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.
Finding Truth 
@Nate
Thank you. Seems more or less consistent with what I have researched already. However, what I am really interested in is how did you deal with the fact that dinosaurs co-exsted with humans, seeing as we are talking about species such as Allosaurus,T-Rex, Pterodactyl etc which were all carnivorous and just a tad larger than your average 75kg human.
Thoughts?
LikeLike
William — I started studying Hebrew culture. I began reading the new testament from the Hebrew perspective of the writers. As we know, all the New Testament writers were Jewish (from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin); with the exception of possibly Luke who may have been Greek, but more likely was a Hellenize Jew. Anyway, I started studying from a Hebraic perspective. I had several a ha moments but the biggest was when I learned about the oral Torah of the Jews (2 Talmuds and the Mishna). I realized that the writers of the New Testament were not telling us not to keep Torah (the 1st 5 books of the bible). They were cautioning believers concerning the oral tradition of the Jews. There is a huge difference between the oral Torah and the written Torah. The oral Torah of the Jews is the tradition of man (eventually written down), while the written Torah is the words of God written down. To me, this realization was faith changing.
When I studied the Bible with this understanding, it changed everything. Passages such as Acts 15 I realized that Peter was speaking of the traditions of the Jews that are hard to bear, not the Torah of God. Then in Acts 15:21 it makes sense when James says new converts will learn Moses in the synagogue on the Sabbath each week.
I studied a lot of church history. I learned that one of the first Church controversies was the Quartodecimin controversy. In which Polycarp Bishop of smyrna wrote a letter to Pope Victor in regard to the celebration of Easter vs. Passover and unleavened bread. In the letter Polycarp testifies that it is his tradition and that of all his relatives to keep the passover and days of unleavened bread. Polycarp was a Greek. He was thought to be an Appostle of John. This led to the understanding that it was the tradition of the early church to keep the commandments of God with the faith in Yeshua (Jesus). I found a lot of historical evidence that supports this conclusion.
These traditions were slowly persecuted out of early believers. By the time Constantine ruled the Roman empire there were still groups that held to these traditions (Sabbath, Passover, Shavuot, Trumpets, Atonement, and Tabernacles). Constantine made Christianity the religion of Rome and outlawed the practices taught by the Apostles. Although there is evidence of small groups since Christ practicing these traditions known historically as the sect of the Nazarines. There has been a resurgence of these practices and as is shown in the documentary “the way” the movement is growing.
LikeLike
I actually never thought they co-existed. Sorry, I wasn’t clear enough in my last comment. I believed that God created the world with ancient fossils “pre-loaded.” This brings up dishonesty issues with God that I didn’t like to focus on, though they sort of jived with 2 Thess2:11-12:
That was also before I knew how far back our fossils of human (or pre-human) civilization go — tools, dwellings, cave art, etc. Once I realized how old those things were, I had a hard time thinking God would have planted those kinds of remains. Don’t know why I was more bothered by that than by animal remains, but I was.
LikeLike
Tom, how do you view letters like Galatians and Hebrews that teach the Old Law had served its purpose and was no longer something that had to be followed? And 1 Corinthians, Romans, and Ephesians have similar language that at very least makes it a matter of personal conviction whether someone observes those things or not. How do you interpret those?
Thanks
LikeLike
@ Nate.
And yet there are branches of YEC (ACE – Accelerated Christian Education) that do teach co-existence)
In one of their books they show what looks like a small anklosaur ( best I could come up with) towing a cart!
LikeLike
Arkenaten — People are smart and resilient. Cities were fortified and walled. The larger varieties of Dyno’s probably didn’t like being around man any more than man likes being around them. Look at the larger mammals, and predators today. We don’t typically live in walled cities any more so the wild animals could attack humans more than they do, but they prefer to stay away with the occasional instance where a bear will maul a person.
LikeLike
@ Tom
Did you bother to research the Paluxy footprints hoax?
LikeLike
Tom, since this is considered laughable in most academic circles, I’d encourage you to really question and dig into it. Not suggesting you haven’t, necessarily — but I think the overwhelming consensus of experts should carry a lot of weight. And if you were to change your mind on evolution, that wouldn’t automatically invalidate Christianity or the Bible.
One of Thomas Paine’s arguments that really stood out to me is something that William mentioned the other day: if there’s a creator, then creation itself is definitely a revelation from him/her/it, whether they ever gave any other revelation or not. Therefore, math and science are necessarily the “languages of the creator.” I’d put much more stock in them than in any written text that can be interpreted and translated imperfectly.
LikeLike
Which cities? Can you link to a single archaeological site that would be suggestive of one of these cities?
LikeLike
Tom, I think nate beat me to replying to your comment.
your comments makes me want to revisit the bible with that perspective, but like nate, i think of Paul’s letters that seem to indicate the old law is complete, now that there is the perfect law of liberty in christ.
In addition to what nate asked, how you take Acts 20:7? I always took it as an example of early Christians taking communion on Sunday.
