Karma reasons for concrete message

Message

Graybeard

    Global Moderator


    Posts: 6773
  • Darwins +542/-19

"hyrax" translated as "Coney" in my KJV bible. What translation are you using for this?

I am disappointed that you ignored the majority of my rant[1] and chose to think that the 'coney' reference is to rabbits, it is a mistake by the writer.

From Easton's Bible Dictionary
Quote
Coney  (Heb. shaphan; i.e., "the hider"), an animal which inhabits the mountain gorges and the rocky districts of Arabia Petraea and the Holy Land. "The conies are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks" (Prov. 30:26; Ps. 104:18). They are gregarious, and "exceeding wise" (Prov. 30:24), and are described as chewing the cud (Lev. 11:5; Deut. 14:7).   The animal intended by this name is known among naturalists as the Hyrax Syriacus. It is neither a ruminant nor a rodent, but is regarded as akin to the rhinoceros. When it is said to "chew the cud," the Hebrew word so used does not necessarily imply the possession of a ruminant stomach. "The lawgiver speaks according to appearances; and no one can watch the constant motion of the little creature's jaws, as it sits continually working its teeth, without recognizing the naturalness of the expression" (Tristram, Natural History of the Bible). It is about the size and color of a rabbit, though clumsier in structure, and without a tail. Its feet are not formed for digging, and therefore it has its home not in burrows but in the clefts of the rocks. "Coney" is an obsolete English word for "rabbit."
So you see that the nearest that the writers of KJV1611 could get to this creature, whom they did not know, was “coney”, or “rabbit”, but it isn’t a rabbit. I’ve seen these critters and they’re cute. (I've never eaten one though.)

Here’s a picture of one:



The caption reads
Quote
8.  Hyrax - This little guy looks like he would be a rodent, but his true relatives are actually much more surprising!  Weighing between about 5 and 10 pounds, the hyraxes are actually fairly closely related to the members of the family Proboscidea, or the elephants and their relatives!  The extant hyraxes have their own family, Hyracoidea, but their ancient ancestors are thought to have branched into the extant hyraxes, the elephants and kin, and most likely the manatee and its relatives!  Hyraxes are found exclusively in Africa and the Middle East.

I am always disappointed when atheists know so much more about the Bible than so-called Christians.
 1. I assume that you agree with it and have now seen the error of your ways
Changed Change Reason Date