Either Jehovah made a mistake....or Moses did.
Or, perhaps, the translators made a mistake?
Either Jehovah made a mistake....or Moses did.
by gumby 82 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Robdar
-
-
RunningMan
Now, if I pull out my "Biblical Appologist's Toolkit", which is an actual article that I have written, I can see several possible work-arounds for this thorny scripture:
First of all - one number includes another. I mean, if insects have six legs, then they also have four legs, right? If I say that I have a leg, it doesn't mean that I have one leg only, it just means that I have one leg (maybe more).
Next - the writer was speaking symbolically. "Rabbits" refer to rabbit-like individuals, who regurgitate their food (knowledge), and chew (meditate) on it - a very good thing. Or maybe a bad thing, if you take it that they never advance beyond elementary issues. How do we know when the Bible switches from literal to figurative? Simple, if it says something stupid, it's symbolic - otherwise, it's literal.
Another - there is a copyist or translator error. This one speaks for itself, but should be used with caution, since a copyist error is still an error in the Bible.
Another - the Bible will yet be vindicated, we just don't know how yet. An archeological find in 1927 exhonerated the Bible on a minor error. So, eventually all errors will be fully understood. Have faith.
Finally - question the Greek. The Greek word for "cud" is based on the ancient word "cudiosiosaboomboom", which means "shit", when translated with a hand pump.
See, it's easy, and works for anything.
-
TheListener
OK. I found this website that was helpful explaining this to me. I'm still leaning to the bible being right and our definition of cud chewing being more stringent in modern times than it was in ancient israel.
I can imagine Moses saying 'hey listen up you stupid cud chewer' as he looked at Jambres.
-
hmike
This is all very interesting, but I imagine by now Gumby is ready to shoot his monitor. You see, he isn't satisfied that just anyone made a mistake--it has to be Jehovah, or at least Moses.
For me, the explanation in the link provided by Deputy Dog, and re-discovered by Listener, gives a pretty good explanation. As for the objections raised by Pete, some of the animals he mentions can be covered by other prohibitions, such as mice and rats in v.29, and other animals can be eliminated because they did not inhabit the region the Israelites were entering.
As for Paduan's position, I think many scriptures have multiple meanings.
I was hoping someone would post what the rabbis (not rabbits) said about this.
Does anyone know when the second stomach was first associated with rumination? Non-Israelite societies would have known about the similiarities and differences between the internal organs of cows and rabbits. In fact. Moses, having come from Egyptian high society, would have known something of animal science. And if you argue for later, anonymous authorship, it could have been known by them, especially if you have Hellenistic influence. So, if you want to make rabbits unclean, why not just devise a separate prohibition and avoid the problem?
Another - the Bible will yet be vindicated, we just don't know how yet. An archeological find in 1927 exhonerated the Bible on a minor error. So, eventually all errors will be fully understood. Have faith.
Here's a hare-brained possibility: what were called hares in that region at that time were a species that actually did ruminate, but because the Israelites left them alone, the Cannanites hunted them to entinction, leaving the world with the species we have now, which was not native to that area. Gumby, will you buy that? -
LyinEyes
Gumby, Moses didn't write about hairy egg yolks , but we know it to be true!!!!!!!!
-
Narkissos
My recurring question on this kind of issues, to both apologists and critics, is: Why should anyone expect an ancient text to meet modern standards? Oh yes, it's supposed to be the Word of God. But what, if not purely human reasoning, would set the standard for what the Word of God should be like?
What we are left with is an endless anachronistic debate between fundamentalists and sceptics on the narrow fundamentalistic presupposition of Biblical inerrancy. Fortunately others, believers and unbelievers alike, understand that reading Bible texts first requires realising that the words and concepts they use are not ours.
The funny thing is that everyone agrees to do so as far as human sciences, e.g. anthropology, psychology or linguistics, are concerned. In fundamentalist studies you can find explanations (true or false) such as "in Biblical times knowing somebody's name was supposed to give you power on him," "the heart was regarded as the seat of thoughts and emotions," "the kidneys were the seat of the inner self," etc. But the same authors would never write accordingly regarding natural sciences, e.g. "in Bible times the hare was counted as a ruminant." Well, I do find this attitude (not the Bible texts!) pretty stupid.
-
Sunspot
Moses didn't write about hairy egg yolks
(shudder)
(pushing plate away).....No thanks, I'll have cereal this morning!
-
hmike
I think I understand your point, Narkissos. You're saying we shouldn't be viewing the original text through the eyes of modern science? This does seem to happen too often. My personal pet peeve is related to that: the judging of ancient people by modern, western, civilized-world standards of justice and fairness and morality.
Did you just take all the wind out of Gumby's sails?
-
peacefulpete
Just to correct my earlier comment, rabbits don't exist in Israel, nor did they in antiquity, hares do and did. The verse says not only the hare but the hyrax (aka rock badger)bring up cud. hyrax neither brings up cud nor eats feces. It does however chew it's food by grinding it's molars sideways resembling the chewing of cud in ruminants, hence leading to the mistaken identification of them as chewers (bringing up) of the cud.