On Rabbits and Rumination: A Response to Christian Interpretations of Leviticus 11:5-6

On Rabbits and Rumination: A Response to Christian Interpretations of Leviticus 11:5-6

View as PDF

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْم

“The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.”

– Leviticus 11:5-6

            Over at Paul Williams’ blog BloggingTheology, I asked the Christian commenters to provide an explanation for the seemingly erroneous statement made in Leviticus 11 about rabbits “chewing the cud”.[1]  I have discussed this issue in previous articles, and not surprisingly, I received the usual answers.  Here, I will respond to the comments made by two Christians: the infamous Sam Shamoun of “Answering Islam” and BloggingTheology contributor Denis Giron. 


            Before we delve into the Christian answers, let us summarize the controversy regarding Leviticus 11:5-6, and why non-Christians see it as a scientific error.  As quoted above, verses 5-6 state that the Israelites were forbidden to eat hyraxes and rabbits.  Everyone knows what rabbits look like, but some people may have never even heard of a hyrax.  Here is what it looks like:[2]


The problem is that the verses claim that both hyraxes and rabbits “chew the cud”.  In other words, they regurgitate partially digested food to chew it again and then swallow it.  This is done in order to gain the most nutrients from the food.  This complex process is called “rumination”.[3]  Animals such as cows, sheep and goats are categorized as “ruminants”.[4]  But animals like hyraxes and rabbits are not ruminants because they do not regurgitate their food in order to chew it again.  Rather, they are categorized as “non-ruminant herbivores”.[5]   Thus, skeptics of the Bible claim that Leviticus 11:5-6 is a scientific error and clear evidence to disprove the Bible’s alleged “inerrancy”.  Now let us examine the proposed solutions to this problem, as presented by Sam Shamoun and Denis Giron.

Christian Proposals

  • Sam Shamoun

            When I asked Shamoun to provide his view on this issue, he responded by pasting a section from one of his articles.  His proposal was to examine the Hebrew words.  Thus, he stated:

“[t]he term for cud is gerah, a word that is never used elsewhere in Scripture besides here and in Deuteronomy. Gerah can mean, “grain, berry,” even “a 20th of a shekel”. Hence, gerah can imply something of little value. Rabbits go through a process called refection wherein they take their dung and chew on it in order to get at the remaining partially digested food. In this way, rabbits are able to get the most nutrients possible from the food they digest.”

While it is true that the word “gerah” does mean “grain” or “berry” etc., in the context of Leviticus 11 the Hebrew lexicons define it as:

“…the food which ruminating animals bring up to chew…”[6]

Here is a screenshot from “Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon”:

gesenius lexicon - gerah

As for the second definition, while it could be argued that the partially digested food is of “value” to the ruminant, this is not the meaning within the context of Leviticus 11.  Rather, as with Deuteronomy 14, it is specifically referring to the process of rumination.  Also, it can be argued that the food that ruminants chew is also of “value”, and that is the context for the word “gerah”.  But there is no indication that any type of “dung” or “feces” which could be of “value” to an animal is included.  Also note that there are related Arabic words in both cases (for cud and grain/berry), and they are different words.  The “Hans-Weir Dictionary” defines the Arabic word “jirra” as “cud (of a ruminant)”.  Here is a screenshot:

hans-weir cud

In contrast, the Arabic word for “grain” or “berry” is “habba”:

hans-weir grain

            But the bigger and more embarrassing blunder that Shamoun makes, and which is a testament to his shabby research, is the following little nugget (or pellet, if you want):

“[r]abbits go through a process called refection wherein they take their dung and chew on it in order to get at the remaining partially digested food.”

Perhaps Shamoun should pick up a science book once in a while, because this is an inaccurate claim.  While rabbits do perform the process called “refection”, also known as “caecotrophy”, in which they swallow soft feces, they do not “chew” it.  Rather, the pellet of feces is swallowed whole.  As stated in the book “Nutrition of the Rabbit”:

“[h]ard pellets are voided, but soft pellets are recovered by the rabbit directly upon being expelled from the anus. To do this the rabbit twists itself around, sucks in the soft faeces as they emerge from the anus and then swallows without chewing them.”[7]

The reason for this is that the pellets need to be covered by a protective layer of mucus, which would be impossible if the pellets were chewed before being swallowed.[8]  I asked Shamoun for his view on this issue because it was expected that he would respond by pasting one of his long rants, and he did not disappoint.  Unfortunately for him, I had already read this article and had commented on it recently on my blog.[9]  No hard feelings Sam!  It was just business!

