Eccl 1:5 Also, the sun rises and the sun sets;
And hastening to its place it rises there again. (NASU)

Solomon was guilty of poetry. There is accomodative language here, but it is English moreso than Hebrew. It is interesting, actually researching the language that Solomon used in this passage. The Hebrew for "sun rises" doesn't actually mean anything about going up, and isn't used that way anywhere else in the OT. It isn't really a motion verb. That's an accomodation to English, because we, in all our scientific literacy, say it that way. The Hebrew word turns up 18 times in the OT. It is used as a metaphor of God's light in Deut. 33:2, and there is similar usage in Mal. 4:2, Isa. 58:10 and 60:1-2, and describes the breaking out of leprosy on Uzziah in 2 Chron. 26:19. The other references are to the dawn. The word seems to mean "to shine forth" or "to dawn." The word for "sets" is a word broadly used to describe coming and going, that occurs thousands of times in the OT, and in this passage doesn't actually say anything about direction. The sun "dawns" and the sun "goes." But we say, again with all our scientific literacy, that the sun "sets" and so the word is rendered that way for our accomodation. The Hebrew word for "hastening" is in our OT 14 times, and isn't rendered that way anywhere else. In the NASU it is rendered "devoured" in some places, and "pants for" (as in great longing and urgency) in others, "trampled" in a couple of others, but "hastening" only here. It did seem to convey the idea for us of the sun being in its place when morning comes, though not with any sort of literal motion described. The sun seems to have a "place" relative to the earth, and there it wants to be.

Solomon certainly could speak in ordinary accomodative language, that is, language that describes things in ordinary ways, without being in scientific error. The weatherman on my local TV news regularly announces the time of sunrise and sunset. And yet, Solomon's language here is nowhere near that specific in his poetic description of dawning and the day cycle. Just reading his words wouldn't tell me much of anything about the prevailing world view of the operation of the cosmos in his time and place. The real accomodative language in this particular passage is the language of translation. Sometimes we might bind unwieldy burdens and unrealiistic technical requirements on accurate and understandable communication.

Regarding camels and hares, perhaps we should again be more careful of the text and less hasty of the message. I remember an anthropology professor a few years ago who thought he had the economic rationale of Jews not eating pork all worked out, based on some work in New Guinea. The problem was, he thought he knew the text, and he didn't. Pork of course was just one of the kinds of meat that was unclean, and he was very disappointed when I shared the whole text with him. Which doesn't mean he didn't tell the next class the same thing. The text said,

Lev 11:1-8
1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: 3 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud.
4 "'There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
(from New International Version)

That little emphasis in verse 3 and 7 ruled out the camel. Let's not be absurd and suppose the folks receiving this, who dealt with these animals in everyday life, didn't know what a camel foot looked like. For the type of observation they were to make, a pig foot and a cow foot both fit the bill. A camel foot did not. The camel failed the test. It's foot is fundamentally different from that of cows and sheep (and pigs) and not "completely divided." God and Israel understood that the camel foot was structured differently, and so does modern science.

A blurb from Arab-Net tells us: Camels have broad, flat, leathery pads with two toes on each foot. When the camel places its foot on the ground the pads spread, preventing the foot from sinking into the sand. When walking, the camel moves both feet on one side of its body, then both feet on the other. This gait suggests the rolling motion of a boat, explaining the camel's 'ship of the desert' nickname.

Meanwhile, about rabbits or coneys or hares, they do not "chew the cud" as we usually mean it in English, in reference to ruminants (cows, sheep, camels). However, the Hebrew word is just that, the Hebrew word, not the English word. The only context we have for it is the passage in Leviticus, and the parallel passage in Deuteronomy. The reference to rabbits or hares or coneys as well as ruminants tells us the definition the Israelites had for this word. "Cud" in English refers to partially digested food that is regurgitated, chewed, and swallowed again. Do rabbits reingest undigested or partially digested food? Yes, they do. Rabbits and hares are scientifically categorized as lagomorphs. The Encyclopedia Brittanica 2001, states that "Some lagomorphs are capable of reingesting moist and nutritionally rich fecal pellets, a practice considered comparable to cud-chewing in ruminants." Seems like a new skeptics text book should be in the works. Too many of the objections against scripture are just objections against English words. Moses made no scientific error here.

• Arab-Net, The A to Z of Camels