Why does the Bible refer to rabbits as cud chewers in Leviticus 11:6:
"The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it
is unclean for you." (New International Version)?

Well, the bible was written by human beings. And human beings
sometimes are mistaken.

Scriptor

Don't know for sure but I found this:


Those Leviticus "Cud-Chewers"
© 1996 by T.L. Hubeart Jr.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lev. 11:6 (KJV) And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth
not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The hare"--this animal and the "coney" of the previous verse are
probably synonymous. This passage has often been attacked since, as we
now know, the "hare" or rabbit does not chew the cud, as for example
the cow does. In a remarkable display of reactionary and superficial
annotation, Scofield explained "hare" in this verse as follows:

Heb. arnebeth, an unidentified animal, but certainly not a hare,
possessing as it is said to, characteristics not possessed by the
hare. The supposed error in the text is due entirely to the
translators' assumption that the English hare and the ancient
"arnebeth" were identical.
Notice that even while Scofield elevates his own scholarship above
that of the KJV men, he fails miserably at solving the problem. Even
if "hare" is to be dismissed from the text (to be replaced by who
knows what animal?), the "coney" remains chewing the cud, in apparent
defiance of scientific knowledge. Even changing the translation of
"coney" (for example, to "rock-badger" [Darby]) fails to yield a
cud-chewing animal, and thus fails to vindicate the text in the way
Scofield imagined himself to be doing.

It seems clear to me that God was adapting his phraseology to the
understanding of man in the present instance. Since people of that
time believed that these animals chewed the cud, God appealed to
another observable external factor, the undivided hoof, in
demonstrating the animals' uncleanliness. Another like instance of
God's adaptation of His speech to their level of comprehension occurs
presently, where the description of "fowls" encompasses not only
birds--verse 13 --but insects as well--verse 22.

Search Google for "cud chewers"

Similar to what was said above ^^

"Steven Stone from West Bloomfield, Michigan wrote: 


Dear Rabbi, 
How can the Torah say that the rabbit chews its cud (Leviticus 11:5-6)
when science knows that it does not?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Steven Stone, 

The Torah says that we should not eat "the arnevet, for it chews its
cud but its hoof is not split." Most commentaries translate arnevet
not as rabbit but as either coney, rock badger or hyrax, all of which
do in fact chew their cud. Some point out that the rabbit is
auto-coprophagous, which can be seen as a form of cud-chewing, where
the cud "ferments" externally.

Sources: 

Living Torah by Aryeh Kaplan 
Encyclopedia Hamikrah, Arnevet "

http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/174/Q3/

As with most mythology there is usually an element of truth. Rabbits
eat their own droppings to break down the cellulose more effectively
-- this is tantamount to chewing the cud. Though the single pass
pellets are green and the double pass are black, what I?ve never quite
figured out is the sequence of eating grass, defecating and recycling,
such that doubly digested pellets don?t get tangled with singly
digested ones. Maybe phil (silver777) can elucidate. He had a
dalliance with rabbits.

Best

The Bible is not wrong.And although written by men, it was under God's
inspiration [ 2Timothy 3'16] In some translations, the word 'rabbit'
is translated as 'hare'. Both the rabbit and the hare are of the
family 'Leporidae' and the original Hebrew word is 'ar-ne'veth'.
Although modern science has proved that hares and rabbits do not
regurgitate food from the stomach and re-chew it like cattle, they do
eat and swallow their own night droppings to extract extra vitamins,
such as B.The term for this is 'refection'. Past Bible commentators
saw no error in the scripture, because to the casual observer, their
chewing action was the same as cattle, although the specifics of it
were different. Granted that God has supervised the writing and
preservation of His word to us, the importance of the Bible is the
message that Jesus taught, and it is foolish to get sidetracked by
minor things. The early Hebrews, as far as we know, did not have the
scientific knowledge of hares that we do today, and to the writer of
Leviticus, Moses himself, it would look like chewing the cud.

Dr. Norman Geisler and numerous apologists have associated refection
of rabbits with "cud chewing". If you go that route, you run into the
problem of the "Swine chewing a cud". Swine, like rabbits consume
their feces [coprophagia] -- Swine notoriously will consume the feces
of other animals, including that of humans as well. (Moses
emphatically states the swine does not chew a cud.) We can deduce
Moses was not referring to refection in the rabbit, but rather made
the same observation as Linnaeus. I feel Dr. Sarfati would benefit
from some further research on this issue. I would be interested to
know what his response is on this issue.

http://www.aquavet.i12.com/Rabbit.htm
Further, the rabbit does not chew at all. It swallows the pellet whole. This
behavior cannot be called "chewing" the cud.

