Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
davros of skaro

Bible Blunders?

38 posts in this topic

Here are some mistakes, and two vids with contradictions in the Bible.

Feal free to add, or offer apologies.

Do Rabbits chew the Cud?

Leviticus 11:6

6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto

you.

Deuteronomy 14:7

7 Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the

cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not

the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruminant

Monogastric herbivores, such as Guinea pigs, horses and rabbits, are not ruminants as they

have a simple single-chambered stomach. These hindgut fermenters digest cellulose in an

enlarged cecum, allowing the easy digestion of fibrous materials.

Are "Bats" Birds?

Deuteronomy 14:11-18

11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.

12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the

ospray,

13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,

14 And every raven after his kind,

15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,

17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,

18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat

Genesis describes how one can produce spotted and striped cattle by having them mate near

some striped and speckled sticks.Also how to cheat others so you can have the strongest

cattle.

Genesis 30:37-43

37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled

white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.

38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering

troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.

39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled,

and spotted.

40 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked,

and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put

them not unto Laban's cattle.

41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods

before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.

42 But when the cattle were feeble, he put them not in: so the feebler were Laban's, and the

stronger Jacob's.

43 And the man increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maidservants, and menservants,

and camels, and asses.

These verses are largely responsible for the condemnation of Copernicus's Heliocentric

hypothesis in 1616, and Galileos's defense of it in 1633.

Ecclesiastes 1:5

5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

Psalm 19:4-6

4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In

them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a

race.

6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and

there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

Psalm 93:1

93 The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength,

wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Psalm 104:5

5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

Do the Math.

Ezra 2:3-64

Does it equal to 42,360 like it says, or is it 29,818?

Nehemiah 7:8-66

Does it equal to 42,360 like it says, or is it 31,089?

"It has been the scheme of the Christian church, and of all the other invented systems of

religion, to hold man in ignorance of the Creator, as it is of Government to hold man in

ignorance of his rights. The systems of the one are as false as those of the other, and are

calculated for mutual support. The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is

the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no

authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not

any thing can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon

which it is founded; and as this is not the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the

study of nothing."-Deist Thomas Paine "Age of Reason, Part II, Section 21"

http://www.ushistory...on/reason37.htm

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5pRiwFjnag

post-142153-0-35259100-1389829068_thumb.

post-142153-0-01778300-1389829076_thumb.

post-142153-0-41328200-1389829083_thumb.

post-142153-0-84749100-1389829091_thumb.

post-142153-0-67957400-1389829106_thumb.

post-142153-0-12818900-1389829132_thumb.

post-142153-0-85054300-1389829142_thumb.

post-142153-0-69997900-1389829155_thumb.

post-142153-0-25138800-1389829164_thumb.

post-142153-0-16597100-1389829179_thumb.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do Rabbits chew the Cud?

Leviticus 11:6

6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto

you.

Deuteronomy 14:7

7 Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the

cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not

the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.

Cud is a portion of food that returns from a ruminant's stomach to the mouth to be chewed for the second time.

Rabbits are herbivores that feed by grazing on grass, forbs, and leafy weeds. In consequence, their diet contains large amounts of cellulose, which is hard to digest. Rabbits solve this problem by passing two distinct types of feces: hard droppings and soft black viscous pellets, the latter of which are known as caecotrophs and are immediately eaten (a behaviour known as coprophagy). Rabbits reingest their own droppings (rather than chewing the cud as do cows and many other herbivores) to digest their food further and extract sufficient nutrients.[16]

Feel free to add, or offer apologies.

Edited by Ever Learning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are "Bats" Birds?

Deuteronomy 14:11-18

11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.

12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the

ospray,

13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,

14 And every raven after his kind,

15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,

17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,

18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Let's start with the simple answer. Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.

Feel free to add, or offer apologies.

Edited by Ever Learning
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do Rabbits chew the Cud?

Leviticus 11:6

6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto

you.

Deuteronomy 14:7

7 Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the

cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not

the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.

Cud is a portion of food that returns from a ruminant's stomach to the mouth to be chewed for the second time.

Rabbits are herbivores that feed by grazing on grass, forbs, and leafy weeds. In consequence, their diet contains large amounts of cellulose, which is hard to digest. Rabbits solve this problem by passing two distinct types of feces: hard droppings and soft black viscous pellets, the latter of which are known as caecotrophs and are immediately eaten (a behaviour known as coprophagy). Rabbits reingest their own droppings (rather than chewing the cud as do cows and many other herbivores) to digest their food further and extract sufficient nutrients.[16]

Feel free to add, or offer apologies.

