Agnosticism, Atheism, Christianity, Culture, Faith, God, Religion, Truth

Contradictions Part 4: Hares Chewing the Cud

Nate

The first part in this series can be found here.

Leviticus 11:6 tells us that hares chew the cud. They do not. Animals that chew the cud are called ruminants. When they eat plant matter, it goes to their first stomach to soften, and then it’s regurgitated to their mouth. They spend time re-chewing it, and then it is swallowed and fully digested. Ruminants (cows, sheep, goats, etc.) are recognizable because their chewing of the cud is very obvious. Hares (rabbits) don’t chew the cud; however, their mouths do move frequently, so it’s possible to see why some people may have assumed that they do chew the cud. Of course, God would know they didn’t, and this is why the passage is problematic.

There have been some good attempts at explaining this. First of all, it has been suggested that even though God knew hares didn’t chew the cud, the Israelites probably didn’t. Since they would have seen the chewing motion of hares and assumed that they were cud-chewers, God simply used language that they would understand.

I actually think this explanation has some merit. However, God also knew that the Bible would be used by all people in all times. Therefore, he would have known that this passage could be problematic for modern people. So I don’t see why he couldn’t have said “appear to chew the cud,” or something like that in order to clarify things for both groups. Also, he could have taken it as an opportunity to educate them on the fact that hares don’t actually chew the cud, regardless of what their mouths look like.

Another explanation has been to point out that while rabbits aren’t ruminants, they do re-digest some of their food through the process of coprophagia. This process sounds pretty disgusting. Basically, it’s eating feces to gain additional nutrients. Hares don’t do this with their regular droppings, but with a special type of pellet that essentially consists of partially digested plant matter.

A problem with this theory is that hares don’t actually chew these pellets, they swallow them whole. Also, pigs are known to practice coprophagia as well, yet Leviticus 11:7 says, “And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you” (emphasis mine). So it would appear that “chew the cud” does not include coprophagia.

Bottom line: the Bible claims that hares chew the cud, but we know they do not.

We’ll look at another contradiction in the next post.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Nate

139 thoughts on “Contradictions Part 4: Hares Chewing the Cud”

  3. Tom that is an interesting article that you refer to. I am not enough of an expert to arbitrate the claims of experts. So I can refer to a different expert who has a different opinion:
    http://jerrycoyne.uchicago.edu/about.html

    Jerry Coyne is a more relevant expert as he is a Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, so works directly in the field. His position is fairly clear when you see that he personal blog is entitled, ‘Why Evolution is True’, and he has also written a book of the same title.

    The title of the article you referred to is misleading as it suggests there is no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution. But in fact that it not what the article actually says, rather the ‘expert’ interviewed says no-one he has spoken to can explain it. In any case even if no one understands it, this does not mean it is not true, there are many mysteries still to be explained by science.

    We don’t understand everything yet, but is remarkable how in the 150 years since Darwin published his theories how we know so much more which mostly supports the theory. Certainly in the intervening period the evidence has been far more compelling for evolution than creation. It is also worth noting that religious apologists continue to characterise evolution as ‘random’ changes, but that is not what the theory really says, the changes are not random as they are ‘guided’ by the environment. In modern times the development of antibiotic resistant superbugs is an example of evolution in action.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Peter, good point. It made me think of gravity in some ways – we know it works, but we really don’t know how it works, even though we know it has some correlation to mass.

    And I dont think anyone here would suggest that gravity is false just because it’s not completely understood.

    Like

  6. William – To answer your question “Why does creationism best describe what we have … “. At the end of the debate we still have many questions unanswered, and ultimately we end up with “faith”. It is either faith trusting in the unanswered questions of science, or “faith” trusting in a loving creator. If we trust in science we end up trusting that somehow at some point in time they will be answered through science. So we end up trusting in science or having “faith” in science, of which the scientific method cannot prove anything historical because we cannot test and observe and repeat things from the past. I personally don’t find meaning in science. I don’t find hope, nor do I find humanity, nor do I find love or anything that answers the question “why”. Science does not give me hope, meaning or purpose. Trusting in a loving creator does give me hope, meaning and purpose and answers my question why. Both perspectives require faith, why not choose the perspective that adds meaning to my life. Without faith in the creator what do we have left for life’s purpose; get rich and die? With faith in a loving creator I live with hope of a resurrection and life eternal. Which is better and adds more meaning to life? To summarize the book of Ecclesiastes; everything is meaningless without God.

