[Gank]

Indeed Mikhael. Sandwich, out of curiosity are you part of the jews for jesus movement?

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by mikhael
Thanks for the reference, Sandwich. Can you tell me with certainty the original language was in the patrilinear and not the figurative sense?

I can't, nope - I'm not a Greek scholar. I have a number of friends who are, though. I can ask if you want.

Originally posted by mikhael
If the Bible cannot be in error, then God cannot change his mind and rewrite the rules. Further, the Bible IS in factual error on several things (grasshoppers, my friends, have six legs, not four, and rabbits do not chew cud).

God can change His mind, just like He can influence us and force us to do whatever. But He chooses not to break His word, He chooses not to invalidate our free will.

And what's with the vague animal references?

Originally posted by Gank
Sandwich, out of curiosity are you part of the jews for jesus movement?

Not per se, nope. They do generally believe in the same things I do, though.

[mikhael]

Only one is vague, Sandwich: there's a passage I remember that discusses grasshoppers as four legged animals.

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

Rabbits don't chew cud.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by mikhael
Only one is vague, Sandwich: there's a passage I remember that discusses grasshoppers as four legged animals.

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

Rabbits don't chew cud.

Huh. reminds me of a Henny Youngman joke I hear my dad repeat a bunch.

[q]This guy goes to Vegas, and ends up losing almost all of his money. So he calls it quits and heads back home.

But just as he's driving out of the city, he hears a voice. Go back to Vegas...

So he turns the car around and goes back to Vegas.

Go in to the Crown Vegas casino...

So he goes into the Crown Vegas casino.

Go to the main table...

So he goes to the table.

Put all your mooney on number 4...!

He puts all his money on number 4.

Number 6 comes up.

The voice says, Huh! How 'bout that!
[/q]

Anyway, that was my initial reaction, to be honest. I looked it up online, and found this.

[Gank]

So because Aristotle also mentions rabbits (though not rabbits that chew the cud) it must be an extinct form of rabbit refered too despite the fact that no other evidence of one exists? Poor.

Grasshoppers

[mikhael]

From the NIV, Leviticus, Chapter 11, verse 5 and 6.

5 The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.  

6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.

Rabbits aren't extinct. I might buy CONEY'S being extinct.

Perhaps a translation error, Sandwich?

[Gank]

Arnabeth was the original word according to the sites I just visited.

[Bobboau]

wtf is a coney?

[Bobboau]

and additional stomachs for cud chewing is not the sort of thing that would just show up in one spices of rabit and no others.

the grasshoppers 'walking on all fours' may simply be a translation error though

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by Bobboau
wtf is a coney?

An amusement park AFAIK. Maybe it's the biblical term for Carnies? They chew cud.

[Bobboau]

coney or cony[both: kO´nE] Pronunciation Key, name used for the rabbit (Oryctolagus) and for its fur; more often, for the pika, a small rodent found at high altitudes in both hemispheres; and for the hyrax, a small herbivorous, hoofed animal of Africa and SW Asia. The last is probably the coney referred to in the Bible (Ps. 104.18; Prov. 30.26).

[/url]

[Knight Templar]

There goes my late night stab at humour.

[Setekh]

Originally posted by Gank
So because Aristotle also mentions rabbits (though not rabbits that chew the cud) it must be an extinct form of rabbit refered too despite the fact that no other evidence of one exists? Poor.

Grasshoppers

Poor? How about totally plausible? Think of the extinction rates we have these days.

Btw, Mik, out of curiosity, what else do you think about the change in direction between Testament I and Testament II? I still think that there is in fact no change of direction (at least, not like the one you mention, eg. God = solely angry -> solely loving) - what's your evidence for the assertion?

[Bobboau]

give me some sort of evedence that such a creature exsisted and then we will be talking plasabilit

[Setekh]

Bobboau, you know as well as I do that not everything in the past (especially the distant past, and especially the distant past on our planet that has an almost ruthless ability to virtually erase life that does not survive the rigours of its harshness) leaves visible or tangible evidence of its existence.

However, let me put my thus-formed idea of things like this: science has continually claimed to disprove the Bible. But archaeology and historical enquiry have progressively uncovered the truth of facts in the Bible. I don't doubt that the process will continue.