            So this is a testament to Shamoun’s lack of scholarly attention to detail.  It appears that he simply copied another Christian article on the subject and assumed it was true.  In the article, he linked to Tektonics.org, which committed the same blunder:

“…refection is a process whereby these animals pass pellets of partially digested food, which they chew on (along with the waste material) in order to give their stomachs another go at getting the nutrients out.”[10]

So it appears that these Christian apologists just blindly copy each other, instead of actually researching these topics. 

            Moving on, Shamoun also stated that:

“…the Hebrew word for “dung” is used in Scripture to imply something defiled, unclean or useless and would not be suitable in describing what rabbits eat.”

If that is the case, then the Bible commits a different error, in verse 7, where it claims that pigs do not “chew the cud”:

“[a]nd the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you.”

The problem here is that pigs actually do eat dung occasionally, and since Shamoun has argued that the process of “refection” is included in the Bible’s category of “chewing the cud”, then pigs should also have been described as cud chewers.  Note that the process of “coprophagy”, eating feces, is not technically the same as “caecotrophy”, but is nevertheless similar.  Moreover, coprophagy does have nutritional “value” to pigs, specifically with regards to vitamin B-12 (cyanocobalamin),[11] as well as vitamin K.[12]

            Worse still, and probably most importantly, Leviticus 11:29 states that rats and mice are forbidden to eat, but it does not group them with hyraxes and rabbits, even though all of these animals practice caecotrophy!  According to Gordon Dryden:

“[s]everal small hindgut fermenting herbivores (e.g. rabbits and hares, rats and mice, voles and the ring-tailed possum) harvest the nutrients produced by hindgut microbial metabolism through ‘caecotrophy’ or ‘coprophagy’…”[13]

And yet, the Bible does not specify that rats and mice also “chew the cud”.  If Shamoun and other Christian apologists want to be consistent, they need to explain why the Bible overlooked the fact that rats and mice “chew the cud” and only mentioned it with regards to hyraxes and rabbits.

            To continue, Shamoun next discussed the Hebrew word “alah” which is most commonly translated as “chew”.  He argues that:

“…the term used for “chew” is alah and literally means to “bring up.”

And after providing examples from the Bible, he concludes that:

“…the term does not necessarily imply regurgitation, but can refer generally to any type of movement such as lifting or bringing up an object. Hence, Leviticus 11:6 is completely acceptable and poses no serious problem with what we know of rabbits.”

But as we have already seen, Shamoun does not know much about rabbits.  Nevertheless, he does not object to the fact that chewing is implied in the text, which is why he made the embarrassing blunder about rabbits “chewing” their dung (when in reality, they swallow the fecal pellets whole).  Thus, the Bible is still wrong and the error remains.  Indeed, virtually all English translations of the Bible, with the exception of “Young’s Literal Translation”, translate the relevant phrase as “chew the cud”.   

            Finally, to finish off his apologetic train-wreck, and apparently trying to cover his bases, Shamoun claimed the following:

“[t]here are some that actually do not believe Leviticus is actually speaking about rabbits. They rather feel that the verse is speaking of an animal that is no longer in existence…”

This argument is simply an act of desperation in order to avoid any possible hang-ups with the proposed solutions discussed above.  If the Christians want to claim that some unknown animal was mentioned in Leviticus 11, the question is which animal?  We know of extinct animals that lived millions of years ago, so it should not be too hard to identify an animal that lived in the time of Moses (peace be upon him).  It should be noted that the Hebrew word אַרְנֶבֶת  (‘arnebeth) is similar to the Arabic أرنب (‘arnab).[14]  Here is a screenshot of “Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon”:

gesenius lexicon - rabbit

According to the “Hans-Wehr Arabic Dictionary”, “’arnab” is defined as a “hare”, “rabbit” or “guinea pig”.  Here is a screenshot:

hans-weir rabbit

On a side note, guinea pigs also perform caecotrophy.

            So there we have it.  We have analyzed Shamoun’s attempted rescue operation of the Bible, and he failed miserably.  Now let us analyze Denis Giron’s proposed solution.

