[_ Old Earth _] Easter eggs

[turnorburn]

i suppose your right Barbarian.. Adam wouldn't have any need to write anything down.. Pa-lease!

i don't feel defensive just foolish participating in this conversation is enough

tob

 

[Edward]

Well, thanks anyway.


Anyway, here is another easter egg:

Genesis 6:3 "..In the future, their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years."

Science has learned a bit about how we age and I think it is relavent to that verse. Each cell in our bodies can keep track of every cell division it has gone through but counting the telomeres, the red things sticking out at the ends of chromosomes. It loses some telomeric DNA with each division, and ticks down like a clock. Each cell is capable of on average 50-60 divisions before the telomeres run out (get too short). When the telomeres at the ends of are too short they self sterilize (stop dividing), or it will lead to genetic instability, but basically it boils down to: we age. The clock ticks down, not up, which means we can't expect to live beyond 120.

I heard a sermon on Genesis 6:3 and the Pastor was explaining that most people have it wrong about that versem that it refers not to the lifespan of man but rather time until the end or day of the Lord. The point he was making is that there will be 120 more jubilees (which in scripture is once every 50 years. which would bring us 6000 years from then until now. He did not make reference to how he came to this conclusion however.

?? I have not confirmed it, but he is a respected Pastor to me and so I think he probably has it right. Though I do not know for sure. Anyone else ever heard this?

 

[Barbarian]

Since the oldest known human was 122, either God miscounted, or perhaps the verse isn't what some people think it is.

 

[Edward]

Who was that? and no, I don't think God miscounts, lol.

 

[Barbarian]

A woman in France, who died a few years ago.

 

[turnorburn]

In recorded history Methuselah lived 969 years..

tob

*edit Genesis 5:27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.

 

[Vaccine]

I heard a sermon on Genesis 6:3 and the Pastor was explaining that most people have it wrong about that versem that it refers not to the lifespan of man but rather time until the end or day of the Lord. The point he was making is that there will be 120 more jubilees (which in scripture is once every 50 years. which would bring us 6000 years from then until now. He did not make reference to how he came to this conclusion however.

?? I have not confirmed it, but he is a respected Pastor to me and so I think he probably has it right. Though I do not know for sure. Anyone else ever heard this?

I hadn't heard that before. It makes sense.

 

[Vaccine]

You don't think they knew about things drying out? Seriously?

Well of course I think they knew about evaporation. That wasn't the point. I'm sure people observed condensation and precipitation goes without saying. The point was it wasn't until the 1700's that someone connected the dots and put those 3 ideas together to realize the water cycle.
Interesting you mentioned Galen. He discovered it was blood, not air, that circulated through our arteries. However, he did not know blood recirculated. It was William Harvey (1578-1657) who made a few simple calculations and figured out if every heartbeat pumped a fraction of an ounce, the heart beat x amount of times per minute, there were 1440 minutes per day, that meant the body produced 540 pounds of blood every day. He realized the improbability of this and figured blood was recirculated. It took almost 1500 years to realize blood re-circulated. It took even longer until Nils Wallerius realized water was recycled and not spontaneously created as most thought.
"To the place the streams come from,
there they return again" Ecc 1:7
I think whoever wrote Ecclesiastes didn't know water was recycled because it was obvious, but because God inspired him.

Surgical techniques in the ancient world could be surprisingly advanced. The famous Roman physician Galen (c. 129–199 A.D.), who was born in the city of Pergamum near the Asklepion, is generally regarded as the most accomplished medical researcher of the Roman world, and some of his surgical procedures would not be seen again until modern times. He successfully conducted cataract surgeries by inserting a needle behind the lens of the eye in order to remove the cataract, and his described methods of preparing a clean operating theater reveal a keen awareness of contagion.
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...e-and-practice/medicine-in-the-ancient-world/
"Modern surgeons" of the 17th and 18th centuries were generally filthy, compared to ancient ones. Not all of them.

"the concept of contagion is a very ancient one" Moses lived 2000 years before Galen.
The point wasn't that nobody cared about preventing disease, the point is nobody (except Moses) actually knew how. Other cultures were relying on magic, superstition, and other crazy stuff to prevent illness, by contrast here's Moses saying not even with the tip of your finger touch something unclean, burn your clothes if they even touch something unclean, break clay vessels if a dead animal is found in one, yet it was permissible to rinse a bronze one.

Hence the concern we see in ancient writings about cleanliness and quarantine with regard to illnesses that were known to be communicable. The Hebrew were no dumber than any of the people around them. Why should they be?

It's not that other cultures weren't concerned, it's that none compare to the Jewish laws on cleanliness. Quarantining is not something every culture did 4000 years ago. Hindsight is 20/20 though. Maybe the people who lived 2000 years ago saw how well the Jews system worked and adopted it, the Romans were known for that.