LikeLike
Nate – Those epistles are written by Rabbi Sha’ul (the Apostle Paul). 2 Peter 3:16 -17 says Paul is hard to understand and not understanding him correctly results in the error of Lawlessness.
Paul was a Hebrew from the tribe of Benjamin. He was a very learned Pharasee who studied at the feet of Gamaliel. Paul is hard to understand, just as Peter stated. I think we need to realize Paul’s education and to understand his perspective in order to properly understand His writings. In Paul’s training under Gamaliel he learned Jewish Biblical Hermaneutics (PARDES). PARDES is an acronym for Peshat, Remez, Derash, and Sod. Paul wrote based on his understanding of scripture TANAKH. Much of his writing is at the Derash or midrash level of understanding. In many of his epistles he midrashes about the Law but uses words interchangeably and sometimes the same terms to state different this. For example in regard to the Law he writes about 7 different Laws in his letters. The reader can only tell which Law he is writing about by context.
In a lot of Paul’s writings he is pro law, for example in Romans 3:31 he states: so then do we nullify the Law by this faith? Heavens no, we uphold the Law. He offers many other pro law statements in his epistles. In the book of acts he takes a vow which includes a sacrifice at the temple. He also testifies before king agripa (I think… it may have been festus), about believing everything written in the Law and the prophets.
In order to understand the book of Galatians from the Hebrew perspective one needs to understand the controversy Paul was dealing with and the culture (oral tradition of the Jews). In the book of Galatians Paul is dealing with a group of converts that were trying to gain salvation through keeping the Law; which is what the Jews teach. The Jews teach that adult male circumcision (brit malah) is required and is what justifies you before God. Paul is countering this teaching and telling them that justification comes from faith. Keeping the Law is the fruit of faith. In other words, he was teaching that a person is saved by grace through faith, apart from the Law. The Law is to be done as the result of faith, not the other way around. We are not saved by keeping the Law. We keep the Law as a matter of faith, and devotion to God. James discusses this in more detail.
Actually, what most Christians don’t recognize is that what Paul was teaching in Galatians is completely in line with the Old Testament (TANAKH). If you study the requirements for circumcision and what it means (…Abraham), it is the same in the old testament as in the New Testament. Gentiles entering into the covenant of Israel in the Old Testament where expected to keep the Law the same as Israel. The requirement for circumcision had to be met only if they were to sacrifice the Passover. The Passover had two elements to it 1. the sacrifice and 2. keeping of it . We can not do the sacrifice because today because there is no temple and Levitical priesthood, but we can observe it as a memorial. Gentiles coming into the faith in the New Testament are entering in based on faith. As they learn and grow they are expected to learn Moses, and keep the commandments (Torah). Even today in Christianity a new convert isn’t expected to learn everything overnight. Instead, they first believe (have faith), then get their life cleaned up as they go. The problem with today’s Christians is they say they believe and very few if any take the next step to live out their faith by doing what God says. The result is they don’t change their lives and become transformed into the image and likeness of Christ, by knowing Him and doing His commandments.
I don’t think I have covered all of your questions. You mentioned other Pauline Epistles. I think I would have to take each one separately and answer the questions posed in each to do it justice. However, the same basic elements exist in each epistle. There are similar elements in each one. Paul is hard to understand and the reader needs to understand the controversy, history and culture to understand what Paul is getting at.
LikeLike
William – Look at the context of Acts 20:7, and look at the Greek. The Geek phrase is “mia ton sabbaton” translated into the english as “first day of the week”. Literal translation into english is more correctly as “one of the Sabbaths”. The word day isn’t even in the verse, (in the greek at least). If the writers meant “first day of the week”, why didn’t they use “protos” for first instead of “mia”? Anyway, “one of the sabbaths” refers to the count down of the sabbaths (7 sabbaths) to the feast of Shavuot. They were keeping passover and unleavened bread, counting the weeks to shavuot. In verse six it says they sailed away from Phillipi after the days of unleavened bread. This was a Sabbath observance during the countdown to Shavuot. Most Christians breeze right past this because they don’t study God’s feast days, and realize that the new testament church kept them. Instead, most Christians read this very poor translation and read into it that they were keeping a Sunday church service.
LikeLike
LOL, thanks. I mean no disrespect by the “LOL”either – this is just very interesting for me, as there are several things I’ve never considered. I’ll look into them, thanks for taking the time to respond
LikeLike
Arkenaten: Really, what about Jericho. It was found. Take a look at patterns of evidence. Read about the Roman conquest of Jerusalem. Read about the history of the Romans and the Greeks building siege works during battle to break down fortified walls. There is a lot of historical evidence of huge walled cities.
LikeLike
at an initial glance at an interlinear bible, I do agree that it does appear that Acts 20:7 would literally translate to “one of the Sabbaths,” which is just fascinating to me.
And since sabbath was hebrew, and the NT was written in Greek, it now makes me wonder why either the greek word for “sunday” or “saturday” wasnt used. The use of sabbath seems to directly relate back to the jewish law, no?
