Is the Bible True?

 

DO HARES REALLY CHEW THE CUD?

 
by Louis A. Turk, B.A., M.Div., Ph.D.
 

How could the digestive process of the lowly hare become the object of an important theological discussion?  The Bible says that the hare chews the cud, but a recent humanist book claims that the Bible is in error on this point.  Furthermore, this humanist book claims that since the Bible contains this error, it is not the Word of God and cannot be taken seriously on any other points either.  These are serious charges.  On the other hand, if the humanists be wrong on this point, perhaps it is they whom we should not take seriously on any other points either.

So let’s study the hare closely to see if the Bible is indeed wrong, or if it is these atheistic religious humanists who are wrong.
 

The Bible Says Hares Chew the Cud

These religious humanists are right about one thing: the Bible does teach that hares chew the cud. These two passages of Scripture very clearly state that the children of Israel were not to eat the hare because the hare chews the cud, but does not have a divided hoof.  (Some people believe that not all hares can be considered rabbits.  However, everyone seems to agree that all rabbits are hares.  So, for this article the two terms will be used interchangeably.)  It is correct to say that the Bible does, indeed, teach that rabbits (hares) chew the cud.
 

Humanists Claim Hares Don’t Chew the Cud

It cannot be said that all humanists teach that hares do not chew the cud, for we would have to question every humanist in the world to ascertain that.  However, it can truthfully be said that some very well known humanists do so say.  Rod L. Evans and Irwin M. Berent have written a book entitled Fundamentalism: Hazard and Heartbreaks which has a forward by Steve Allen and an introduction by Isaac Asimov.  Asimov was one of the signers of Humanist Manifesto II and has written many books opposing Christianity and teaching humanism, and was till his recent death president of the American Humanist Association, so we can safely conclude that he would not have written the introduction to this book unless it was in accord with his humanistic views.  This book is a collection of many of the excuses atheists have given over the years for rejecting God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ.  Most of these excuses were proven erroneous years ago shortly after they were given, and only dishonest people would continue to use them However, there was one excuse listed in this book that was new (at least to me).  On page 86 of their book, Evans and Berent state: Since Evans and Berent make this statement publicly in a book devoted totally to discrediting people "who believe that the Bible is infallible" (Ibid., xix.), it behooves us to see if these two atheistic religious humanists really base everything on conclusions reached by the scientific method, as they claim.  Or are they simply spouting off some of the "profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" we are warned about in 1 Tim 6.20?
 

What Are the Facts?

Surprisingly little is known about hares.  Until relatively recent times, few scientific studies were made of them.  R.M. Lockley, a distinguished British biologist and field naturalist, is among the foremost hare experts.  His book, The Private Life of the Rabbit: An Account of the life and History and Social Behavior of the Wild Rabbit (New York, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1964), details his research and provides a authoritative answer to our question.

Lockley spent most of his life studying rabbits.  As a child he raised rabbits.  When he was twenty he obtained the lease to "240-acre Skokholm island, five miles off the entrance to Milforn Haven" (Ibid., 14).  His intention was to kill off the wild rabbit population on this island so that he could raise a more valuable strain of rabbit which had fur resembling that of the chinchillas.  He preformed many experiments to try to control the wild rabbit population on this island.  Says Lockley,

Lockley and his helpers built a special observatory where they could observe wild rabbits up close, both above ground and in their burrows, without disturbing the rabbits.  From his careful and systematic observations in this unique observatory, Lockley became one of the foremost authorities on rabbits.

Chapter 10 of Lockley’s book is entitled "Reingestion."  He begins this chapter by quoting Leviticus chapter 11, as we did at the beginning of this article.  He then reports that rabbits do little underground except rest, sleep, and preen themselves.  However, there is one exception to this relative lack of activity while underground.

Lockley goes on to explain that rabbits chew their cuds differently than cows, goats or sheep, which regurgitate their food and rechew it.  The rabbit, instead, eats its own excrement (faecal pellets), and thus redigests them.  Usually this occurs during the daytime underground as the rabbit is resting.  Occasionally this was observed above ground, but We are forced to conclude that simple faith in God’s Word would have resulted long ago in scientists looking more specifically, and therefore seeing, rabbits chewing their cud.  But unbelief kept them blinded to the facts.
 

But Do Hares Really ”Chew” the Cud?

Lockley reports that researchers Mervyn Griffiths and David Davies in Australia So, are the pellets (cud) chewed or not?  It is perhaps impossible to ever observe what is actually going on inside the rabbit’s mouth as it appears to chew the cud.  I would suggest that since the Bible was right about the rabbit having a cud, it is also right about the rabbit chewing the cud.  Perhaps the chewing is gentle enough so as to not break the membrane, but rough enough to crush its contents so as to make redigestion easier.  This certainly seems possible as Lockley says that "the membrane is quite tough" (Ibid., 106), and would account for the fact that the rabbit spends from "one to over 100 seconds" doing something with its jaws that certainly appears to be chewing after taking the cud into its mouth.  One thing for certain: God’s word has certainly proven to be more accurate than the speculation of unbelievers.  Is it not significant that unbelieving "scientists" have not known about a rabbit’s cud for thousands of years even though the fact of it is recorded in the oldest book on earth?  It should be obvious to all that the Bible is no ordinary book to be set aside lightly.
 