  • Denis Giron

            In response to my question, Giron offered the following answers:

“[t]he gist is that, English translations aside, the Hebrew phrase ma³aleh gerah (which I proposed might be rendered “take up the morsel”) could be expansive enough to encompass rumination, pseudo-rumination and caecotrophy (with Torah usage not necessarily intending all forms of coprophagy).”[15]

“[t]here is nothing limiting the verb to chewing or regurgitation (e.g. I could carry something up a ladder and use the verb to refer to that process). The verb most literally means to raise, lift, bring up, or cause to elevate (though in modern Israeli Hebrew it has also come to be associated with immigration to Palestine, as per the related word ³aliyah).”[16]

Let us deal with the first claim.  It is obvious that Giron is a much wiser person than Shamoun.  We can note his claim that the Hebrew phrase is somehow “expansive enough to encompass rumination, pseudo-rumination and caecotrophy” but also somehow “not necessarily intending all forms of coprophagy”.  Clearly, Giron has considered this issue from many angles and he kindly referred me to a Facebook conversation he had more than 7 years ago.  In that conversation, he had attempted to refute the argument that while pigs engage in coprophagy (similar to rabbits), the Bible does not classify them as cud chewers.  In this vain, Giron stated on Facebook:

“…because the text states that ruminants as well as certain non-ruminants, like rabbits, engage in this process, but pigs do not, I would think that the relevant phrase must be interpreted in that light. In other words, the process can include caecotrophy, which is a specific form of coprophagy, but does not include all forms of coprophagy. This is why, in my previous post, I said that I would interpret the phrase as including both rumination and /pseudo-rumination/. Whatever activitis [sic] pigs engage in, I do not believe they qualify as taking part in “pseudo-rumination” (in the lexicalized sense, as in overlapping with, or being identical to, caecotrophy).”[17]

Essentially, he argues that since the Bible does not classify pigs as cud chewers, it must not include coprophagy (at least the specific type that pigs engage in) in its list of cud chewing.  But this is based on the assumption that the author had this in mind, which has not been proven.  This is simply Giron’s own personal interpretation, and one that he has made in light of the scientific facts.[18]  I would argue that Giron is simply picking and choosing.  

            The other problem with this line of reasoning is that, as mentioned above, rats and mice also engage in caecotrophy, just like rabbits, yet the Bible does not classify them as cud chewers either!  I have studied the Facebook page and did not find any instance where the phenomenon in rats and mice was ever discussed.  If I am mistaken, I humbly ask that Giron to kindly correct me. 

            Furthermore, as an astute observer pointed out to Denis in the Facebook page, the Bible says that hyraxes also “chew the cud”.  The fact is that hyraxes do not ruminate NOR do they engage in caecotrophy![19]  Giron graciously accepted that this was problematic for his initial interpretation, but he then tried to “wiggle” around the problem by proposing that older translations of the Hebrew word now translated as “hyrax” was actually “rabbit”.  For obvious reasons, even if this is true, it is a weak argument at best.  

            As for Giron’s claim that the Hebrew phrase is not limited to chewing or regurgitation, we have already seen above that chewing is definitely implied in the text, since the context is rumination.  And since rabbits do not chew the fecal pellets, the problem still remains.    


            In this analysis, we have seen that the Christian attempts to explain the scientific error in Leviticus 11:5-6 cannot stand up to scrutiny.  It is my hope, naively or not, that Shamoun and Giron reconsider their initial assessments and admit that they may be mistaken.  

            And Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) knows best!     

[1] https://bloggingtheology2.com/2018/12/04/paul-and-the-depths-of-jewish-hermeneutics/#comment-255

[2] https://www.awf.org/wildlife-conservation/hyrax

[3] Michael Allaby, A Dictionary of Zoology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 470.

[4] https://www.britannica.com/animal/ruminant

[5] Peter R. Cheeke and Ellen Sue Dierenfeld, Comparative Animal Nutrition and Metabolism, 1st Edition (Oxfordshire: CABI, 2010), p. 38.

In actual face, hyraxes are not ruminants or caecotrophs.  See note #19.

[6] https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1625&t=KJV

[7] T. Gidenne, F. Lebas and L. Fortun-Lamothe, “Feeding Behaviour of Rabbits”, in Nutrition of the Rabbit, 2nd Edition, Edited by Carlos Blas and Julia Wiseman (Oxfordshire: CABI, 2010),  p. 233.