I’ll look on…
fascinating
LikeLike
not done looking but fiund this wqhich seems to have a pretty decent explanation –
https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=2022
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jericho? Yes. So, what? You are aware of the findings of archaeologists in this regard?
And you are aware how large it really was I hope?
I mean, you don’t honestly believe the biblical tale, surely?
Also, you are aware of Kenyan’s dating, yes? And it still stands today.
Yes, there were a few cities of fairly grand stature that go back around three thousand years.
Can you recall any mention of Giant Lizards from any of the scholars of the time?
Roman, Greek? How about further back. Akkadian, Sumerian?
How about any mention in Ancient Egypt?
I am sure you would agree it would be reasonable to suggest that with the numbers of dinosaurs running into the millions , there would have been quite extensive mention of them.
Many species were herd animals, much like certain mammals of today such as zebra or wildebeest, and many lived in what is now modern Europe – after all, we are talking no more than 10k years yes?
Therefore, it would be fair to suggest there were any number of witnesses to vast herds of these animals as there were witnesses to the vast herds on the African plains of the Serengeti for example. And we have depictions of such.
Thus one can also reasonably expect mention (description) of such species as as Triceratops, Brontosaurus, Diploducus. And of course such famed giants as T-Rex. They were, after all, difficult to miss, wouldn’t you agree?
So you would agree that seeing such creatures would most certainly have left a giant(sic) impression on humans. Even if they were illiterate.
Yet … nothing.
How would you, as a rational adult, explain this objectively?
Oh, and you did not mention if you had researched about the Paluxy hoax or the answer to your soft tissue in Dinosaur bones?
LikeLike
Arkenaten — Lots of imagination about dinos. I’m sure there weren’t quite as many as you imagine. Besides the majority of them were killed off by the world wide flood at one point. Only the young ones that Noah took aboard the Ark and the water dinos survived. Lots of evidence for the flood.
LikeLike
No, there really isn’t evidence for the flood. And if God had Noah save dinosaurs in the ark, what happened to them? Why aren’t they around today?
LikeLike
Not really. This is simply based on paleontology estimates of the species diversification. And the y reckon there are still more to be discovered. A lot more.
So, based on you interpretation then the fortified cities would have made no difference?
Oh, wait a moment…. you said the majority. Silly me…missed that.
But then, Noah still had to take on board two of every species … or was that seven, and there were quite a number.
Paleontologists reckon about 700 species have been discovered so far including that whopper over in South America.
Of course Noah would only have taken babies, as you pointed out. Couldn’t have had a bloody great Brachiosaurus on board now could he! Lol Even so, how he got baby T-Rexes and Allosauruses boggles the mind, especially as the dinosaurs were already carnivorous because of Adam and Eve and the whole sin thing .
How do you think he managed this, Tom?
I am correct in saying they were all essentially ”veggisaurs” before the fall yes?
So Noah had to have gathered at least 700 species. That’s 1400 male -female dinosaurs.
That’s a shit load of baby dinoasaurs!
But you did not answer the question regarding total lack of any witness descriptions and how you would answer this glaring omission objectively?
Says nothing in the short passage in the bible regarding the stocking of the ark. Odd this. Well to my mind mind it is odd.
And odd the dinosaurse were not mentioned among the clean/unclean and as Noah took them on board what do you think they were, Tom? Clean or Unclean?
And let’s remember the dinosaurs from the Ark would have soon grown into adults and we can presume reproduced, yes?
So in a relative short space of time there would have been some pretty big dinosaurs running around again. What happened to them?
Could you please address this and the lack of witness evidence in your next response and also respond to the Paluxy hoax and the evidence of iron in the soft tissue.
Otherwise I might begin to think you are avoiding directly answering my questions.
And still no response to the Paluxy hoax or the soft tissue in the T’Rex bone.
You did read the scientific evidence for this yes?
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Tom,
I used to believe Noah’s flood was a real event, too. But there really are a number of major problems with the idea. Here are some of the ones that stand out to me:
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nate — We can hypothesis all day long about how these seemingly impossible things occurred, but they did occur. The truth is we don’t know all the details. However, there is a lot of geological evidence of a world wide flood. I believe these things did occur just as written in the bible. As far as the details about how these happened, I guess they are things we can ask God about someday. I’m not going to allow things like how a sloth got on the ark 6000 years ago, when the world was completely different than how we see it now, to impact how I see the validity of God’s word.
LikeLike
Arkenten — I don’t know where to begin to even try to have a civil conversation with you about these things. From the questions you pose, it sounds like it isn’t your intent to discuss these differing thoughts. Most of the time when people cannot come up with a valid argument in a debate they resort to overwhelming with many nonsense arguments and resorting to mockery. I have no problem debating you on these issues. The idea that we would ever come to a common understanding on any of them is a long shot.
LikeLike
Nate — Actually, yes there is a lot of geographical evidence of a flood. All you have to do is look. As far as any dino’s surviving to this day goes; thousands of species of animals have died off. We find evidence of many species of animals that once existed no longer exist. The dinos are no different. They simply died off just as thousands of other species have died off.
LikeLike