Or the phrase simply described the motion in general rather than the actual act of rumination. Again, "chew the cud" is our English approximation of what they actually meant.
I have no idea why you are acting as an apologist. There is no doubt that the animal herders were fluent with their animal herding terms: look at the number of allusions to animals in the OT.
2000 years from now future peoples will be calling us idiots after translating our language into their foreign tongue because we talk about how a woman's water broke just after sunrise. Thankfully, they will be quick to point out in their infinite wisdom that amniotic fluid is not water and the sun does not move!
I did not mention your earlier example as I thought that you were joking. The book you are comparing with a casual non-technical description of the forerunner to a birth is supposed to be inspired by the words of a deity. - I suspect it is blasphemous to suggest Yahweh is "vague".
This idea of being the apologist is simply saying, "I have a magic decoder ring." and I honestly thought that you were beyond that. For some reason better known to himself, the writer of that part of Leviticus, decided that hyraxes and hares/rabbits were off the menu. In an attempt to bring some authoritative logic/a system, he sees that lagomorphs and hyraxes appear to move their jaws in a way similar to ruminants. He therefore sticks in that bit as well thinking that they are, so all the others can say - "It's not kosher even though it does chew the cud."
In a traditional manner, he makes it up as he has no idea how he would find out... and why should he even bother to find out? He "knows". He therefore invents the backing of Yahweh.
The writer at this point is the Priestly source and he is not going to be vague. He is one of the few educated men in the tribe. He can write.
No. You're wrong on this one. Even the Jesuits are not going to support you.