• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Modest Proposal

exchemist

Veteran Member
Sorry, but your "similar" misses by a mile. Like the similarity between a bumble bee and an elephant.

Obviously you think ceotropes is the same as cud. Perhaps a zoology 101 course would help. . . . but then again, perhaps not. In any case, take a look at the difference between the two adapted from a children's book on how animals eat.


39938845690_3f8d67fdd4_z.jpg

See any difference? Children do. Cud doesn't go through the poopy hole. Nor is it a kind of poopy.

.
And yet you claim not to be able to see why the term "pseudo-ruminant" might be applied to creatures that do this.

It seems I was right, then. :D
 

Vee

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Sorry, but your "similar" misses by a mile. Like the similarity between a bumble bee and an elephant.

Obviously you think ceotropes is the same as cud. Perhaps a zoology 101 course would help. . . . but then again, perhaps not. In any case, take a look at the difference between the two adapted from a children's book on how animals eat.


39938845690_3f8d67fdd4_z.jpg

See any difference? Children do. Cud doesn't go through the poopy hole. Nor is it a kind of poopy.

.

How did this thread go from Bible translations to this so quickly? :eek:
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
And yet you claim not to be able to see why the term "pseudo-ruminant" might be applied to creatures that do this.

Oh I do. I do. In their attempt to save the Bible from error fundie Christians will go to any lengths, no matter how absurd, to do so. Label it a "pseudo-ruminant" and case closed: rabbits chew cud.


f-p.gif

.
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
How did this thread go from Bible translations to this so quickly? :eek:
KenS was trying to save his Bible from error, and exchemist was trying to say KenS from his error.




By Skwim trying to browbeat KenS.
And pointing out an error, by default amounts to browbeating when that error is committed by one's compatriot.
facepalm-smiley-emoticon.gif


My so-called attempt at "browbeating":

"And why do you think the term "pseudo" is appended to "ruminant," a word designating an ungulate mammal that chews the cud regurgitated from its rumen? because it indicates it's false.

---Definition of "pseudo"---

Lacking a rumen, It aint really a ruminant that produces cud. No rumen, no cud. No cud, no chewing cud. Simple as ABC.
"
And this is exchemist's idea of "browbeating."
msn-laughing-smiley-emoticon.gif


FYI, exchemist

brow·beat
ˈbrouˌbēt/
verb to intimidate (someone), typically into doing something, with stern or abusive words.

.



 

exchemist

Veteran Member


KenS was trying to save his Bible from error, and exchemist was trying to say KenS from his error.





And pointing out an error, by default amounts to browbeating when that error is committed by one's compatriot.
facepalm-smiley-emoticon.gif


My so-called attempt at "browbeating":

"And why do you think the term "pseudo" is appended to "ruminant," a word designating an ungulate mammal that chews the cud regurgitated from its rumen? because it indicates it's false.

---Definition of "pseudo"---
Lacking a rumen, It aint really a ruminant that produces cud. No rumen, no cud. No cud, no chewing cud. Simple as ABC."​
And this is exchemist's idea of "browbeating."
msn-laughing-smiley-emoticon.gif


FYI, exchemist

brow·beat
ˈbrouˌbēt/
verb to intimidate (someone), typically into doing something, with stern or abusive words.

.



Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
And why do you think the term "pseudo" is appended to "ruminant," a word designating an ungulate mammal that chews the cud regurgitated from its rumen? because it indicates it's false.

pseudo
[soo-doh]

adjective
1.not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham.​

Lacking a rumen, It aint really a ruminant that produces cud. No rumen, no cud. No cud, no chewing cud. Simple as ABC.

Now, explain all of theat to the people in the time of Noah.

For the purpose of what "not to eat", it is a whole lot better to speak a language that someone understands.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Do you not know what rabbits do? They eat their own sh1t (technically cecotropes), so that it passes twice through their digestive tract enabling them to extract more nourishment. Rather similar in effect to what ruminants do in chewing the cud. More here: Cecotrope - Wikipedia

So no, it is not simple as ABC.
THANK YOU!

Sometimes people can really ignore facts because the just want to make sure "God didn't know what He was talking about".
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Yes... you do go around in circular posting :)
Only because, in order to save the Bible from error, folks like yourself will go to any lengths, no matter how absurd, to do so. :shrug: Stop pretending they're not there and I'll stop calling you on it. ;)


Sometimes people can really ignore facts because the just want to make sure "God didn't know what He was talking about".
Hey, I didn't the pen in his hand. Really, I didn't.

.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
THANK YOU!