Does the Rabbit cheweth the Cud?

No I think not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are "Bats" Birds?

Deuteronomy 14:11-18

11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.

12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the

ospray,

13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,

14 And every raven after his kind,

15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,

17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,

18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Let's start with the simple answer. Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.

Feel free to add, or offer apologies.

Well Yahweh missed a chance to shine by not calling it a "Flying Night Rat", or maybe it's a mistranslation by the KJV scribes?

Edited by davros of skaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davros, we both know that there are people with the full-time paying job of being apologetics.

What you and me are doing is basically like challenging OJ Simpson defense team. Good evidences do nothing eventually.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davros, we both know that there are people with the full-time paying job of being apologetics.

What you and me are doing is basically like challenging OJ Simpson defense team. Good evidences do nothing eventually.

LOL!

Do you think that you can talk a Women in a special room that thinks she's "Joan of Arc" into the reality that she's not?

I think not, and neither could I do such a task.

I post for the few out there that might be interested in the subject, whom may never gave it much thought untill presented to them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL!

Do you think that you can talk a Women in a special room that thinks she's "Joan of Arc" into the reality that she's not?

What assurance do you have that you're not in a special little room with a similarly unreal fantasy? Likely the exact same assurance that I have about my own beliefs - because we believe it so.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What assurance do you have that you're not in a special little room with a similarly unreal fantasy? Likely the exact same assurance that I have about my own beliefs - because we believe it so.

Well if I am in a special room, then I have the most real unfantasy going inside my head?

You on the other hand believe in a deity that has no evidence of it's existence, but only to those that want to believe in said deity.

It's my loss for not opening my self to the creator of the universe that requires Animal, and a one time 1/2 Human Blood sacrifices.

Pray for me. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a small theological issue, but it was a fully human sacrifice, not half-human. I'd pray for you, but I suspect you really don't want it, so I'll just keep praying in general without naming messr of skaro specifically ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What assurance do you have that you're not in a special little room with a similarly unreal fantasy? Likely the exact same assurance that I have about my own beliefs - because we believe it so.

I wouldn't phrase it as, 'the exact same assurance', perhaps the same 'type' of assurance, certainly not the same in degree. Everyone operates from the assurance that we are not in an unreal fantasy including all religious people; if you find out that you are in the Matrix then any foundation for your religious beliefs disappear also. And then theists layer lots more faith-based 'assurances' on top of that basic foundation for your religious beliefs. I don't think it's valid to say that anyone has the 'exact same assurance' that the sun moves through the sky due to the earth's rotation as they do that Thor is responsible for lightning strikes or that Purgatory exists, the evidence for the former is much stronger than the latter.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a small theological issue, but it was a fully human sacrifice, not half-human.

For non-standard definitions of 'human' only. Humans don't have magic powers, are not parts of a divine Trinity, etc.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the Rabbit cheweth the Cud?

No I think not.

care to elaborate on why you think this, a rabbit redigests the food it couldnt the first time. does it matter if it was vomited or defecated first. dont be so pedantic

Edited by Ever Learning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Yahweh missed a chance to shine by not calling it a "Flying Night Rat", or maybe it's a mistranslation by the KJV scribes?

Are you trying to be smart or funny, because you have accomplished neither. are you a jester or a skeptic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The Lord shows us that we ought not to answer those who ask a question with malicious intent (cf. Mt. 21:23-27). For He Himself did not reply to those Jews who questioned Him with cunning, although He was not at a loss for an answer.”

– St. Theophylact, Explanation of the Gospel of St. Matthew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The Lord shows us that we ought not to answer those who ask a question with malicious intent (cf. Mt. 21:23-27). For He Himself did not reply to those Jews who questioned Him with cunning, although He was not at a loss for an answer.”

– St. Theophylact, Explanation of the Gospel of St. Matthew

Discouraging critical thinking against the religion was something about Christianity that never sat well with me. It's a little too convenient that every time I thought about the Bible objectively it had to be "the devil's influence". Seriously? :passifier:

If you're strong in your faith, you should never have a problem with putting it under the microscope.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discouraging critical thinking against the religion was something about Christianity that never sat well with me. It's a little too convenient that every time I thought about the Bible objectively it had to be "the devil's influence". Seriously? :passifier:

If you're strong in your faith, you should never have a problem with putting it under the microscope.

