Where the Hare Got its Hoof?

Where the Hare Got its Hoof?

In the book of Leviticus 11 God differs kosher food from non-kosher one. The allowed creature must have two marks – chewing its cud and having cloven-hooves. To this kind of animal belong: goat, sheep, cow and some alike. But when the Word says of non-kosher food it mentions the hare as one whose hooves are not divided. Here another question raises up: “Where the hare got its hoof?”

When I started my investigation I found that hoof and claw have one meaning to depict them by anatomical view – horny ending of a finger. And having looked in the Webster Dictionary we'll find the “hoof” is a curved covering of horn that protects the front of or encloses the ends of the digits of an ungulate mammal and that corresponds to a nail or claw. So I continued and found that several languages have words that mean “hoof”, “claw” and “nail” at the same time.

unguis and ungula in Latin mean “hoof”, “claw” and “nail”.

unghione in Italian means “hoof”, “big long nail”.

unghia in Italian means “hoof”, “nail”.

uña in Spain means “hoof”, “claw” and “nail”.

όνυξ in Greece “hoof”, “claw” and “nail”

пазнокть in Slavonic “hoof”, “nail”.

I've seen here a certain rule. But the question has not been answered yet, because the Hebrew word פַרְסָה (parsa) does not make even a hint to horny ending – it means “hoof, horseshoe, size of man's sole, the sole of the foot”. And in Aramaic (the language closely relative to Hebrew) the word פַרְסָה is used to point on feet of horse, sheep, camel, swine, hare, man and even a dove. Why? Because the limits of this word (פַרְסָה) lay from ankle to a sole of a foot. No horny ending mentioned at all! When a Jew and an Aramean point at a foot and say פַרְסָה they mean a sole of the foot of a creature (no matter what it is), but Russian, American, Italian or Greece men stick their attention on the horny endings, if it is a horse or sheep. And they laugh if it is the hare standing before them and the Jew points at its feet and say פַרְסָה. And we shall pay honor to those courageous men who made translations for they kept the Word uncorrupted seeing this absurd (for the first look) statement of the Bible.

The word פַרְסָה in Aramaic Bible:

וְלָא אַשְׁכַּחַת יוֹנָה מְנָח לְפַרְסַת רַגְלַהּ

“But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot (Gen.8:9)”

לָא אֶתֵּין לְכוֹן מֵאֲרַעְהוֹן, עַד מִדְרַךְ פַּרְסַת רְגַל

“for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot breadth; (Deut.2:5)”

ימחינך ה' בשחנא בישא, על רכובין ועל שקן, דלא תיכול, לאיתסאה--מפרסת רגלך, ועד מוחך

“The LORD shall smite thee in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore botch that cannot be healed, from the sole of thy foot unto the top of thy head. (Deut.28:35)”

So this is the whole problem! The problem of translations; not of the Bible. The problem is concluded in what you look at when they say “parsa”. If you are gonna to criticize the Bible, go to study a number of sciences, languages and the Bible as well, lest you laugh at your own ignorance. You see, it's not good. Different translations have been made by different men of different times and different cultures. But the only goal stood before them – to make the Word understandable in their nation, time and culture. He who wants to know better and dive deeper should prepare himself to an exceedingly hard labor.

Sources:

Russ.:

--Библия: синодальный перевод, перевод Короля Джеймса, церковно-славянский перевод-- --Биологический энциклопедический словарь. М.С. Гиляров--

--Словарь древнего славянского языка. Издание Суворина А.С., С-Питербург 1899 год--
--Латинско-русский словарь: Дворецкий И.Х.--

--Словарь Иврит-русский-иврит "ИРИС"--

Eng.:

--Torah: aramaic and masoretic texts--
--Strong--
--English-Hebrew-English Dictionary "Babylon"--
--Brown F., Driver S.R., Briggs C.A. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament with an appendix containing the biblical Aramaic. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907--

-- Webster Dictionary--

The observation by Andrew Minaev (hetrulycomes.info)

What's the Creeping Fowl Going on All Four?

What's the Creeping Fowl Going on All Four?

In the book of Leviticus 11:20 God forbids to eat “creeping fowls that go on all four”. Some say the Lord spoke about insects, though in the Scripture it has not been said so. And to some it seems not enough to accuse the divine scripture in ignorance of how many legs (feet) insects have, the anti-biblical public stands up for accusing it more and more, saying “God couldn't even count how many feet locust has”. But all they are wrong. Because there are several insects that fly and creep on all four (Mantis religiosa, Mantispidae, Gerridae, Nepidae, ranatra, Belostoma grande, Thick-tipped Greta, Caligo telamonius, Agrias claudina, Danaus plexippus); and the Bible counts locust to have six legs. It is clearly seen in the masoretic text when it says:

אַךְ אֶת-זֶה, תֹּאכְלוּ, מִכֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף, הַהֹלֵךְ עַל-אַרְבַּע: אֲשֶׁר-לא (לוֹ) כְרָעַיִם מִמַּעַל לְרַגְלָיו, לְנַתֵּר בָּהֵן עַל-הָאָרֶץ.

“Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs ((כְרָעַיִם) “pair legs” in original) above their feet (( מִמַּעַל לְרַגְלָיו ) means above those four feet), to leap withal upon the earth”. As you see the Bible says that locust has six feet: it has two legs to leap that are above those used to go.

The thing that causes the nowadays public to repeat “all insects have six legs” is the evolutionary theory that's becoming the main doctrine in the society. There are some insects that creep on four legs, but the third pair of their extremities serve them to catch and hold food. Not to go as legs are appointed to! Even a child knows that legs are to go with. But the evolutionists call them changed if they don't seem like feet, and are not used for locomotion (Mantis religiosa, Mantispidae, Nepidae, ranatra, Belostoma grande); and/or reduced if the extremities are merely seen and the scientists can't determine their function (Thick-tipped Greta, Caligo telamonius, Agrias claudina, Danaus plexippus). To prove that ALL insects have six feet the evolutionists use the idea of changes of the spices. And, in revers, to prove that spices change they use insects calling ALL them six-footed, but being changed.