Putting aside that it doesn't say rabbit, do you think that "chewing the cud" might actually mean just lifting the head to chew? I doubt they really understood what chewing the cud was then as we understand it now. It would make more sense.
The difference might be between a cow, that lifts...
If you think it is easy then you don't understand it. There are many levels of understanding that can be gained from it, not least the way they understood it in their time period.
Haha... that is a good point. So perhaps the elders knew something. Good, seems to make sense.
Do you think then that the law was not used as strict as some people now like to think? Do you think they were more of a ruling that could be used depending on the situation? It would seem impossible...
Everything in the bible is true, but it doesn't mean you will like it and certainly doesn't mean you will understand it. But then, it's not supposed to be an easy read.
Interesting post.
But the Bible quote was in Deut. The original first law was Exodus, and then only truly ten commandments were given by God written in stone; a pointless act if he then was going to give hundreds of others.
Where truth lies, so also lies error. It has to do to have both sides of the coin. So because it works for one it has to work for the other.
God can change anyone in an instant of if it is your time. It was mine.
Clearly it depends on how you define the word. You choosing that definition (there are others) does not negate what I said.
My view might well be seen as "abnormal" but it would not be seen as unnatural, and the act of a man with a man would still be abnormal and unnatural however much people...
haha.... such a usual cop out. In other words, you can't argue unless someone says that you must be the thing you argue about. Nice one. Like the softly softly attack. :p
That is funny! What indeed! The most intimate part of someone's anatomy is shoved up the dirtiest part of someone else's......what could possible go wrong.