 

[Barbarian]

Well of course I think they knew about evaporation. That wasn't the point.

The point was that Wallerius didn't discover evaporation, nor did he claim to.

I'm sure people observed condensation and precipitation goes without saying. The point was it wasn't until the 1700's that someone connected the dots and put those 3 ideas together to realize the water cycle.

One of Aristotle's most notable observations from Meteorology is his description of the hydrologic cycle, "Now the sun, moving as it does, sets up processes of change and becoming and decay, and by its agency the finest and sweetest water is every day carried up and is dissolved into vapor and rises to the upper region, where it is condensed again by the cold and so returns to the earth." He starts by describing the stage of evaporation by stating that "water is every day carried up." The water is then "condensed again by the cold and so returns to the earth" in the modern stages of condensation and precipitation. Through this basic breakdown of Aristotle's work, it can be seen how well of an understanding he had of the hydrologic cycle.
http://voices.yahoo.com/aristotles-work-meteorology-cosmos-247598.

Interesting you mentioned Galen. He discovered it was blood, not air, that circulated through our arteries.

The first butcher knew that.

I think whoever wrote Ecclesiastes didn't know water was recycled because it was obvious, but because God inspired him.

Aristotle knew. And I don't think God inspired him.

Barbarian said: ↑
Surgical techniques in the ancient world could be surprisingly advanced. The famous Roman physician Galen (c. 129–199 A.D.), who was born in the city of Pergamum near the Asklepion, is generally regarded as the most accomplished medical researcher of the Roman world, and some of his surgical procedures would not be seen again until modern times. He successfully conducted cataract surgeries by inserting a needle behind the lens of the eye in order to remove the cataract, and his described methods of preparing a clean operating theater reveal a keen awareness of contagion.
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...e-and-practice/medicine-in-the-ancient-world/

Modern surgeons" of the 17th and 18th centuries were generally filthy, compared to ancient ones.

Moses lived 2000 years before Galen.

Galen is closer to Moses than to us. And as you see, he had no more technology to discover microbes than Moses. It was pretty obvious that contagion was a fact, and that cleanliness could help prevent it.

The point wasn't that nobody cared about preventing disease, the point is nobody (except Moses) actually knew how.

Many others knew how. Only, like Moses, they didn't know why.

Other cultures were relying on magic, superstition, and other crazy stuff to prevent illness

Except Galen, who relied on cleanliness.

Barbarian observes:

Hence the concern we see in ancient writings about cleanliness and quarantine with regard to illnesses that were known to be communicable. The Hebrew were no dumber than any of the people around them. Why should they be?​

It's not that other cultures weren't concerned, it's that none compare to the Jewish laws on cleanliness.

Notice that Leviticus also puts camels as unhealthy to eat, which is obviously wrong. It also asserts that a woman is unclean for a week after having a male child, but she will be unclean for two weeks if it's a female child. Again, completely wrong. There is no greater health hazard in the latter case. Leviticus supposes that leprosy can infect walls and be contaminated for weeks. In fact, the bacterium is very fragile, and can survive for only a few days even in warm, moist soil.

Quarantining is not something every culture did 4000 years ago.

Don't know of one that didn't.

This primitive form of 'contagionism' was found in all cultures and was intrinsically a form of taboo, holding that even though an ill person is primarily ill for their own inner, spiritual, God-driven reasons, they should still be avoided because they carry, in some mysterious way, the 'seeds' or 'vapours' of the disease, which can be passed on to others. This was called the miasmata theory of ill-airs and strange vapours that can pass among the populace. By no means an unreasonable conception, it derived in an evidence-based manner, mostly from observation and experience of epidemics, admittedly laced with certain religious concepts. Whether a microscope later provided confirmation for such a conception in the minds of men is, of course, rather superfluous to the general validity of the conception itself, which vastly predates the actual microscopes themselves.
http://homeoint.org/morrell/otherarticles/contagionism.htm

Hindsight is 20/20 though.

A little research never hurts.

Maybe the people who lived 2000 years ago saw how well the Jews system worked and adopted it, the Romans were known for that.

See above. It predated the Jewish people.

 

[Vaccine]

Galen is closer to Moses than to us. And as you see, he had no more technology to discover microbes than Moses. It was pretty obvious that contagion was a fact, and that cleanliness could help prevent it.

I hate to keep pointing this out but none of the sources you cited mentioned "cleanliness could help prevent it", and most are references no earlier than 400BC. By that time hindsight would have been 20/20 and people would have seen how well all the laws on cleanliness had been working.

"This primitive form of 'contagionism' was found in all cultures and was intrinsically a form of taboo, holding that even though an ill person is primarily ill for their own inner, spiritual, God-driven reasons, they should still be avoided because they carry, in some mysterious way, the 'seeds' or 'vapours' of the disease, which can be passed on to others.