    Like

  7. Tom, maybe it’s a form of faith. I don’t think I have a bad taste in my mouth regarding the term faith, but like the term belief, not all faiths are built on the same sort of thing, right?

    I have faith in my friends, my wife and the people I work with, etc – but the level of faith it takes to have in people I know well is much different than the faith it requires to have in someone or something you’ve never actually met or have never seen, right?

    Regarding medical issues, I tend to have more faith in a medical doctor’s opinion than I would in a garbage man’s opinion – just like It would be easier to place my faith in an auto-mechanic regarding car trouble than it would be to place my trust in a baker’s opinion.

    So gravity works. I see its effects, I feel it working on me. And with that, when I see the moon float around the earth, or the earth fall around the sun, I believe that gravity makes that work, and can believe that it has something to do with mass. I suppose it does still take a certain degree of faith.

    I can get that life is complex, and when I see how people are much different than animals, I can get the idea that we had to have been created and designed… But then I can’t help but wonder, if complexity and intelligence demands a creator and design, then why wouldn’t a creator also have a complexity and intelligence that demands another creator, and on and on… And if a creator does not need a creator of its own, then perhaps complexity and intelligence alone do not necessitate intelligent design….

    There does seem to be evidence of evolution in the fossil record. Evidently, across the globe, T-Rexes are all found within the same layers of strata, while no modern mammals are ever found at that same strata, but only in “younger” more recent strata… So with this, and other info, in mind, it seems that the book, in which men claim that God created the universe roughly 7000 years ago, along with all life, all at once, is not compatible with what is actually in place and shown around us.

    Even if there was a creator, wouldnt creation be from him, a revelation of sorts? And wouldn’t creation itself be more of an undeniable revelation than a book in which men claim to speak for god?

    So does it really take the same level of faith to trust what we find naturally around us as it does to trust an old book, written by unknown men, when it contradicts what we see around us naturally?

    Like

  8. William — I don’t see any contradictions between what I see in the creation and what it says in the bible. If anything the biblical account supports what I see in the creation. We have to remember that, when reading the biblical account, we are reading an ancient translated document. The thing I find fascinating about the Bible is that it was written by 40 different authors (most of whom would have never known one another) over a period of more than 1500 years and yet the bible has a consistent message throughout.

    Like

  9. Tom, I am a fan of Ecclesiastes and Proverbs – Solomon had some good books, no doubt.

    I get what you’re saying about science not providing hope or purpose, although I am sure people may receive both from science…. But while I can understand where you’re coming from, is the gift of hope and purpose adequate for determining truth?

    Do you think some people have purpose and hope in Islam, or Hinduism, or any of the other religions in the world? Does that make them right?

    But religion also provides unanswered questions, it just asks its followers not to ask anymore, and then implies that they don’t have enough faith if they do still question, or accuses them of questioning or rebelling against god, when in actuality they’re just questioning the claims men have made about a god.

    And Christianity may send you to heaven, but your children to hell. Would heaven be great there and then? what hope and purpose would you have in heaven, knowing that there is now zero hope for the loved ones who burn forever, without the chance at a pardon?

    Science not only looks for answers, it produces tangible results. Smart phones, incredible medical advances, air planes and space flight…

    Still, if it were down to either atheism or Christianity, I may still be a christian. Why not? it it were 50/50, then I’d probably see Christianity as the safest choice, even if it didnt make great sense in a lot of ways. But, we don’t have a 50/50. So while you have hope in Christ, there are countless other religions that say your hope is misplaced.

    For me, the means I methods I used to eliminate the other religions and identify them as bogus, are what finally made me see that Christianity fell apart when I finally made the same application.

    So I think reason is a better measure than hope and purpose. While I’d like to have hope and feel a sense of purpose, I do think that actual truth is more important. So for me, now I guess, I’ll have to be content to have hope in my children, and purpose in raising them and adding my part to the world around me – and so far, i’m fine with that.

    And maybe one reason that’s fairly easy is because I no longer have the fear that is married to the Christian’s hope, maybe fear of being lost, but also the fear that loved ones will go to hell. But even so, I dont not fear as a reason to cease believing in something either. whether something is fearful or hopeful, really have no bearing on whether that something is accurate or factual. I just wanted to shed light on the anti-matter of your hope and purpose, for a more complete portrait.

