clean/unclean food

[Brad Gifford]

This linkhttps: //en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Hebrew_Roots/Unclean_foods/Diseases, says all unclean animals are carnivore, which listed the rabbit. Obviously that is false.
I do not understand why the rabbit is unclean, being totally herbavore. I understand the pig, carp, vulture because they are bottom feeders, eat rotten food, feces, and cannabilistic. I do not eay rabbit because it is on the list, but do not know why.

[Dennison Rivera]

The Hare is also called the Rabbit. I believe they eat something that makes them very unhealthy and they do not have their "hoofs" divided.

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/C-decepti ... sh_mammals" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rabbits

Even though the rabbit is herbivorous, Leviticus 11:6 states that it is unclean. The rabbit has a very enlarged caecum. In order for the rabbit to obtain sufficient nutrients from the plants it eats, it has to ferment the material. This requires a fermentation chamber with an alkaline environment. Since the rabbit does not have a pre-stomach, like the cow does, it has to use its enlarged caecum.
However, its caecum is sandwiched between its gut and rectum and most of the absorption of the nutrients takes place there. When the rabbit redigests this material, it becomes coprophagous. In other words, it eats its own excrement. Consequently, the level of toxins in its tissues is far higher than in other herbivores. Bile salts, fatty acids, gases, and ammonia levels are all at unacceptable levels for human consumption. All rodents, and even the horse, fall into the same category.

Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:7 Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.

[Dennison Rivera]

It's amazing to see how wise the Lord is. Keeping His people healthy.

Seems like the Hobbits of the Shire will be disappointed.

[Brad Gifford]

Thanks for the info, Dennison. Will read more on it.

[Joe Vonheeder]

Hi Brad...here's some supplementary information about that:

" "Lev. 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. (See also Deut. 14:7)"

The above represents one of the most popular objections in the skeptics book, and this is their take on the meaning: Hares (or some say rabbits, but "hare" is what is in mind here) are not ruminants; they practice refection. Refection is a process in which animals, like hares, eat their own dung mixed with undigested material. The Hebrew language does not use the word for "dung"; therefore, this passage is in error.

Two issues are at hand: the definition of "cud" and that of "chewing." Let's take a closer look at the Hebrew version of both. Here is the word for "cud" according to Strong's:

"gerah, the cud (as scraping the throat): cud."

There are a few factors we need to keep in mind here. First, this word is used nowhere in the Old Testament besides these verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We have only this context to help us decide what it means in terms of the Mosaic law.

Second, refection is a process whereby these animals pass pellets of partially digested food, which they chew on (along with the waste material) in order to give their stomachs another go at getting the nutrients out. It is not just "dung" that the hares are eating, which is probably why the Hebrew word for "dung" was not used here.

Contrast this with what cows and some other animals do, rumination, which is what we moderns call "chewing the cud." They regurgitate partially digested food in little clumps called cuds, and chew it a little more while mixing it with saliva.

So then: partially digested food is a common element here. We therefore suggest that the Hebrew word simply refers to any partially digested food -- the process is not the issue, just the object.

Our other key word here is 'alah', and it is found in some grammatical form on literally every page of the OT. This is because it is a word that encompasses many concepts other than "bring up." It also can mean ascend up, carry up, cast up, fetch up, get up, recover, restore, take up and much more. It is a catch-all verb form describing the moving of something to another place. (The literal rendering here is, "maketh the gerah to 'alah.")

So, the Hebrew word in question is not specific to the process of regurgitation but is instead merely a phrase of general movement. And related to the specific issue at hand, the rabbit is an animal that does "maketh" the previously digested material to "come" out of the body (though in a different way than a ruminant does) and does thereafter chew "predigested material." The mistake is in our applying of the scientific terms of rumination to something that does not require it."

(more thorough explanation here): htttp://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In other words, a better understanding of these phrases would be "eats again the partially digested food" and NOT (simply) "chews the cud."

I would say that this is where the KJV and other translations (including Strong) have done damage to understanding by inserting their own interpretation of what the Hebrew words "gerah" and "alah" meant for this verse, and, since it mainly applied to animals that did, in fact, "chew cud", they simply used that (incorrect) phrase in their translation(s) to apply to all those animals based on their own limited understanding, which has led to atheists pointing to Scripture and saying "contradiction to science!", which isn't true.

And this understanding of rabbit biology really didn't become clearly understood until the 20th century....but, in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, we see the Lord giving Moses and Aaron a special word (which eventually became the Hebrew word "gerah"), found nowhere else in Scripture, to describe what He was talking about.

The Lord clearly knew what He was talking about.

[Victor Hafichuk]

Interesting to say the least! Thank you all for it.