“Do not dispute the over the truth with someone who does not know the truth; but from the person who is eager to know the truth, do not withold words from him”

– St. Isaac the Syrian. [Keph I.14] (From the Wisdom of St. Isaac the Syrian)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

care to elaborate on why you think this, a rabbit redigests the food it couldnt the first time. does it matter if it was vomited or defecated first. dont be so pedantic

It matters as far as, as you put it, 'vomiting' up of food qualifies as 'chewing your cud'; the rabbit chews it's crap. I don't think the original language went to this level of specificity so its understandable that this may have not been literally accurately translated to 'chewing their cud' (depending on how much one is wedded to the Bible being of divine origin). Regardless, it's not pedantic, it's being accurate, you can blame God for not doing a little more ongoing editorial control over his 'eternal word'...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THAT THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE

Whenever a person even slightly illumined reads the Scriptures or sings psalms he finds in them matter for contemplation and theology, one text supporting another. But he whose intellect is still unenlightened thinks that the Holy Scriptures are contradictory. Yet there is no contradiction in the Holy Scriptures: God forbid that there should be. For some texts are confirmed by others, while some were written with reference to a particular time of a particular person. Thus every word of Scripture is beyond reproach. The appearance of contradiction is due to our ignorance. We ought not to find fault with the Scriptures, but to the limit of our capacity we should attend to them as they are, and not as we would like them to be, after the manner of the Greeks and Jews. for the Greeks and Jews refused to admit that they did not understand, but out of conceit and self-satisfaction they found fault with the Scriptures and with the natural order of things, and interpreted them as they saw fit and not according to the will of God. As a result they were led into delusion and gave themselves over to every kind of evil.

The person who searches for the meaning of the Scriptures will not put forward his own opinion, bad or good; but, as St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom have said, he will take as his teacher, not the learning of this world, but Holy Scripture itself. Then if his heart is pure and God puts something unpremeditated into it, he will accept it, providing he can find confirmation for it in the Scriptures, as St. Antony the Great says. For St. Isaac says that the thoughts that enter spontaneously and without premeditation into the intellects of those pursuing a life of stillness are to be accepted; but that to investigate and then to draw one’s own conclusions is an act of self-will and results in material knowledge.

This is especially the case if a person does not approach the Scriptures through the door of humility but, as St. John Chrysostom says, climbs up some other way, like a thief (cf. John 10:1), and forces them to accord with his allegorizing. For no one is more foolish than he who forces the meaning of the Scriptures or finds fault with them so as to demonstrate his own knowledge — or, rather, his own ignorance. What kind of knowledge can result from adapting the meaning of the Scriptures to suit one’s own likes and from daring to alter their words? The true sage is he who regards the text as authoritative and discovers, through the wisdom of the Spirit, the hidden mysteries to which the divine Scriptures bear witness.

The three great luminaries, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian and St. John Chrysostom, are outstanding examples of this: they base themselves either on the particular text they are considering or on some other passage of Scripture. Thus no one can contradict them, for they do not adduce external support for what they say, so that it might be claimed that it was merely their own opinion, but refer directly to the text under discussion or to some other scriptural passage that sheds light on it. And in this they are right; for what they understand and expound comes from the Holy Spirit, of whose inspiration they have been found worthy. No one, therefore, should do or mentally assent to anything if its integrity is in doubt and cannot be attested from Scripture. For what is the point of rejecting something who integrity Scripture clearly attests as being in accordance with God’s will, in order to do something else, whether good or not? Only passion could provoke such behaviour.

– St. Peter of Damascus, Philokalia, Volume 3

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It matters as far as, as you put it, 'vomiting' up of food qualifies as 'chewing your cud'; the rabbit chews it's crap. I don't think the original language went to this level of specificity so its understandable that this may have not been literally accurately translated to 'chewing their cud' (depending on how much one is wedded to the Bible being of divine origin). Regardless, it's not pedantic, it's being accurate, you can blame God for not doing a little more ongoing editorial control over his 'eternal word'...

Two issues are at hand: the definition of ‘cud’ and that of ‘chewing’. Let’s take a close look at the Hebrew version of both.

In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs.1 Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.

However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and haresdochew the cud’ in an even more specific sense.