    Like

  10. Tom, you said,

    ” The thing I find fascinating about the Bible is that it was written by 40 different authors (most of whom would have never known one another) over a period of more than 1500 years and yet the bible has a consistent message throughout.”

    I don’t find this fascinating. For one, the bible is only “consistent throughout” if you ignore certain passages and imagine your own bandaids or solutions for others – any contradiction can be covered in such ways.

    and two, 40 different people, writing about the same thing, with the same source material, in the same region of the world is not remarkable. If anything, I’m fascinated that they weren’t able to provide a clearer and more cohesive composition since they did have 1500 years.

    Like

  11. William — I think I really understand where you are coming from with your description about the worlds religions and trying to find some sort of truth within such apparent diversity. I personally am not a traditional Christian for many of the reasons you describe. I see that most religions are primarily based on human tradition, including traditional Christianity. However, this does not preclude the truth as written in the Bible. It is possible to study each of the world religions and determine if they are true philosophically, by comparing them to what we see in creation and the state of humanity. I’m not going to get into what I’ve found and why but just to state that it can be done. Lets just say that when it was all said and done I ended convinced in the validity of the Bible, and practice my faith in God based on His written word, which is much different than traditional Christianity.

    In reply to your comment above in part two you state that “40 people writing about the same thing….” I don’t think I said that. I said 40 authors writing a consistent message over a period of 1500 years. It is the consistency in the message that I find fascinating. In my view, nothing but the hand of God could have orchestrated such a thing.

    Like

  12. Tom, I feel like I’ve woken up out of the matrix, and I’m not sure that I can plug back in – however, I do realize that I could be wrong.

    It may be that I’ve only ever seen corrupt forms of Christianity and that I’ve been looking at the bible with those corrupted lenses. I dont think that’s the case, but I can admit that it’s a possibility.

    Is there a source you could point me to, to help me see what you see? I get there’s the bible, but again, if I’m seeing it wrong, I evidently need some help removing the bias or slant that i currently have…

    Like

  13. William — I will share what I have done, knowing that we are each on our own journey and come to our own conclusions. I also know that you might come to a completely different conclusion than I have and I totally respect that.

    My journey led me to a point where I rejected traditional Christianity because of the inconsistency taught in the Christian Church. Long story short, I studied early history of the 1st century Church and came to the conclusion that the early Christians practiced their faith much differently than modern day Christians. There is a movement going on within Christianity right now, and a documentary has been made describing this movement. Here is a link to more information about the documentary. https://www.thewaydoc.com/ I’m not sure if this is what you are looking for, but I hope it is helpful.

    Like

  14. Thanks. Being honest, I’m extremely skeptical, dont see the bible a flawless, but see it as quite the opposite, but I like your comments here and am genuinely interested in understanding where you’re coming from.

    So thanks for the link. I’ll look through it and do my best to maintain an open mind.

    and just for sake of clarity, I dont call myself an atheist, although it may be accurate enough. I consider myself agnostic, and think that there could be some form of creator(s), I just dont feel agnostic regarding the bible. I feel as confident that it is no more of god than the koran or my wife’s cookbook – but I also realize that I make mistakes and am capable of being wrong.

    Like

  15. So Tom, In the FAQ of the link you provided, it says that some of the questions they ask in their documentary are things like why the apostles observe the Passover, but Christians do not today, etc

    It seems like the implication is that Christians should be doing things like the Passover, although it doesn’t really say that. Acts 15 immediately comes to mind, but I don’t want to get ahead of myself…

    So to you, what are the biggest (or at the ones that stand out the most to you) differences you’ve made since abandoning “traditional” Christianity and moving toward “the way?”

    Like

  16. @Tom

    Although I have absolutely no respect whatsoever for what you beleive in at all, I am fascinated by your take on how Human and and Dinosaurs co existed.
    Care to offer some insight?

    Like

  17. Ark, I think your question is valid, but let me say out the gate that I think Tom has been very gracious in his tone, and it speaks highly of him that he’s willing to talk with people who disagree with him. Let’s make sure we treat him with respect, cool?

    Like

  18. Actually, I disagree entirely, Nate, sorry.

    He may have kids or access to kids and as a YEC he will be helping to indoctrinate another generation of little ”Ken Hammers” – well sorry, FTS.
    I applaud your tolerance, really I do, but with Creationists and especially YECs you surely must know they revel in the fight because they are fighting for their god? You ( and the rest of us ) are little more than ill-informed tools of Satan.
    Tom is merely an extreme version of Unklee and he will sit there gloating. No evidence you put forward will make a blind bit of difference. And you know this. And when it comes to YECs there are unlikely fence sitting lurkers.