[Bobboau]

well I'm not saying it's imposable, but when someone points out something that is factualy wrong within the bible you cannot prove the acuracy by saying it was in the bible it must be true, find some sort of evedence to backup your claim, surely there must be some evedence of a four stomached rabit, there would be vestigile tishue or genetic evedence, a much more wide acount of such a creature even would fall into this catagory, so far we have  a small mention by a phlosipher and a holy book, find some more.

[Setekh]

Originally posted by Bobboau
well I'm not saying it's imposable, but when someone points out something that is factualy wrong within the bible you cannot prove the acuracy by saying it was in the bible it must be true, find some sort of evedence to backup your claim

Okay, sure, I understand where you're coming from, but I guess now's a good time to show a point at which my faith becomes important. At stages where I don't have direct evidence for what the Bible asserts, I go with the Bible. It's the same deal with science and nature, I think. When scientists look at their theories of science, and then see some place where their theories prove nature factually wrong, they think harder and realise that closer investigation of nature brings us closer to the truth. I appreciate that the analogy is not close by circumstance, but for me it's close for the way I act. This is where my faith steps in, not outside of my intelligence but to spurn it on - the other alternative is for me to swallow and not think, but I choose to grapple and struggle and so grow through that. Hasn't failed me yet.

[Gank]

Originally posted by Setekh
Poor? How about totally plausible? Think of the extinction rates we have these days.

Not very plausible at all really, we know about animals that became extinct hundreds of millions of years ago. The likelyhood of such an abnormality of a rabbit that chews the cud and has hooves existing without leaving any trace except an oblique mention in the bible is pretty remote. What is plausible to me is that whoever wrote the passage had only ever seen rabbits from a distance and had limited knowledge of their workings.

However, let me put my thus-formed idea of things like this: science has continually claimed to disprove the Bible. But archaeology and historical enquiry have progressively uncovered the truth of facts in the Bible. I don't doubt that the process will continue.

First of all, archaeology has proven nothing except that places and people described in the bible existed. Given the nature of the bible it would have been pretty stupid of those who wrote it to fill it with fictional places and people. Saying that because these places exist and are in the bible the rest of what the bible says is a fact is idiotic. What the bible says about god,jesus etc is not provable by anything other than god himself coming down and telling us.

Secondly the same archeology has proven the bible to be incorrect, unless there's an excuse for dinosaurs now. Or do they just get ignored?

[Nico]

Shhh, they don't exist, Lucie ( you know, that caveman chick ) neither, and Darwin's an heretic!!!!

'nyway, so, that Narnia thing is just a stupid remake of the bible? Oh, cool, sure, Tolkien, move over

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Setekh
Poor? How about totally plausible? Think of the extinction rates we have these days.

There's some problems here though, Steak. It just isn't totally plausible. Extinction might explain it, if you're willing to believe that one species of grasshopper existed in one part of the world that differed from every other grasshopper species everywhere else. However that's not how the world works. Same goes for the rabbit.

Grasshoppers have six legs. They've alway had six legs. Every bit of evidence that we have for the existence of grasshoppers shows them to have six legs. If a Grasshopper had FOUR legs,it wouldn't be a grasshopper. It would be something else entirely. It would seem to me that this is a translation error, since any person can walk up to a grasshopper and see that it has six legs very easily.

Consider the rabbit. Some animals chew cud (that is to say, they regurgitate their food for further mastication). Cows and (i believe) camels do this. Rabbits, of no variety, do not chew cud. Not only do they lack the physical apparatus to do this (a multi chambered stomach, or some sort of pre-digestive organ in line before the stomach) is part and parcel of ruminant anatomy. This would seem to be a translation error as well, for the same reason as the grasshopper.

Btw, Mik, out of curiosity, what else do you think about the change in direction between Testament I and Testament II? I still think that there is in fact no change of direction (at least, not like the one you mention, eg. God = solely angry -> solely loving) - what's your evidence for the assertion?

I thought I'd already admitted that it was an exaggeration for the purposes of illustration, Steak? I can find examples of Divine anger in both testaments and I can find examples of Divine benevolence in both testaments. The overall tone, however, of the Old Testament is that of an angry God, and the overall tone of the New Testament is that of a loving God. These two things are NOT irreconcialable and thus the distinction is not accurate. I used this as an example of obvious changes between the testaments that any lay person (and thus pretty much everyone reading this thread) could see.