First, gerah (or gehrah) is indeed the word used here, and—this is important—it is used nowhere in the Old Testament besides these verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We have only this context to help us decide what it means in terms of the Mosaic law. Second, the process rabbits go through is called refection, and it is not just ‘dung’ that the rabbits are eating, which is probably why the Hebrew word for ‘dung’ was not used here.

the word gehrah also means 1/20th of a shekel actually gives us a hint here! 1/20th of a shekel is of little worth, but it does have worth. Where the word for ‘dung’ is used in the Bible, it implies something defiled, unclean, or useless. But in lapine terms, ‘dung’ is not useless: It contains pellets of partially digested food, which rabbits chew on (along with the waste material—UGH!) in order to give their stomachs another go at getting the nutrients out.

Contrast this with what cows and some other animals do, rumination, which is what we moderns call ‘chewing the cud’. They regurgitate partially digested food in little clumps called cuds, and chew it a little more after while mixing it with saliva.So, let’s see … partially digested food. Partially digested food. Seems to be a common element here. Could it be that the Hebrew word simply refers to any partially digested food? Could it be that the process is not the issue, just the object?

Our other key word provides us with some hints. he phrase translated ‘chew the cud’ in the KJV is more exactly ‘bring up the cud’. (The full phrase is ‘maketh the cud to come up’.) By leaving it at that, he apparently wishes for us to believe that ‘bring up’ means, in an exclusive sense, regurgitation.

The word here is ‘alah, and it is found in some grammatical form on literally (well, almost literally) every page of the OT! This is because it is a word that encompasses many concepts other than ‘bring up’. It also can mean ascend up, carry up, cast up, fetch up, get up, recover, restore, take up, and much more. It is a catch-all verb form describing the moving of something to another place. (‘maketh the gehrah to‘alah’)

Now in the verses in question, ‘alah is used as a participle. Let’s look at the other verses where it is used this way (NIV only implies some of these phrases; where in parentheses, the phrase is in the original, sometimes in the KJV):

  • Josh. 24:17 It was the Lord our God himself who brought us and our fathers up out of Egypt. …
  • Isaiah 8:7therefore the Lord is about to bring (up) the burnt offering
  • Nahum 3:3 Charging cavalry, flashing swords (lifted up), and glittering spears!
  • Isaiah 8:7therefore the Lord is about to bring (up) against them the mighty floodwaters of the River
  • 2 Chron. 24:14 When they had finished, they brought (up) the rest of the money
  • Ps. 135:7 He makes clouds rise (up) from the ends of the earth
  • 2 Sam. 6:15while he and the entire house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouts and the sound of trumpets. (Similar quote, 1 Chr. 15:28)

OUCH! That last one would hurt if the word meant regurgitation. No wonder people were shouting …

So what have we learned? The Hebrew word in question is NOT specific to the process of regurgitation; it is a phrase of general movement. And related to the specific issue at hand, the rabbit is an animal that does ‘maketh’ the previously digested material to ‘come up’ out of the body (though in a different way than a ruminant does.

with rabbits, it comes all the way through; but again, the word is not specific for regurgitation!) and thereafter does chew ‘predigested material’! The mistake is in our applying of the scientific terms of rumination to something that does not require it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike most other mammals, lagomorphs (including domestic rabbits) produce two types of droppings, fecal pellets (the round, dry ones you usually see in the litterbox) and cecotropes. The latter are produced in a region of the rabbit's digestive tract called the cecum, a blind-end pouch located at the junction of the small and large intestines. The cecum contains a natural community of bacteria and fungi that provide essential nutrients and may even protect the rabbit from potentially harmful pathogens.

How does the rabbit get those essential nutrients? She eats the cecotropes as they exit the anus. The rabbits blissful expression when she's engaging in cecotrophy (the ingestion of cecotropes) will tell you that she finds this anything but disgusting. In fact, rabbits deprived of their cecotropes will eventually succumb to malnutrition. Cecotropes are not feces. They are nutrient-packed dietary items essential to your companion rabbit's good health.

A rabbit may produce cecotropes at various times during the day, and this periodicity may vary from rabbit to rabbit. Some produce cecotropes in the late morning, some in the late afternoon, and some at night. In any case, they usually do this when you're not watching (quite polite of them). This might be why some people refer to cecotropes as "night droppings," though cecotropes are not always produced at night. A human face is apparently an excellent and refreshing palate-cleanser, as a favorite activity immediately post-cecotrophy often seems to be "kiss the caregiver". Mmmmmm.

