http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=113
Did Moses Make a Scientific Mistake?
Q.
The Bible speaks of two animals, the coney and the hare, as “chewing
the cud.” Isn't the Bible mistaken on this point? These animals do not
actually chew the cud, do they?
A.
An infidel once wrote: “Something that has long perplexed me is the way
that inerrancy proponents can so easily find ‘scientific foreknowledge’
in obscurely worded Bible passages but seem completely unable to see
scientific error in statements that were rather plainly written.” This
skeptic then cited Leviticus 11:5-6, where the coney and the hare are
said to chew the cud, and boasted that since these animals do not have
compartmentalized stomachs like those in ruminants (e.g., the cow),
Moses clearly made a mistake. What shall we say to this charge?
First, no scientific mistake can be attributed to the Bible unless
all
of the facts are fully known. In such an alleged case, the biblical
assertion must be unambiguous. The scientific information must be
factual. And an indisputable conflict must prevent
any harmonization of the two. Do these criteria obtain in this matter? They do not.
Second, we must note that the words “coney” (Hebrew
shaphan) and “hare” (
arnebeth)
are rare and difficult words in the Old Testament. The former is found
but four times, and the latter only twice. The etymology of the terms is
obscure. In the
Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament),
shaphan is rendered by
dasupoda, meaning “rough foot,” and
arnebeth becomes
choirogrullion, literally, “swine-pig.” Hence, identification becomes a factor. It is commonly believed, however, that the
arnebeth is some species of hare, and that
shaphan denotes the Syrian hyrax.
But, so it is claimed, neither of these chews the cud. A number of
scholars have noted that both of these animals, even when at rest,
masticate, much like the cow or sheep, and that Moses thus employed
phenomenal language (i.e., describing something as it appears), for the
purpose of
ready identification, inasmuch as these creatures were ceremonially unclean and thus prohibited for use as food (Archer, 1982, p. 126).
That is not an impossible solution. Bats, for example, are listed along
with birds in Leviticus 11, not because both are mammals, but simply
because both fly. The Scriptures do not necessarily follow the arbitrary
classification systems of man. When Christ said that the mustard seed
is “less than all seeds,” (Matthew 13:33), He was speaking from the
vantage point of the Palestinian citizen—not that of a modern botanist.
We today employ phenomenal jargon when we speak of the Sun “rising and
setting.” Technically, it is not correct to refer to a woman’s amniotic
fluid as “water,” and yet doctors employ this language frequently. Why
do we not allow the biblical writers as much literary license as we
ourselves employ? The bias of agnosticism is utterly incredible.
There is, however, another factor that must be taken into
consideration. Rumination does not necessarily involve a
compartmentalized stomach system. One definition of “ruminate” is simply
“to chew again that which has been swallowed” (
Webster’s Dictionary).
And oddly enough, that is precisely what the hare does. Though the hare
does not have a multi-chambered stomach—which is characteristic of most
ruminants—it does chew its food a second time. It has been learned
rather recently that hares pass two types of fecal material.
In addition to normal waste, they pass a second type of pellet known as
a caecotroph. The very instant the caecotroph is passed, it is grabbed
and chewed again.... As soon as the caecotroph is chewed thoroughly and
swallowed, it aggregates in the cardiac region of the stomach where it
undergoes a second digestion (Morton, 1978, pp. 179-181).
This complicated process provides the rabbit with 100% more riboflavin,
80% more niacin, 160% more pantothenic acid, and a little in excess of
40% more vitamin B
12 (Harrison, 1980,
p. 121). In a comparative study of cows and rabbits, Jules Carles
concluded that rumination should not be defined from an anatomical point
of view (e.g., the presence of a four-part stomach); rather, it should
be viewed from the standpoint of a mechanism for breeding bacteria to
improve food. Cows and rabbits are similar in that both possess a
fermentation chamber with microorganisms that digest otherwise
indigestible plant material, converting it into nutrients. Some of the
microorganisms in these two animals are the same, or very similar.
Carles has stated that on this basis “it is difficult to deny that
rabbits are ruminants” (as quoted in Brand, 1977, p. 104). Dr. Bernard
Grzimek, Director of the Frankfurt Zoological Gardens in Germany,
likewise has classified the hare as a ruminant (1975, pp. 421-422).
On the other hand, the hyrax also is considered by some to be a
ruminant, based upon the fact that it has a multiple digestive process.
The hyrax has a very long protrusion, a caecum, and two additional
caeca near the colon. At least one of these protrusions participates in
decomposition of cellulose. It contributes certain enzymes necessary for
breakdown of the cellulose (Morton, 1978, p. 184).
Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia (1975) considers the hyrax as
a ruminant. Professor Joseph Fischel of the University of California
has suggested that the biblical allusion to the coney as a cud-chewer
probably was due “to the structure of its digestive system, the
protuberances in its large stomach together with its appendix and maw
possibly being regarded as analogous to a ruminant’s four stomachs”
(1971, p. 1144). In his significant study of the intestinal microflora
in herbivores, scientist Richard McBee observed that the hyrax has a
fermentation chamber for the digestion of grass by microorganisms (as
quoted in Brand, 1977, p. 103).
Finally, the precise meaning of
gerah, rendered “chewing the
cud” in most versions, is uncertain. Many orthodox Jews consider it
simply to mean a second mastication, or the semblance of chewing. Samuel
Clark stated that the meaning of
gerah “became expanded, and the
rodents and pachyderms, which have a habit of grinding with their jaws,
were familiarly spoken of as ruminating animals” (1981, 1:546).
In view of the foregoing facts, it is extremely presumptuous to suggest
that the Mosaic account contains an error relative to these creatures. A
sensible interpretive procedure and/or an acquaintance with accurate
information would have eliminated such a rash and unwarranted
conclusion.
REFERENCES
Archer, Gleason (1982),
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Brand, Leonard R. (1977), “Do Rabbits Chew the Cud?,”
Origins, 4(2):102-104.
Clark, Samuel (1981), “Leviticus,”
The Bible Commentary, ed. F.C. Cook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Fischel, Joseph W. (1971), “Hyrax,”
Encyclopedia Judaica (New York: Macmillan).
Grzimek, Bernard, ed. (1975),
Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold).
Harrison, R.K. (1980),
Leviticus (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press).
Morton, Jean Sloat (1978),
Science in the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Even
in the midst of ominous economic woes, the level of prosperity enjoyed
by Americans is unparalleled and unsurpassed in the history of the
world. So also is the freedom that Americans enjoy—unsurpassed in the
annals of human existence. To what do we owe these tremendous blessings?
Are these circumstances coincidental, or merely the result of
happenchance? A sizable segment of the American population has come to
believe that the religious complexion of the nation has little or
nothing to do with America’s freedom and prosperity. But what was the
viewpoint of those who orchestrated the American Republic? As they
arranged the inner workings of their grand political experiment, and
established the framework from which the nation was to function, did
they have anything to say about the role of religion as it relates to
freedom and prosperity? Indeed, they did.