The Great Fabrication - Page 3

tommi atkins · 01-05-2008, 07:04 PM

Dead sea scrolls.
JK rowling has many notes and scraps of paper and Word files, pertaining to the Harry Potter Universe. Yea! Verily they were discovered by Zaphod Skysurfer in 2890 AD and they confirm the wonder of the time when Hogwarts had not been destroyed and Harry walked amonst us, with Ron Weasly and Hermonie, his companions and diciples.

Astral · 01-06-2008, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaun

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telimaktar

I never claimed to have proof, merely curious as to other peoples opinions. And there is no proof either that this cannot be true.

No, there's no 100% proof. I can't 100% prove unicorns don't exist.

But there's a TON of evidence to show the claim as false. We don't live our lives on 100% proof. We live and make decisions based on evidence.

Your claim is not evidentially substantial. Therefore, it is rejected just as the idea of unicorns are rejected - based upon evidence.

Wow... looking through this thread I found this gem.

Unicorns do exist. But they are not what people think they are. I wonder if anyone can figure this one out.

Dunno · 01-06-2008, 12:33 AM

seahorses?

Astral · 01-06-2008, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dunno

seahorses?

no... Unicorns are mundane land mammals. With as many people here that claim to have a great deal of study in the Bible, we should see an answer in no time(I hope).

Telimaktar · 01-06-2008, 03:30 AM

I would say the Rhino.

Found this in wiki:
And as I was considering, behold, a he-goat came from the west over the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. Daniel 8:5

In the domestic goat, a rare deformity of the generative tissues can cause the horns to be joined together

Astral · 01-08-2008, 10:00 PM

How long should I wait until I provide you with the answer?

If you do a little research on what that word means in etymological terms and translations you might be able to easily find the answer.

Telimaktar · 01-09-2008, 12:22 AM

Please tell me you're not refering to excited men walking around with a unicorn in their pants.

**Jacob** · 01-10-2008, 09:27 AM

I think that the unicorn is probably the product of a tall tale. Biblical scripture is the perception of a people who lived in an earlier time and it was conceived without the benefit of having much of the knowledge that is available to us today. Therefore, it is full of erroneous information.

An instruction from God, related in Leviticus 11:6, tells people not to eat rabbits because rabbits chew their cud. In reality, rabbits do not chew their cud. You'd think the almighty creator would have known that. In any case, the Israelites of the day pesumably obeyed this statute because authority told them to.

Today, it seems that not much has changed. Jet fuel that has been ignited by fire cannot get hot enough to melt steel; and yet, Americans have done nothing of note to challenge the official 9/11 story.

Jacob

shaun · 01-10-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob

An instruction from God, related in Leviticus 11:6, tells people not to eat rabbits because rabbits chew their cud. In reality, rabbits do not chew their cud. You'd think the almighty creator would have known that. In any case, the Israelites of the day pesumably obeyed this statute because authority told them to.

Ah, one of the most popular objections.

First off, let's quote the verse:

Lev. 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Firstly, rabbits do do something called refection, where they pass pellets of partially digested food, which they chew on (along with the waste material) to allow their stomach to try again at getting more nutrients.

This, however, is not "rumination" - the process cows do and that most English-speakers refer to as "chewing the cud". In rumination, cows regurgitate the food, rather than pass it as in refection.

So, why is the idiomatic term "chewing the cud" used here at all? Well, it's not like that in the Hebrew - the English translation says that. If you look at the Hebrew, the word for "cud" used here means any partially digested food.

So, yes - the rabbit actually is "chewing partially digested food," when rendered transliterally. We just get caught in the idiomatic expression.

**Jacob** · 01-10-2008, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaun

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob

An instruction from God, related in Leviticus 11:6, tells people not to eat rabbits because rabbits chew their cud. In reality, rabbits do not chew their cud. You'd think the almighty creator would have known that. In any case, the Israelites of the day pesumably obeyed this statute because authority told them to.

Ah, one of the most popular objections.

First off, let's quote the verse:

Lev. 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Firstly, rabbits do do something called refection, where they pass pellets of partially digested food, which they chew on (along with the waste material) to allow their stomach to try again at getting more nutrients.

This, however, is not "rumination" - the process cows do and that most English-speakers refer to as "chewing the cud". In rumination, cows regurgitate the food, rather than pass it as in refection.

So, why is the idiomatic term "chewing the cud" used here at all? Well, it's not like that in the Hebrew - the English translation says that. If you look at the Hebrew, the word for "cud" used here means any partially digested food.

So, yes - the rabbit actually is "chewing partially digested food," when rendered transliterally. We just get caught in the idiomatic expression.

If you are right, then it seems to me that the translators of biblical scripture were hardly divinely inspired. In any case, the post was meant to point out the lies that authority often expects others to believe.

Jacob