Normal Intestinal Products

Anyone who lives with a bunny has seen a fecal pellet. These are the small, brown "cocoa puffs" that (we hope) end up in the litterbox. They should be relatively spherical, somewhat dry and friable, and composed mostly of undigested fiber. Rabbits do not ordinarily re-ingest fecal pellets, though a few bunnies seem to enjoy an occasional fecal pellet hors d'ouevre with no harm.

A normal cecotrope resembles a dark brown mulberry, or tightly bunched grapes. It is composed of small, soft, shiny pellets, each coated with a layer of rubbery mucus, and pressed into an elongate mass. The cecotrope has a rather pungent odor, as it contains a large mass of beneficial cecal bacteria. When the bunny ingests the cecotrope, the mucus coat helps protect the bacteria as they pass through the stomach, then re-establish in the cecum.

http://www.bio.miami.edu/hare/poop.html

Instead of contacting all of Humanity, and teach them the Sciences, God favors one tribe of Bronze age Goat herders, and dictates a list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike most other mammals, lagomorphs (including domestic rabbits) produce two types of droppings, fecal pellets (the round, dry ones you usually see in the litterbox) and cecotropes. The latter are produced in a region of the rabbit's digestive tract called the cecum, a blind-end pouch located at the junction of the small and large intestines. The cecum contains a natural community of bacteria and fungi that provide essential nutrients and may even protect the rabbit from potentially harmful pathogens.

How does the rabbit get those essential nutrients? She eats the cecotropes as they exit the anus. The rabbits blissful expression when she's engaging in cecotrophy (the ingestion of cecotropes) will tell you that she finds this anything but disgusting. In fact, rabbits deprived of their cecotropes will eventually succumb to malnutrition. Cecotropes are not feces. They are nutrient-packed dietary items essential to your companion rabbit's good health.

A rabbit may produce cecotropes at various times during the day, and this periodicity may vary from rabbit to rabbit. Some produce cecotropes in the late morning, some in the late afternoon, and some at night. In any case, they usually do this when you're not watching (quite polite of them). This might be why some people refer to cecotropes as "night droppings," though cecotropes are not always produced at night. A human face is apparently an excellent and refreshing palate-cleanser, as a favorite activity immediately post-cecotrophy often seems to be "kiss the caregiver". Mmmmmm.

Normal Intestinal Products

Anyone who lives with a bunny has seen a fecal pellet. These are the small, brown "cocoa puffs" that (we hope) end up in the litterbox. They should be relatively spherical, somewhat dry and friable, and composed mostly of undigested fiber. Rabbits do not ordinarily re-ingest fecal pellets, though a few bunnies seem to enjoy an occasional fecal pellet hors d'ouevre with no harm.

A normal cecotrope resembles a dark brown mulberry, or tightly bunched grapes. It is composed of small, soft, shiny pellets, each coated with a layer of rubbery mucus, and pressed into an elongate mass. The cecotrope has a rather pungent odor, as it contains a large mass of beneficial cecal bacteria. When the bunny ingests the cecotrope, the mucus coat helps protect the bacteria as they pass through the stomach, then re-establish in the cecum.

http://www.bio.miami.../hare/poop.html

Instead of contacting all of Humanity, and teach them the Sciences, God favors one tribe of Bronze age Goat herders, and dictates a list.

think the last part is something for another topic and the previous didnt state wether you were agreeing or disagreeing with me.

Edited by Ever Learning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Do not dispute the over the truth with someone who does not know the truth; but from the person who is eager to know the truth, do not withold words from him”

– St. Isaac the Syrian. [Keph I.14] (From the Wisdom of St. Isaac the Syrian)

Do any of your Saints have anything to say about spamming quotes all over a forum?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thinks the last part is something for another topic and the previous didnt state wether you were agreeing or disagreeing with me.

I am going to spin it. :yes:

Leviticus 11:6

6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto

you.

Deuteronomy 14:7

7 Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the

cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not

the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.

The Rabbit is clearly in a different category, and belongs in a different class if an actual deity was showing wisdom.The thing is people eat non-Kosher animals every day no problem.It's a matter on how it was raised, and prepared.This Kosher list screams superstitious ignorrance of Bronze age people making stuff up to keep their populace inline.

Come out of your Cave for there is much to see.

[media=]

[/media]

post-142153-0-87089900-1389910773_thumb.

post-142153-0-84757500-1389910835_thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.