[8] Joerg Mayer and Thomas M. Donnelly, Clinical Veterinary Advisor: Birds and Exotic Pets (St. Louis: Elsevier Saunders, 2013), p. 389.

[9] https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/10/20/on-rabbits-and-rumination-answering-islams-incompetence/

[10] http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.php

[11] https://www.dsm.com/markets/anh/en_US/Compendium/swine/vitamin_B12.html

According to the above source:

“[c]oprophagous animals on deep litter receive excellent sources of vitamin B12 from microbial fermentation. The pig’s inclination toward coprophagy will supply part of the vitamin B12 requirement.”

[12] https://www.dsm.com/markets/anh/en_US/Compendium/swine/vitamin_K.html

It states:

“[a]nimals that practice some degree of coprophagy, such as the pig, can utilize much of the vitamin K that is eliminated in the feces.”

Surprisingly, when pigs are prevented from coprophagy, they may actually become deficient in vitamin K:

“[a]nimal feces contain substantial amounts of vitamin K even when none is present in feed. Despite the intestinal synthesis, animals can be rendered deficient when fed vitamin K-free diets and coprophagy is prevented (e.g., germ-free animals) or if a vitamin K antagonist is given.”

[13] Gordon McL. Dryden, Animal Nutrition Science (Oxfordshire: CABI, 2008), p. 88.

[14] https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H768&t=NIV

[15] https://bloggingtheology2.com/2018/12/04/paul-and-the-depths-of-jewish-hermeneutics/#comment-256

[16] https://bloggingtheology2.com/2018/12/04/paul-and-the-depths-of-jewish-hermeneutics/#comment-263

[17] https://www.facebook.com/denis.giron.77/posts/10150229369608566

[18] He even honestly admits this in one of his Facebook posts:

“I will unabashedly confess that my methodology is to (a) presuppose that the Scripture is correct, (b) accept that interpretations and translations are very fallible, and then (c) look in nature for a precedent to fit the Scripture – i.e. I attempt to look to natural revelation for exegetical insight. So, indeed, I have been deliberately siding with that which seems to best fit the text.”

[19] The observer “Malik Preena” stated:

“[f]inally in this discussion most decisive evidence that Leviticus is referring to “rumination” and not “refection” comes from the Hyrax mentioned in Leviticus 11:6 before the verse mentioning the Rabbit as chewing the cud. Hyrax although looks a bit similar to Rabbit belongs to a different order under zoological classification- Hyracoidea. Hyrax does not chew the cud nor does it refect. The evidence comes from a research paper by the University of Zurich where they listed Hyrax under the category of Non-coprophageous Hind gut fermentors, which is revealing indeed.”

He linked to the following scholarly article: https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/20645/5/Schwarm_Faecal_N_re-revised.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0JcUKZPYD1p6vI6e45XzRQetacl9Am2vRm4RIRy21e6uc2ayHA6m_hh9E

This article clearly labels the hyrax as a “non-coprophageous hindgut fermenter” (see p. 18) and includes it in a different category from “ruminant foregut fermenter” and “coprophageous hindgut fermenter”.  So this only compounds the problem.  Leviticus 11:5 claims that the hyrax “chews the cud”.  Neither rumination nor caecotrophy/coprophagy can fall into the category of “non-coprophageous hindgut fermenter”. 


27 thoughts on “On Rabbits and Rumination: A Response to Christian Interpretations of Leviticus 11:5-6

  1. stewjo004

    The problem I see in both arguments is there trying to use modern classifications to save the error as opposed to looking at the processes themselves:

    ruminants- Eats food, throws it up in its mouth, chews on it some more and then back down the hatch.

    caecotrophy- Eats food, goes out its back end, turns around an swallows the waste whole like a pill.

    These 2 processes are completely different. All the nonsense about the Hebrew word for value and lifting up is irrelevant to the processes of these animals. Yes, translators can make mistakes in understanding the original text but I can’t see that being the case here especially since even their own commentators concede that the Jews saw rabbits move their mouth and thought they chewed the cud like cows etc.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. stewjo004

      Also just saw part of his refutation:

      “Therefore the very lexicon he cites confirms my very argument. His only objection is that the lexicon doesn’t give this as the definition in Leviticus 11:6…”

      Part of a lexicon’s job is to show what a word means in it’s given context. That’s like saying a dictionary doesn’t always give the definition of what a word means. His entire argument is currently based on a “semantic fallacy”. (You may recall we were accused of this when discussing the little girls in numbers)


      Liked by 2 people

    2. They just don’t want to admit that it is an error. That is why they are going to such lengths and coming up with such fanciful interpretations. I suspect that in the back of their minds, they know their excuses are rubbish, but alas…


      1. stewjo004

        @ QB

        Lol, good job not letting them distract you from the error.