Sometimes people can really ignore facts because the just want to make sure "God didn't know what He was talking about".
Yeah I thought his aggressively dismissive tone was out of order, when there is some interesting science to be learned. In fact I looked up the term "pseudo-ruminant" and find it seems to be applied to animals such as hippos, with a 3-chambered, rather than a 4-chambered, stomach: Pseudoruminant - Wikipedia

The rabbit technique is another way of achieving the same end, but would not, it seems, generally be classed as "pseudo-ruminant".
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Only because, in order to save the Bible from error, folks like yourself will go to any lengths, no matter how absurd, to do so. :shrug: Stop pretending they're not there and I'll stop calling you on it. ;)



Hey, I didn't the pen in his hand. Really, I didn't.

.
LOL... so say the one who will go to any legths :tearsofjoy:
 

outlawState

Deism is dead
Whose events contradict science: Despite the Biblical claim, rabbits/hares do not chew cud. (Deuteronomy 14:7)
I think the issue is that the English translation "chew the cud" or "ruminate" is too precise and scientific. The Hebrew words allow for broader interpretations. Especially "cud" could mean any semi-digested food, in the form of circular or oval shapes. "Chew" also has an extendable meaning.

With inaccuracies: Joseph tells Pharaoh he comes from the "land of the Hebrews" (Gen 40:15). But there was no such land until after the conquest under Joshua.
Joseph speaking "For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews:..." is exactly true, because his relatives and fellow countrymen were still living in Canaan at that time. It was "their land." Remember that Abraham had defeated Canaanite kings
  1. Chedorlaomer king of Elam
  2. Amraphel king of Shinar (Babylon)
  3. Arioch king of Ellasar
  4. Tidal king of Goiim (or king of nations)
Abraham was a mighty prince, with perhaps thousands of people under him, and no mere wandering shepherd.

Of course, as some will eagerly contend, these problems aren't god's fault but those of fallible humans who mistranslated his word somewhere along the way. Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that god hasn't made any attempt to correct them, leaving them to continue to mislead and confuse the faithful reader.
I think anyone could overcome these trifles with a little circumspection.

A common answer to these difficulties is that one must understand the original intent of the authors and understand what they said in the context of the event and the times. Fine, I say. Then how about a Bible that does just that. Recast all these problematic words and passages in a way that leaves no doubt. Create a Bible that can actually be taken literally---unlikely events like the noachian flood aside perhaps---instead of one that creates misunderstanding or leaves one in doubt.
There are many "interpretetive" bibles that you can buy. There are also many commentaries. They are not all perfect but they exist.

If Jonah wasn't ". . .in the belly of the fish three days and three nights," but rather a whale, then don't use "fish.
I agree, but it could have been a whale shark (fish), or a real whale, and so we don't know whether it was a fish or a whale in the technical sense.

If Psalms 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree." is wrong and Isaiah 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart." is right, then either get rid of Psalms 92:12 or change it.
Both are true at once. The righteous shall flourish, if left to themselves, but if they perish, it is due to the wickedness of others.

And how about eliminating the claim that bats are fowls in Leviticus 11:19
"Bird" or "fowl" is too precise a meaning for the Hebrew to bear. International Standard Version refers to "winged creatures."

So why isn't there a Bible that says what it means? Why all this *****-footing around with translations that may be etymologically accurate, but fail to convey the real meaning? If "evil," as we understand the term, ain't what was meant in Isaiah 45:7 then don't use it. Use the correct, modern-day word that does!! And stop misleading people by telling them that rabbits chew cud, or even produce it.

It can't be all that hard, can it? Or is it that it simply not worth the effort to clean up the Bible?
.
If you're saying that bible translators make mistakes, it is without doubt true. And there has always been a vested interest in not making the bible readily intelligible, in order to further the vested interest of the clerisy.

Your critique may have validity in some aspects, but no-one could anticipate every possible issue that might arise from translation. There will always be such problems in translating ancient languages.
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
I think the issue is that the English translation "chew the cud" or "ruminate" is too precise and scientific. The Hebrew words allow for broader interpretations. Especially "cud" could mean any semi-digested food, in the form of circular or oval shapes. "Chew" also has an extendable meaning.

Well, let's see. Strong's translates the Hebrew word גֵּרָה (gerah) as "cud"

40022902670_08314968b5.jpg


There are many "interpretetive" bibles that you can buy.
And from what I've seen, they are constructed to fall in line with some specific denominational theology.

Both are true at once. The righteous shall flourish, if left to themselves, but if they perish, it is due to the wickedness of others.
Is that what it says? No!

"Bird" or "fowl" is too precise a meaning for the Hebrew to bear. International Standard Version refers to "winged creatures."
Yes, some Bibles have changed the wording to eliminate the embarrassing gaff, but 92% of them (47 out of 51) have retained the inclusion of bats as "birds" or "fowl."

.
 
Top