Some Important Conclusions

Having proved humanists wrong on yet another point in which they contest the Bible, how can we trust anything they say any longer?  All my life I have been examining the claims of unbelievers that there are errors in the Bible.  In every case to date, after careful examination the Bible has proven to be correct, and the men that questioned it have proven to be in error.  God’s Word has without exception proven itself fully qualified to correct men, while men have shown themselves to be totally unqualified to correct God’s Word.  The wise man will agree with the Bible: "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom 3.4).
Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from this study about hares chewing the cud is this: had we gone to the library at an earlier point in history we may not have been able to find any books supporting the Bible position concerning this matter.  However, the Bible would still have been true, and the men who disputed it would have been wrong.  Sometimes direct research has to be done to confirm the accuracy of a questioned Bible verse, but the Bible is always proven to be true in the end.

The cud of a hare is just one example of proof that the so-called "science" of humanism is not actually science at all, but is mere philosophy—unproven opinions of men.  A true scientist reports only what he observes.  But no one has ever observed life come from dead matter, or a non-human give birth to a human.  No one has ever observed an animal of one kind give birth to an animal of a different kind.  These are the presuppositions of the theory of evolution.  The fact that humanists claim such unscientific theories to be scientific shows that they are unable to look at anything without bias.  The truth is they approach all aspects of life with the fanatical belief that "the only absolute is that there are no absolutes."  They have espoused such a silly idea because God claims to be absolute authority, and the Bible claims to be the absolute truth, and so they must reject both God and the Bible to keep from feeling guilty when they purposely break God’s laws which are recorded in the Bible.  Therefore, rejection of absolutes is inseperable from atheism.

The moment a person rejects absolutes that person declares war on God and Christianity, for if God is not absolute in holiness as the Bible of Christianity teaches, then there must be a better morality then God’s, in which case the Christian teaching that Christian morality is perfect would be a great hinderance to progress and therefore a great evil.  As Sir Julius Huxley, one of Humanism’s most famous champions, states in The Humanist Frame,

This is why humanists spend so much time, energy and resources opposing Christianity.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to reason with a humanist.  One cannot have a logical discussion with a person who believes one cannot be absolutely sure about anything, and that nothing matters except winning the argument.  Since he is not absolutely sure that what he himself believes is true, he possesses no solid, unchanging values.  Thus it is impossible to find a mutually accepted foundation upon which to base logic so as to be able to persuade him of anything.  The moment he sees that his challenger’s argument is valid, he changes his belief so as to make his challengers efforts to communicate with him fruitless.
A humanist can justify any evil behavior—even murder, robbery, rape, or sodomy—with a giddy "nothing is absolutely wrong."  Having no clear concept of right and wrong, such a person constantly changes positions, and lies, sincerely believing that even lying is not absolutely wrong.  Such a person therefore cannot be of high integrity or character, for he can never be trusted to tell the truth or to keep his promises.

Consider how stupid and illogical this foundational ideological belief of humanism actually is.  If there are no absolutes, then it cannot be absolutely true that there are no absolutes.  And if it is not absolutely true that there are no absolutes, then it must be absolutely false that the there are no absolutes.  And if it be absolutely false that there are no absolutes, then it must be absolutely true that there are absolutes.

Obviously then when a person rejects absolutes he is intentionally closing his eyes to the light.  He can’t see because he won’t see.  This is why rejecting God and the Bible makes it impossible for a person to ever find truth.

Dr. Henry M. Morris, in his book The Long War Against God: the History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989), page 344, says concerning humanism and Isaac Asimov: One is also reminded of Rom 1.28: "...as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind."  Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second Edition, defines reprobate as "depraved, corrupt, unprincipled; rejected by God; excluded from salvation and lost in sin."  Such is the humanist mind—a high price to pay for closing ones eyes to the plain facts of all true science.

To learn how you can be rescued from such a terrible condition, read "Ye Must Be Born Again."


(C) Copyright 1994 by Louis A. Turk. All rights reserved. You may  reprint this article, provided you do not edit it in any way without the author's consent, and provided this paragraph is printed at the end of the article.  Other publication requires advance permission of the author.



Louis A. Turk, B.A., M.Div., Ph.D.

www.EternalSalvation.Org

The website dedicated to the study of eternal life.

ETERNAL LIFE IS NOT TEMPORARY LIFE!