Batyah
im lost on how this has anything to do with the bible XD all im hearing is what some newer older guys did or didnt do lol
That's what I mean about understanding your argument before you present it. I'll try to give a summary.
1. Leviticus 11:6 makes a claim, which is confirmed in all translations (even the Septuagint and Vulgate,) that rabbits
chew the cud.
2. You presented an apologetic for this, which involves three claims:
-a. That the Ancient Hebrews had not only a broader sense for what "chew the cud" means, but that the phrase
ma'alath ha-gerah speaks to their knowledge that reingestion and rumination are both done for similar nutritional purposes;
-b. That when a rabbit eats cecotropes, it looks like it's chewing the cud,
such that Linnaeus initially placed rabbits among the ruminants;
-c. That 'alah, a root meaning "go up," has several broad senses, such that insisting that the specific
ma'alath ha-gerah must mean something beyond chewing the cud: the apologist renders ma'alath as "bring up," but then renders gerah as "that which was swallowed."
3a. I dealt with the first by pointing out the differences between reingestion and rumination, and why the former does not involve any process of "bringing up" anything.
3b. I dealt with this by showing that Linnaeus did
not place rabbits among the ruminants, but among the rodents.
And now I deal with the third.
Gerah is a form of
garar, a root referring to the sound of something being pulled or dragged along something else.
Specifically, if you look at gerah, the word is chosen because of its reference to the
hocking sound made when a cow barfs up its cud to be chewed. Rabbits do not do this.
-----
Blue Letter Bible, in its treatment of
'arnebeth, suggests a different defence: that maybe 'arnebeth isn't a hare after all, but some unknown ruminant. Of course, while this defence is powerful, it robs Peter to pay Paul: it speaks against the reliability of the translations.