    I pretty much already know his answer regarding the dinosaur question, I am just interested in his spin, that’s all. He will not likely offer a direct response. YEC’s are not interested in science where it comes into conflict with their worldview.
    You are dancing to his tune and he loves it.

    Sorry , Nate. I will bow out if you prefer?

    Like

  19. I like having your contributions, so please don’t bow out on my account!

    Believe me, I know that most people don’t change their minds on things like this — at least not through a direct discussion. But I do know that seeds can be planted, which, over time, sometimes result in a change. If we insult someone, or make ad hominem attacks against them, it usually obscures any good points we might make in our argument. Plus, to bystanders, we just look like jerks.

    I used to be an inerrantist YEC, but look at me now. Reasonable arguments and evidence can make in impact. 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

  20. Point taken ….
    I never realised you were a YEC.
    Then do me a favour, if your uop to it, of course) as I know you will be a lot more honest; explain how in your YEC heyday you dealt with the dinosaur / human coexisting issue.
    It will be fascinating – and not just for me, I’m sure – to read how your mind worked back in the day.
    It might also help me to get a handle on how to better deal with the Toms and Unklees out there.

    Liked by 2 people

  21. Ok Arkenaten I’ll bite. You have a bit of a hostile tone, but hey I wouldn’t be commenting on a blog with such contrary view points if I weren’t a bit thick skinned. So yes, Dinosaurs and humans did coexist. Lots of evidence. It doesn’t take millions of years for fossilization to occur and there have been several cases where dinosaur remains had spongy tissues in bone… hmmm how could that happen if millions of years had elapsed. How about Taylor trail ( a series of human footprints with dinosaur tracks). How about the human and dino footprints in glen rose texas. There is a lot of evidence that dino’s and humans did coexist. They didn’t die out millions of years ago.

    There is literary evidence as well. Tales told from many cultures of large lizards and dragons. The term dinosaur was first used in the mid 1800’s. Prior to that they were known by other terms.

    But you already know this……

    Like

  22. oooh, I’d be interested to see that too.

    For me, when I was YEC, I didn’t know much about what evolution really was, or have any real knowledge on fossils or the fossil record, etc. And this was before the internet and easily accessible information. I had school science teachers that had to teach evolution, but more or less teach it like this, “Evolution is dumb, but I have to over it – people came from monkeys, monkeys came from dinosaurs… stupid, right? lesson over…” And that’s really not much of an exaggeration.

    I had been told by some that god placed dino bones in the earth just to make the earth look old or to give us fossil fuel. They didnt ever really walk around, god simply created bones so we could drive big trucks. i’m not kidding, though I wish I was. I didnt really believe that, but my thoughts at the time weren’t much better – I assumed they either died during the great flood, or were hunted to extinction – which is where we got our stories of knights slaying dragons, and what have you.

    lol, good times…. but now of course, I cant see how anyone can buy any of that if they’ve had access to, what is now, routine and basic information.

    Like

  25. Then do me a favour, if your uop to it, of course) as I know you will be a lot more honest; explain how in your YEC heyday you dealt with the dinosaur / human coexisting issue.

    Sure! My approach wasn’t especially mind-blowing, though. Basically, I bought into Last Thursdayism. Here’s how my thought process went:

    Christians fought hard against Galileo and other scientists whenever some new theory was proposed, and they consistently lost the battle. So I thought it was unlikely that modern science could be so wrong about the evidence for evolution and an old earth. Also, in the Genesis creation account, it seems as though everything God creates is made immediately, fully-formed: sun, moon, stars, earth, trees, animals, humans, etc. So I figured that the reason we could see starlight from millions of light-years away didn’t mean there was a problem with the science — it meant God had made it as though it had been there for a very long time. I even carried this belief to fossils. Again, I thought it unlikely that all the consistent science on radiometric dating could be wrong, so I believed that God had made the earth complete with a fossil record.

    Of course, there are problems with this approach. But this was back when I really hadn’t been confronted with non-belief. Everyone I encountered believed in the Christian god, and I still believed that the Bible was unassailable, so I didn’t have cause to really question this any deeper.

    I don’t know if that will be very helpful information, because I think most YEC-ers still try to argue against the science. I think that’s a losing proposition, as has been borne out by history, but there you go.

    Like

Leave a comment