"You may be surprised to learn that indeed rabbits are ruminants.
I was, after being at a meeting of Christian scientists where one
individual advocated just what you have suggested for rabbits,
and then used that construction to advocate a rather loose
interpretation of many other parts of scripture having to do with
origins, in particular. I was disturbed by what I felt was his
effusive misapplication of a principle of interpretation for his
own ends".
This is one reason why I am cautious about the term
"accommodation". Instead of being a principle to understand the
Bible, some have modified it and made the Bible say what they want
it to say.
"When I arrived back in my office after the conference, there in
my mailbox was a CR bulletin (French Academy of Sciences)with a
lead article "Do Rabbith Chew Their Cud?" I could hardly believe
it! The pathway is a little different, but the author maintained
they were fully rumenants, and they certainly did chew their cud
(They store their food unchewed in their caecum, where it
ferments, is broken down by intestinal microbes, then they void
the material in a special interval, ingest it and chew it before
swallowing it for a second time. So use another example if you
must to illustrate your principle of accomodation".
I am aware that a rabbit chews food that is only partly digested.
I suppose the problem is: what is "chewing the cud?" When we
generally use the phrase, we refer to animals, like cows, that
bring partially digested food from their stomachs and chew that.
The rabbit does not bring up food from its stomach - so we do not
normally class it as a ruminant. If we modify the definition of
a ruminant (so that it means an animal that chews *any* partially
digested food), then the rabbit is a ruminant. My concern here
is not to suggest that the Bible guides us in matters of taxonomy
and animal physiology, but the reverse! The language is
according to appearance - and at that level the rabbit chews the
cud. It is a non-scientific statement and conveys no insights
into the biology of the animal. I still feel this case provides
an example of "the language of appearance". However, this
discussion suggests to me that it is necessary to be clear about
the technical aspects.
Thanks for the feedback.
Best wishes.
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***