Rabbits

There is no error in saying hares chew the cud, it's not a scientific ascription.

I suppose God could have said "They're not really chewing cud, but look like they are, but it's refection."

In any case it is actually a form of chewing cud because it is the same principle if you think about it. It is reprocessing food though in a disgusting manner.

That said I believe it is chewing the cud to those in that time frame and it makes sense, though the mode may be different. Of course our words and their meanings change in time.

Well, you have come up with a fairly unconvincing argument, as have many others. I think the matter is simpler than this. God knew he would be understood by the people of the time and in non spiritual matters, God wastes no time correcting man’s misconceptions. When Jesus was losing disciples because he was telling them that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood, he didn’t mind. He made no effort to spell it out for them. He never attempted to correct the notion that he wasn’t born in Nazareth. If that became a stumbling block to someone, it never bothered him. Why? Because he knew that no sincere person seeking him would stumble on such trivia. The things of God are spiritually discerned.
I posted the question because manytimes there really is a genuine explaination for apparent errors or anomalies, but not always!

Oh, so your OP is just begging the question? Again?

I disagree with you that there is an error. The most simple answer is that you're in error in your understanding. I don't think you're really seeking an answer anyhow, you just want to argue.

That and nearly all your threads are designed to cast ridicule on God's word.

I gave a good explanation, but you're not wanting an explanation or reason.

Anyhow, carry on.

If you ever watched a rabbit, they always look like they are chewing. Cute, funny and cuddly creatures that were forbidden to the Israelites to eat. Well, who wants to eat a rat anyway?

Obviously, rabbits do not share the digestive anatomy of modern ruminants. However, to describe rabbits chewing the cud is not incorrect. Simply stated, it is not reasonable to accuse a 3500-year-old document of error because it does not adhere to a modern man-made classification system.

ANSWER: (From the Answers in Genesis page)
Consider what rabbits do. They engage in an activity called cecotrophy. Rabbits normally produce two kinds of feces, the more common hard feces as well as softer fecal pellets called cecotropes. Cecotropes are small pellets of partially digested food that are passed through the animal but are then reingested. As part of the normal digestive process, some partially digested food is concentrated in the cecum where it undergoes a degree of fermentation to form these cecotropes. They are then covered in mucin and passed through the anus. The rabbit ingests the cecotropes, which serve as a very important source of nutrition for the animal.
Is this the same as cud? In the final analysis, it is. Cud-chewing completes the digestion of partially digested food. Why would it be strange to think that centuries ago, the idea of “cud” had a somewhat broader meaning than a modern definition.

But does the rabbit actually chew the cud? The Hebrew word translated “chew” is the word ‘alah. With any attempt to translate one language to another, it is understood that there is often more than one meaning for a given word. A cursory glace at any Hebrew lexicon reveals that ‘alah can mean go up, ascend, climb, go up into, out of a place, depart, rise up, cause to ascend, bring up from, among others. Here it carries the implication of moving something from one place to another. So the phrase translated to English as “chew the cud” literally means something on the order of “eats that which is brought forth again.”

Also, most reference material on rabbit digestion says that the cecotrope pellet is swallowed whole and found intact in the rabbit stomach. However, experts have observed that rabbits keep the cecotrophe in the mouth for a time before swallowing.4 So even though the mucin membrane covering the cecotrope is not broken, the rabbit is able to knead it in its mouth before swallowing, possibly to enhance the process of redigestion.
Conclusion
So is the Bible in error here? No it is not. Rabbits re-ingest partially digested foods, as do modern ruminants. They just do so without the aid of multiple stomach compartments.

So now we all know.

Hooray, well now we know.
I dont know why people want to pick a fight with scripture. Its never wrong.

Yep.....I am not under the law and like fried rabbit and fried taters hahah....

Now the flip side....

Rabbits carry worms in their hide until the first heavy frost and they also can carry a blood born fever sickness........maybe that is why God deemed them unclean....?

we had rabbits when i was a kid, i didnt remember them being anymore unclean than any other animal. but then again domestic animals are not the same as wild ones.
i did some reading on this today, apparently rabbits eat their poop. i didnt know this before today. they eat, poop, eat it, and poop again. the 2nd time they dont eat it. and for some reason they can not throw up (eat again) like a cow. so cows are ok to eat, rabbits not ok even though they do the same thing.

Rabbits are the cause of tuberculosis.. there was no innoculation untill 19th century.

i don't think that's technically the same as chewing cud...

would that imply the distinction they were given for clean/unclean was about appearance, not fact?

He did speak about Lazarus as having fallen asleep, at first, but when the disciples didn't understand He 'told them plainly' he had died, tho...

it's been brought up before tho, that 'clean' animals are equally subject to many diseases. i think explaining kosher diet in terms of threat of disease or of 'healthiness' ends up being argumentation riddled with confirmation-bias