Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 08/ 2/02 1:17am
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Alleged Misconception" on 08/ 1/02 11:23pm
>It would be irrational if it were some sort of
>"several millenia old writing". However, that isn't
>the claim of the Bible. The claim is that God was the
>ultimate author. Surely it isn't unrealistic to assume
>that the word of perfect God could be scientifically
>accurate or at least describe what the rabbit was
>doing in such a way as to not make it seem that it was
>"chewing cud".
Again, it all depends on what means by “chewing the cud.” If the modern classification and definition of “chew the cud” existed at the time the book was written, yours would be a valid criticism. But it did not. The book was written before such definitions were put in place. If the book meant the modern definition we created several thousand years after the book was written, your criticism would be valid. But the definition just didn’t exist then. We can’t just assume it meant the narrower definition we have today. The phrase “chew the cud” was translated into that term before that term was given the official, more narrow scientific definition. (Remember that the King James Version of the Bible was written well before the modern definitions.) That ancient Hebrews were referred to that particular, more narrow definition of the term is speculation at best, particularly since cecotropy (a certain type of “chewing the cud” in the broad definition I mentioned earlier) was not even discovered yet. That is why I called it somewhat irrational. As an example, suppose the word “sock” is translated from an ancient text. No discrepancy is found. Later, the society changes the definition of “sock” to a more specific form, but the translation is left uncorrected by this new change and a discrepancy results. Is the ancient text to blame? No, if the more general form is valid and is what it means. Since cecotropy form of “chewing the cud” was not even known at that time, I find it at least somewhat irrational to just assume the ancient Hebrews meant the modern definition and distinction that did not yet exist and base an accusation of discrepancy on it. As it stands, the Hebrew phrase “gerah alah,” usually translated as “chew the cud,” is defined broadly enough (a common experience in Hebrew) to include the sideways movement of the jaws of rabbits without including the four-stomach digestion process of cattle. To just assume that the Hebrews meant the definition we have today is not sufficient grounds for accusation of a discrepancy. You have yet to provide any compelling argument that says otherwise.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 