Hare Chewing Cud "Refection" Errors
http://www.creation-science.us/errancy/hare_chew_cud.html 
Conversation with Webpologist JP Holding. More questions to consider on the
apologetical explanation of the hare chewing the cud and refection.

The Standard Biblical Apologetical Answer is located at:
Answers in Genesis "Does the Rabbit Chew a Cud?"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp?vPrint=1 

Further Discussion is now available at the Secular Web:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2619853#post2619853

The conclusive answer: No. A rabbit does not chew a cud.

SOURCE: Dictionary.com: 
What is the definition of cud? Tobacco chew qualifies as cud. 

DEF #1
cud ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kd)
n. 
Food regurgitated from the first stomach to the mouth of a ruminant
and chewed again.
Something held in the mouth and chewed, such as a quid of tobacco. 
[Middle English, from Old English cudu.] 

DEF #2
Main Entry: cud
Pronunciation: 'k&d, 'kud
Function: noun
: food brought up into the mouth by a ruminating animal from its first
stomach to be chewed again

DEF #3
cud
n 1: food of a ruminant regurgitated to be chewed again [syn: rechewed
food] 2: a wad of something chewable as tobacco [syn: chew, chaw,
quid, plug, wad]
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cud

The rabbit's "caecal pellet" which is in controversy, is not chewed
but rather, it is swallowed whole. To qualify as cud, a wad must be
chewed.

THREE REFERENCES:

"Arrival of the caecotrophs at the anus triggers a reflex licking of
the anus and ingestion of the caecotrophs, which are swallowed whole
and not chewed."
http://www.aquavet.i12.com/Rabbit.htm

"Griffiths and Davies assert that the soft pellets are found whole in
the stomach and therefore must be swallowed whole."
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_rabbits_cud.htm

A Christian website containing numerous links on the digestive system of Rabbits.
http://www.gw.org/Rabbit.htm quotes 
"Rabbits are sometimes called "pseudo-ruminants"... The rhythmic cycle
of coprophagy of pure cecal contents practiced by all rabbits allows
utilization of microbial protein and fermentation products, as well as
recycling of certain minerals. Whereas the feces commonly seen
excreted by rabbits are fairly large, dry and ovoid, excreted singly,
and consist of fibrous plant material, cecotrophs are about half that
size, occur in moist bundles stuck together with mucus, and are very
fine textured and odiferous. They are seldom seen, as the rabbit
plucks them directly from the anus as they are passed and swallows
them whole. Normal rabbits do not allow cecotrophs to drop to the
floor or ground, and their presence there indicates a mechanical
problem or illness in the rabbit.
microvet.arizona.edu/Courses/MIC443/notes/rabbits.htm

and 

Biblical Scholars speak on the question:

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, page 525:
The OT...refers to the hare only to indicate that it is an unclean
animal, but its assertion that the hare is a ruminant is contrary to
fact. Probably, as in the case of the hyrax...some movements of the
mouth and jaws have been erroneously interpreted as cud-chewing.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 616:
This animal is mentioned only in the lists of unclean animals in
Leviticus and Deuteronomy...The hare and the coney are not ruminants,
but might be supposed to be from their habit of almost continuously
moving their jaws.

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 2000 edition, page 552:
Because it "chews the cud" but "does not have divided hoofs," the hare
is classified as an unclean animal (Lev. 11:6; Deut. 14:7). Actually,
it is not a ruminant but may have appeared as such to ancient obervers
because of its constant chewing movements.

An entire discussion has been dedicated to this issue here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=133308

DR. NORMAN GEISLER RESPONDS

On 8/18/2005 8:10:52 PM, ...ses.edu wrote:

Sharon:

Thanks for your note. If you read my article, then you know I don't
believe the rabbit chews the cud in the modern technical sense. It
simply makes a chewing motion that from an observational point of view
can be associated with other animals that do chew the cud in the
technical sense.

Norm Geisler 

-------------

MORE ON DR. NORMAN GEISLER
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dr.+norman+geisler

Geisler, Norman
Christian apologist and president of Southern Evangelical Seminary in
Charlotte, North Carolina. Brief biography, speaking schedule, ...
www.normgeisler.com/ 

Dr. Norman Geisler is author or coauthor of some fifty books and
hundreds of articles. He has taught at the university and graduate
level for forty three years and has spoken or debated in all fifty
states and in twenty-five countries. He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy
from Loyola University and now serves as President of Southern
Evangelical Seminary, in Charlotte, North Carolina.