"hare" in the KJV's Deu. 14:7

TO: Robycop3

You wrote:

Do we know this?


Consider the following:

Professor Yedulah Felix of the Israeli Bar-Ilan University writes:

Actually, the whole issue of hyrax cud chewing is kind of complicated on whether they do or not.

I cite:

http://zootorah.com/hyrax/mainframe.htm


If one looks at the sample chapter at http://zootorah.com/hyrax/mainframe.htm
it raises the question of whether hares practice merycism which might fit ma'alah gerah which many translators render "chew the cud". But I need to read the book in question to know more.


Also, one must remember that the Bible was right about several matters that the scientific consensus erred on and this has happened many times:

Bible Versus Scientific Consensus
http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=1069


I think the example of the ants/lions given in the link directly above should give readers some pause in declaring the Bible to be in err.


Lastly, based on my readings of the various rabbinical/Christian scholars I think that many translations err in that they are too restrictive when translating ma'alah gerah to be "chew the cud" Please see: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=1069

[ June 07, 2005, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: kendemyer ]

 

How does God saying hares do not have cloven hooves show 'arnabeth' to be something else?

 

robycop3,

It seems that you are assuming a great deal on God's part.

The Lord appears hear to simply be very thorough when describing the dietary laws.

The law is...split hoof/chew cud...OK.
Split hoof/DON'T chew cud...NOT OK.
DON'T split hoof/chew cud...NOT OK.

Though you are correct that the lack of a hoof would label this animal unclean...the unusual action of chewing the cud(or at least appering to) could possibly confuse some.

Furthermore, it clearly fits the description of chewing the cud and not dividing the hoof because it DID NOT HAVE A HOOF TO DIVIDE!

No problem with the scriptures here.

Max

 

For robycop3,

A little more research for you...

"'Arnab, which is the common Arabic word for "hare," is from the same root as the Hebrew 'arnebheth."
(International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

It seems at this point, after all of the info that has been provided for you by a number of posters, that this is just another baseless attack on the abilities of the AV translators. What is interesting is that you posted in another thread that you are not capable of such translation work...yet you continue to be critical of those who are very capable.

Max

 

Just a couple of remarks regarding the "abilities" of the AV translators:

Andrew Downs, who was one of those who translated the Hebrew manuscripts, was described by none other than Milton as the "chief of learned men in England."

John Reynolds (Rainolds) became a fellow at Corpus Christi College at 17 years of age. He is described by his peers as "a living library, a third university" and "most prodigiously seen in all kinds of learning; most excellent in all tongues."

These are but two of the eminently-qualified scholars whom God providentially chose to work on the AV.

Regarding the knowledge of the rabbi being uncertain as to the exact definition of 'arnebeth,' that is an extremely weak argument. Will Robycop3 take the word of an unsaved Jew over that of the two devoted Christians named above along with the rest of the translators???

I have learned long ago that any seeming error in the AV is not an error on the translator's part, but rather than the lack of understanding on my part. I've also learned that it is to my benefit to let the word of God sit in judgment of me rather than me sitting in judgment of the word of God.

 

Your opinion in your statement is no more valid
evidence than if another person said that they had learned that any seeming error in a modern English translation is not an error on the translators' part but rather the lack of understanding of the part of the critics. Such an opinion may be true concerning some verses, but if you are claiming that your statement is a fact, then you need to provide valid evidence to support it. The Church of England translators of the KJV were not perfect nor infallible in their understanding and interpreting of the Scriptures.

Do you accept the Church of England doctrinal views of John Reynolds? Thomas Fuller noted that John Reynolds in his own practice "did willingly submit, constantly wearing hood and surplice, and kneeling at the sacrament" and that on his dead-bed "he earnestly desired absolution" (CHURCH HISTORY OF BRITAIN, V, p. 380). In a letter, John Reynolds joined Archbishop Richard Bancroft and King James "in arguing that the Church of England had wholly correct descent from St. Peter, and its clergy were in the direct, sacred line from the first Christian bishops" (Paine, MEN BEHIND THE KJB, p. 84).

 

The scripture does NOT say that Jesus was slain THEN hanged as some seem to be trying to make it say. It simply states that they "slew AND hanged" Jesus. A similarity would be if I were to say I drove AND listened to the radio. The two occurred simultaneously, not consecutively. Once again, a seeming error is nothing more than the lack of understanding on the critic's part. We can address each of the objections to the AV as the critics trot them out, or we can simply obey the scripture as it is written: "Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers." (2 Timothy 2:14)

 

A quick response to rsr's post (07:41 PM)

You stated, "It seems you want it both ways. We should accept the testimony about Downs from a heteredox, yet we dare not accept testimony from a rabbi who is a Hebrew scholar"

Perhaps you fail to appreciate the difference of a person's mere opinion of another person as compared to the question of the meaning of scripture. The first is based upon personal esperience the other upon the teaching ministry of the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:13) of which the unsaved rabbi has no access. They cannot be applicable evenly, as you said, because the first is of the flesh, and the second is of the Spirit.

If you need further understanding of that concept, I kindly direct your attention to 1 Corinthians 2:12-14). This passage should clear your seeming confusion on this matter and thus I bring this particular subject to a close on my part.

 

Replying to Logos1560's post (10:20 PM)

You stated, "Your opinion in your statement is no more valid evidence than if another person said..."

I presented it only as a matter of experience on my part...nothing more, nothing less. Take it at its face value, with as much value as you wish to place on the statement. It was nothing more than a testimonial with no claim whatsoever as to its authority on the matter.

 

Well it didn't take very "deep digging" to come up with those ridiculous analogies...proving your lack of discernment for "spiritual truth form a supernatural Book" comparing it to medicine and football. Contrary to what the good rabbi says, there has been a great deal of research done and placed for you to see that supports the choice of the AV translators here. You choose to deny!

I am truly amazed at the consistent seemingly purposeful absence of the "Holy Spirit's work in preservation and translation" made by the MV crowd.

This is GOD's Book we are talking about!

Why would you approach it critically in the first place?

I believe our first instinct should be "believe it!"

If you still have doubts, then research it. But unless you are absolutely 100% sure that it is wrong you should keep your mouth shut and give the Holy Spirit and HIS work the benefit of the doubt every time.

 

Perhaps you fail to see that other believers emphasize the word given by direct revelation and under inspiration of the Holy Spirit as preserved in the original languages instead of the interpreting/translating of one group of Church of England scholars in 1611 who were not given direct revelation nor direct inspiration. I am truly amazed at those who are willing to imply that Church of England scholars in 1611 had some special exclusive protection from error in translating similar to the Roman Catholic claim that Jerome had special protection from error in translating.

 

robycop3...I posted the reason why "slew and hanged" is entirely appropriate and not an error. Are you just going to ignore it and keep raving on or are you going to admit that the two occured simultaneously ("slew AND hanged" not "slew THEN hanged") and not consecutively?

I have noticed that you use the same tactics as the Mormons, Catholics, JW's et al in your debating --- when faced with a dilema regarding your position, you simply ignore it and keep repeating the same point, or move on to another objection. If you wish to engage in intellectually honest discussion, then don't use such inferior tactics.