Seems like this one gets brought up a lot, people
saying the bible says that rabbits chew the cud and
then saying that it doesn't happen.
Going right to the verses in question:
Le 11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud,
but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud,
but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
First off, rabbits don't have hooves.
Second, a coney is a rabbit and basically, so is a hare.
Clearly the translators hundreds of years ago didn't know
for sure what the animals were that were being described
in the two verses above, but in having to translate the
text, they decided to use "coney" and "hare" as the animals
and left it at that.
When you check later translations, they say that Lev 11:5
is describing a rock badger, not a coney. And in Lev 11:6,
the animal is expected to have gone extinct, that instead
of a hare, the translation should just read that the animal
is as named: "arnebeth", an unknown animal.
The end result is that the original scriptures never said
that a rabbit chews the cud, and since the translators
hundreds of years ago couldn't resolve which two animals
were being discussed, they substituted the coney and the
hare into the translation.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Note: The above information was written by John P. Boatwright and is freely given. The information is simply my opinion based on how I perceive the content discussed. Anyone reading such should use their own judgement as to whether or not the information has any value to them. You may copy portions of the above opinions as long as a reference to this page is included and no text within said portion is altered. If copied to another medium other than the internet, include the entire text. The above content may change over time.
Best wishes.