten by the palm civet cat are defecated. In most parts of the world excrement from wild animals is considered waste. But in Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines civet cat feces are seen as gold. This is because the coffee beans departed the civet’s digestive tract almost unaffected, but as noted in the previous article, some fermentation during the digestion process occurs in the beans. According to scientists, this adds to the special flavor of the coffee made from civet cat beans. Today, these coffee beans are a luxury good and sold all over the globe. It is better known as kopi luwak or civet coffee. Due to its rarity, cat feces coffee is also the world’s most expensive coffee.

Are we talking about cud, or fecal matter, does the civet cat have cloven hooves????
You can see the appropriateness of why I have chosen you for this task, so please cast your collective expert eyes over it, not that I can afford to drink this stuff!

 

[Hank77]

Oooh, I was waiting for you to bring the Hebrew word up again. I'll allow you to shoot yourself in the foot rather than shooting you down myself. Please, tell us all what the Hebrew word is and what its etymology is.......

My understanding and explanation is post 43. If you aren't satisfied with that I can't help you and I don't owe you anything. This is not your thread or your OP.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It does indeed. And when we look up the definition of cud we find that it has a specific meaning which applies only to ruminants. Rabbits are not ruminants.

Would you like to stop digging now, or is your hole not deep enough yet?

Why do you think it's written the way it is in the bible?

 

[Herman Hedning]

The bible says the rabbit chews the cud, not the feces.

The bible says many things that are factually incorrect.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The bible says many things that are factually incorrect.

Perhaps not scientifically accurate, but effective when written for whom they were written. Translators also muddy the waters. For example bats are incorrectly called "birds" in most translations, but the original Hebrew word meant "flying creatures".

God had three major classifications for critters: Those that flew in the air, crept or moved on the land, and that swam in the water. The only real subdivision of those was the 'clean and unclean' regarding food for man.