Science & The Bible(was First human)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>MCGILL

>OK, how about "hares chew the cud".

>

>The hare IS NOT a cud chewer. The Hare is NOT a ruminant.


Lose one argument and move to the next. Since I'm neither
a Rabbi/Hebrew scholar nor an expert on Mideastern
mammals in ancient times, I have no idea which animal
the author and Biblical translators called a hare. But
the point is that hares were not to be eaten by human
beings, not what the digestive processes of the hare were.
The truth doesn't involve whether or not hares chew the
cud but whether hares should be part of the human diet.
<snip>

MCGILL
The Bible author made a statement, hares chew the cud, that statement is 
either true or false. This list is about Bible errancy. Bottom line hares 
don't chew the cud. As for losing one argument that is according to you 
in your own mind. I merely moved on too the hares chew cud because you 
did not address that in the original post.
==============================================
Religion and Science are like two modems on
a noisy phone line - except that only one of
them has an error correction protocol.

• Previous message: Science & The Bible(was First human)
• Next message: Science & The Bible(was First human)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]