College Professor Fired for not respecting bible

[CristoTheSecond]

Yes, rabbits eat their poop. It's not cud. Similar is not equivalent.

Close enough.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

François Bourlière (The Natural History of Mammals, 1964, page 41) says: "The habit of ‘refection,’ or passing the food twice through the intestine instead of only once, seems to be a common phenomenon in the rabbits and hares. Domestic rabbits usually eat and swallow without chewing their night droppings, which form in the morning as much as half the total contents of the stomach. In the wild rabbit refection takes place twice daily, and the same habit is reported for the European hare." In this regard, the work Mammals of the World (by E. P. Walker, 1964, Volume II, page 647) states: "This may be similar to ‘chewing the cud’ in ruminant mammals."

It's not cud-chewing. It's rabbit poo-eating.

Cecotropy is the process by which rabbits will reingest part of their feces directly from the rectum. This should not be confused with the term coprophagy (eating fecal material) since rabbits only ingest the soft "night" feces or cecotrophs."



But believe me, I hope you can find an old manual from the 60's that teaches us how bats are birds now.
Don't give up!

 

[jaguarr]

Every rabbit knows that night feces is the best feces.

jag

 

[Carcharodon]

Close enough.

Not if somebody is trying to argue that the Bible is absolute truth in everything it says.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Close enough.

There's no such thing as "close enough" with God.
You can make 100 predictions and if 99 of them are jaw-droppingly right on the money, and you only get ONE wrong, you are Satanic and should be put to death.

 

[Sloth7d]

But believe me, I hope you can find an old manual from the 60's that teaches us how bats are birds now.
Don't give up!

I don't think the destinction was made back then. They had wings, they flew, for all anyone cared back then it was a type of bird.

 

[CristoTheSecond]

The hare was prohibited as food under the Law given through Moses and is referred to as a chewer of the cud. (Le 11:4,*6; De 14:7) Hares and rabbits, of course, do not have a multichambered or multiparted stomach and do not regurgitate their food for rechewing, which characteristics are associated with the scientific classification of ruminants or cud chewers. Nevertheless, although the Hebrew term here used for chewing literally means “bringing up,” the modern scientific classification was not the basis for what the Israelites in Moses’ day understood ‘cud chewing’ to be. Hence, there is no foundation for judging the accuracy of the Bible statement by the restricted, relatively recent conception of what constitutes a cud-chewing animal, as done by many critics.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I don't think the destinction was made back then. They had wings, they flew, for all anyone cared back then it was a type of bird.

I know, proving that just because there are some scientific accuracies in the Bible, it doesn't mean the ENTIRE Bible is 100% pristine perfect divine scientific accuracy.

 

[CristoTheSecond]

I don't think the destinction was made back then. They had wings, they flew, for all anyone cared back then it was a type of bird.

Actually, my translation of the Bible doesn't say bird. It says "flying creature".

 

[jaguarr]

<BeeGees>
Uh gimme that night feces, night feee-ceeeeees!
We know how to chew it
Gimme that night feces, night feee-ceeeeees!
We know how to blow it...
</Beegees>

jag

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

<BeeGees>
Uh gimme that night feces, night feee-ceeeeees!
We know how to chew it
Gimme that night feces, night feee-ceeeeees!
We know how to blow it...
</Beegees>

jag

LOL

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

along the lines of lolling, it just struck me as funny that people are trying to squirm around until these little details about bats and hares are correct, when we still have the issue of the satyrs, unicorns, dragons and horse-like locust with scorpion tails, lion's teeth and long feminine hair that wear armor.

LMAO


Hey, Cristo....can you find any old naturalist journals about the horse-scorpion-locust-barbarian girls that fly around and hurt us 'cause we were bad?!

Hahahaha

 

[CristoTheSecond]

along the lines of lolling, it just struck me as funny that people are trying to squirm around until these little details about bats and hares are correct, when we still have the issue of the satyrs, unicorns, dragons and horse-like locust with scorpion tails, lion's teeth and long feminine hair that wear armor.

LMAO


Hey, Cristo....can you find any old naturalist journals about the horse-scorpion-locust-barbarian girls that fly around and hurt us 'cause we were bad?!

Hahahaha

Uhh...the book of Revelation is a vision, not meant to be taken literally.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Uhh...the book of Revelation is a vision, not meant to be taken literally.

Why, you should be fired and banned for suggesting such a thing!
That's what that damnable heathen professor said to his poor students too!

 

[teseract]

The hare was prohibited as food under the Law given through Moses and is referred to as a chewer of the cud. (Le 11:4,*6; De 14:7) Hares and rabbits, of course, do not have a multichambered or multiparted stomach and do not regurgitate their food for rechewing, which characteristics are associated with the scientific classification of ruminants or cud chewers. Nevertheless, although the Hebrew term here used for chewing literally means “bringing up,” the modern scientific classification was not the basis for what the Israelites in Moses’ day understood ‘cud chewing’ to be. Hence, there is no foundation for judging the accuracy of the Bible statement by the restricted, relatively recent conception of what constitutes a cud-chewing animal, as done by many critics.

ahhh, so you admit that the people back then didn't understand things fully?

 

[jaguarr]

Uhh...the book of Revelation is a vision, not meant to be taken literally.

So, parts of the bible aren't fact and are in actuality some human's bad dream or perception and it shouldn't all be taken literally? Interesting...


jag

 

[sinewave]

Uhh...the book of Revelation is a vision, not meant to be taken literally.

isn't this what the whole argument is about?

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

So, parts of the bible aren't fact and are in actuality some human's bad dream or perception and it shouldn't all be taken literally? Interesting...


jag

The reason that's really interesting is that he's wrong, to many, many Christians, that part is to be taken literally.
So if he was a professor, and a student brought up the fanciful locusts, and he said, "That part is from a vision and not meant to be taken literally, if a Jack T. Chick-Style Christian was in the class, they would have grounds to have him fired, according to this madness.

 

[teseract]

Uhh...the book of Revelation is a vision, not meant to be taken literally.

Nope Honeypie, it's a VISION. It's supposed to come true during the last days, meaning LocustScoprionWomen "come 'a swarmin". Together with Pale Riders and angels playing bad trumpet music.

Besides that, if you consider that Revelation should not to be taken seriously, why do you take Adam and his hot manly Rib-sex literaly? Or Noah and his magical "we make billion of species fit" Ark?

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Many believe that the ocean really will turn to blood and that wormwood is a meteor that will poison the waters and that all of it is to be taken literally except for the stuff about the beasts and the ****e of Babylon.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

It's so weird how whenever I catch a Christian trying to put forth and defend a hypocritical view, that's when they disappear.
Weird timing.

 

[sinewave]

It's so weird how whenever I catch a Christian trying to put forth and defend a hypocritical view, that's when they disappear.
Weird timing.

yeah, i noticed that too.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Heh Heh, his name is "Bitterman". That's ironic.

 

[PLAS]

Uhh...the book of Revelation is a vision, not meant to be taken literally.

and this is when baby jesus cried

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I always find it funny that people think that Revelations is literally about the end of days, when literally it isn't. It's literally about the Fall of Babylon, which has come and gone.