        Also, Sam has indirectly admitted the Quran is not written by humans and is supernatural by accusing the Prophet(saw) of being possessed.

        Furthermore, even though you shouldn’t bring it up so he has a chance to divert let’s see what the Bible says about prophetic revelation from our Jehovah Witness friends:

        Though appointed by Jehovah’s spirit, it does not appear that the prophets spoke continually under inspiration. Rather, God’s spirit ‘came upon them’ at certain times, revealing the messages to be announced. (Eze 11:4, 5; Mic 3:8) This had a stirring effect upon them, impelling them to speak. (1Sa 10:10; Jer 20:9; Am 3:8) Not only did they do things that were out of the ordinary but also their expression and manner doubtless reflected intensity and feeling that were truly extraordinary…Their total concentration and zealous boldness in their mission might cause their behavior to appear strange, even irrational, to others, just as a prophet so appeared to military chiefs when Jehu was anointed. Yet, on realizing that the man was a prophet, the chiefs accepted his message with full seriousness. (2Ki 9:1-13; compare Ac 26:24, 25.) When Saul, in pursuit of David, was caused to ‘behave like a prophet,’ he stripped off his garments and lay “naked all that day and all that night,” during which time David evidently escaped. (1Sa 19:18–20:1) This does not mean that prophets frequently went naked, for the Biblical record shows the contrary. In the two other cases recorded, the prophet went naked for a purpose, to represent some facet of his prophecy. (Isa 20:2-4; Mic 1:8-11) The reason for Saul’s nakedness​—whether to show him as a mere man, divested of his royal garments, impotent against Jehovah’s own regal authority and power, or for some other purpose—​is not stated.

        Jehovah used various methods to inspire the prophets: verbal communication through angels (Ex 3:2-4; compare Lu 1:11-17; Heb 1:1, 2; 2:1, 2), visions that impressed God’s message on the conscious mind (Isa 1:1; Hab 1:1), dreams or night visions given while the prophet slept (Da 7:1), and messages conveyed while the person was in a trance (Ac 10:10, 11; 22:17-21).


        So once again no knowledge of how revelation works. Maybe Sam would’ve preferred the prophet(saw) to strip naked in Mecca?

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Pingback: On Rabbits and Rumination: A Response to Christian Interpretations of Leviticus 11:5-6 – Blogging Theology

  3. retarded blob of excrement:

    “…the term used for “chew” is alah and literally means to “bring up.”

    “[h]ard pellets are voided, but soft pellets are recovered by the rabbit directly upon being expelled from the anus. To do this the rabbit twists itself around, sucks in the soft faeces as they emerge from the anus and then swallows without chewing them.”[7]

    how is the animals act of sucking and swallowing same as “raising ” ?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. stewjo004

      @ Tony

      He’s also pulling this understanding out of nowhere let’s read Rashi who’s the equivalent of ibn Kathir(rh) to the Jews:

      “which brings up its cud: It brings up and regurgitates the [ingested] food from its stomach, returning the food to its mouth, in order to thoroughly crush it and grind it thoroughly.
      cud: Heb. גֵּרָה. This is its name. [I.e., the name of the food that an animal regurgitates.] It possibly stems from the root [נגר, “to drag” or “flow,” as in the verse] “and as water which has flowed (הַנִּגָּרִים) ” (II Sam. 14:14), for the regurgitated food “flows back” to the mouth. Targum [Onkelos] renders the word גֵּרָה as פִּישְׁרָא, dissolved, since, through its being regurgitated, the food is dissolved and melted.”


      Also, nobody has mentioned the other problem in their explanation. The words used here for “chewing the cud” for rabbits and hyraxes is the same word for the verse before these ones in relation to camels which do “chew the cud”.

