What is clear to me from this interchange between Mooby and Graybeard is something entirely different from the specific points about whether rabbits are ruminants or what "chewing the cud" actually means.
We have here the example of two very intelligent, well-read individuals with completely different takes on what a few relatively unimportant phrases mean. In a different time and place, they might have been willing to pull out swords and fight each other over it.
The larger and far more important point is this: there is no surefire way to know what the hell a lot of stuff in the bible means.
Both Mooby and Graybeard have allowed that words can change their meanings over time, and that translations from one language to another are not perfect. The bible is not exempt from these language issues.
Given these facts, we are still supposed to assume that the bible--full of imperfectly translated passages and words with meanings that have changed over time--is a true reflection of something vitally important about an eternal, all-powerful, perfect god-being.
If the bible is really important, maybe the most important writing ever, and is guided in some way or other by a god-being, shouldn't it be clear, accurate and not subject to more than one interpretation? I would think so. But here in this thread we have seen how a few passages spark huge disagreements--and this is between two people with basically the same language and culture!
Even the commandments supposedly straight from god are not clear to everyone.
There is no clear ruling from the god-being on who has the correct interpretation; no special powers or signs or healings or anything from one group versus the others. And every group says they are correct, and the others are wrong, citing the exact same lack of concrete evidence for the other group's beliefs as atheists do for all of them.
Therefore, the bible should be treated like any other writing created by regular, ordinary human beings who don't know everything, who do not have magical powers, who cannot see the future, who make mistakes and who don't always write things clearly. Then all the contradictions and problems make perfect sense!
Every religious text should be subject to amending and updating based on new information, like British common law-- or the US constitution. That document, like the bible, allowed for slavery. When slavery was made illegal, the document was changed--unlike the bible. People who study law admit that the constitution is imperfect and sometimes ambiguous--that is why there are debates, disagreements, and volumes of discussion about it. When there is a ruling, everyone knows that it is temporary, and could be overturned or changed in the future.
Of course, since people always interpret the bible with their own cultural meanings, they are doing the same amending thing all the time, but don't want to admit it. Not many modern Christians stone adulterers or gays to death, sacrifice sheep, treat disease with animal blood or avoid mixed fibers. They just try to ignore the stuff in the bible that doesn't apply to their own modern lives. Or they say that the ickier or sillier stuff applies only to Jews (who don't follow most of the rules either!) or only applied to the people back in bible times.
If the bible is not going to be officially updated so it makes sense, it should be treated the same way that Christians treat the Hindu Gita or the book of Mormon-- as culturally interesting, and even worth knowing about, perhaps, but no more divinely inspired or eternally important than a 1950's cookbook or last week's TV Guide.