      Camel chewing the cud

      So not only are they arguing against the word’s normal usage and lexicon usage. They’re arguing the same word’s meaning changes in the same context from camels to hyraxes and rabbits.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. On BloggingTheology, Denis has used the argument that the Hebrew word “shaphan”, which most translations now render as “hyrax”, would have meant some other animal, most likely a rabbit. He used this argument because hyraxes do not engage in caecotrophy, unlike rabbits. This is another example of well-meaning Christians trying every which way to manipulate the text to fit in with every new scientific fact that they learn. Unfortunately for these Christians, the rendering of “shaphan” to “hyrax” is correct, as the following article explains:


    The article does try to explain why hyraxes are called cud chewers in the Bible, but the explanations are far-fetched. As explained, hyraxes are actually non-copraphageous hindgut fermenters, which leaves no room for either rumination or caecotrophy.


    1. stewjo004

      I mean Sam’s got a big uphill battle here just look at his argument:

      “…The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. (Leviticus 11:4)

      The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. (Leviticus 11:5)

      The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. (Leviticus 11:6)

      So I assume he has no objection to verse 4 which is correct they chew the cud. But now the next two verses say the EXACT SAME HEBREW PHRASE so if he wants to argue that this doesn’t refer to chewing the cud he then has to apply it to camels as well making the explanation wrong in regards to them. So either way, it’s a mistake being made.

      Finally, animals don’t just go extinct out of nowhere (especially seeing as the Jews aren’t eating them). So what is this alleged rabbit? The only commentator I could find who claims this is the Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible (the rest admit it’s a mistake) and even they don’t elaborate on their proof.

      So if he wants to go that route what is the proof for this position?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. There is no proof. It’s just an unsubstantiated excuse.

        As for the camels, they are arguing that the phrase can be expansive enough to mean rumination in one verse but caecotrophy in another.


  5. The verb is “to raise”

    DCH says it’s about raising…

    lift or move to a higher position or level.

    verb (used with object), raised, rais·ing.
    to move to a higher position; lift up; elevate:

    to raise one’s hand; sleepy birds raising their heads and looking about.

    to cause to rise or stand up; rouse:
    The sound of the bugle raised him from his bed.

    “[h]ard pellets are voided, but soft pellets are recovered by the rabbit directly upon being expelled from the anus. To do this the rabbit twists itself around, sucks in the soft faeces as they emerge from the anus and then swallows without chewing them.”[7]

    remember, the hebrew word means “raising” not “sucking”

    draw into the mouth by contracting the muscles of the lips and mouth to make a partial vacuum.
    “they suck mint juleps through straws”

    : to draw (something, such as liquid) into the mouth through a suction force produced by movements of the lips and tongue

    can one conflate sucking and raising ?

    do you RAISE a lolipop while it is in your mouth or do you suck it?

    when kitten is sucking the teeth of its mum, is it RAISING the milk or sucking the milk ?

    it is funny how they will think of hundreds of imaginations to recuse yhwh, but when it comes to “minimal facts” they cannot imagine how body of their pagan god was buried EXCEPT through jay of a.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. quote:
      “[h]ard pellets are voided, but soft pellets are recovered by the rabbit directly upon being expelled from the anus. To do this the rabbit twists itself around, sucks in the soft faeces as they emerge from the anus and then swallows without chewing them.”[7]

      i modify

      “[h]ard pellets are voided, but soft pellets are recovered by the rabbit directly upon being expelled from the anus. To do this the rabbit twists itself around, RAISE in the soft faeces as they emerge from the anus and then swallows without chewing them.”[7]


      Liked by 2 people

  6. Pingback: Al-Isra and the “Temple” in the Islamic Sources: Response to Sam Shamoun, Part II – The Quran and Bible Blog

  7. Pingback: Al-Isra and the “Temple” in the Islamic Sources: A Response to Sam Shamoun, Part II – Blogging Theology

  8. Pingback: BioLogos on Scientific Errors in the Bible – A Review – The Quran and Bible Blog

  9. Pingback: Feature Article: BioLogos on Scientific Errors in the Bible: A Review – Blogging Theology

  10. Pingback: On Shamoun’s “Challenge” to Debate – The Quran and Bible Blog

  11. Pingback: Hadith Database – Hadith on ‘Ajwa Dates and Protection Against Magic and Poison – The Quran and Bible Blog

  12. Pingback: The “Baptist Press” and Denisovan Fossils: Does Science Confirm the Bible? – The Quran and Bible Blog

  13. Pingback: The “Baptist Press” and Denisovan Fossils: Does Science Confirm the Bible? – Blogging Theology

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s