Again, avoiding sick people is obvious, being clean to prevent it was singularly a Jewish concept as well as quarantining. This is from the source you cited:

"Quarantines were common and had been utilized for hundreds of years, but the scientific idea of contagion was confused and interrelated with religion, piety, sin, and "God's Justice."

The source was from the 1800 and mentions quarantining had been utilized for hundreds of years, not thousands. Some 4000 years ago Mosaic law utilized quarantining sick people.

Notice that Leviticus also puts camels as unhealthy to eat, which is obviously wrong. It also asserts that a woman is unclean for a week after having a male child, but she will be unclean for two weeks if it's a female child. Again, completely wrong. There is no greater health hazard in the latter case. Leviticus supposes that leprosy can infect walls and be contaminated for weeks. In fact, the bacterium is very fragile, and can survive for only a few days even in warm, moist soil.

Moses' inspiration is called into question because knowing a bronze vessel can be rinsed while a clay one needs destroyed is supposedly obvious, now Moses' inspiration is questioned for knowing too little about specific germs?

Don't you believe the bible is the inspired word of God?

How else would Moses know animal fat was bad for us:
"We've only discovered that animal fat is bad for us in the last 50 years. To the Christian a century ago, the directive in Leviticus:3:17It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood. to avoid animal fat made no sense at all. Yet it's clear to us today."
http://www.ucg.org/booklet/what-does-bible-teach-about-clean-and-unclean-meats/matter-health/

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Galen is closer to Moses than to us. And as you see, he had no more technology to discover microbes than Moses. It was pretty obvious that contagion was a fact, and that cleanliness could help prevent it.

I hate to keep pointing this out but none of the sources you cited mentioned "cleanliness could help prevent it"

Galen emphasized cleaning of the operating room as a means of protecting the patient.

,

and most are references no earlier than 400BC.

Closer to Moses, than to us. But of course, as you learned, the idea of contagion is much older than the Hebrews.

This primitive form of 'contagionism' was found in all cultures and was intrinsically a form of taboo, holding that even though an ill person is primarily ill for their own inner, spiritual, God-driven reasons, they should still be avoided because they carry, in some mysterious way, the 'seeds' or 'vapours' of the disease, which can be passed on to others. This was called the miasmata theory of ill-airs and strange vapours that can pass among the populace. By no means an unreasonable conception, it derived in an evidence-based manner, mostly from observation and experience of epidemics, admittedly laced with certain religious concepts. Whether a microscope later provided confirmation for such a conception in the minds of men is, of course, rather superfluous to the general validity of the conception itself, which vastly predates the actual microscopes themselves.
http://homeoint.org/morrell/otherarticles/contagionism.htm

Again, avoiding sick people is obvious, being clean to prevent it was singularly a Jewish concept as well as quarantining.

No. As you see, it was also avoidance of what modern medicine calls "fomites", plus the idea that corruption, not microbes is the cause of contagion:

This is from the source you cited:

"Quarantines were common and had been utilized for hundreds of years, but the scientific idea of contagion was confused and interrelated with religion, piety, sin, and "God's Justice."

But of course, it had been so in China, and other parts of the world for much earlier.

Barbarian obaserves:

Notice that Leviticus also puts camels as unhealthy to eat, which is obviously wrong. It also asserts that a woman is unclean for a week after having a male child, but she will be unclean for two weeks if it's a female child. Again, completely wrong. There is no greater health hazard in the latter case. Leviticus supposes that leprosy can infect walls and be contaminated for weeks. In fact, the bacterium is very fragile, and can survive for only a few days even in warm, moist soil.​

Moses' inspiration is called into question because knowing a bronze vessel can be rinsed while a clay one needs destroyed is supposedly obvious, now Moses' inspiration is questioned for knowing too little about specific germs?

Clearly, camel meat is not in any way less healthy than that of other ungulates. To say otherwise is just plain wrong.

Don't you believe the bible is the inspired word of God?

Do you think that no one today knows about the Amalekites? The Bible says that the memory of Amalekites will be blotted out by God. Yet we know of them today.

How else would Moses know animal fat was bad for us:

It's not bad for you. It's very good nutrition, high in calories, and quite digestible. Too much of anything is bad for you.

Rabbit starvation, also referred to as protein poisoning or mal de caribou, is a form of acute malnutrition caused by excess consumption of any lean meat (e.g., rabbit) coupled with a lack of other sources of nutrients usually in combination with other stressors, such as severe cold or dry environment. Symptoms include diarrhea, headache, fatigue, low blood pressure and heart rate, and a vague discomfort and hunger (very similar to a food craving) that can only be satisfied by consumption of fat or carbohydrates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation

The fact that we can today, get as much fat as we want, that's the problem. You need animal lipids to live, and animal lipids are particularly easy to digest. Moreover, you need fats to absorb certain other nutrients. Likewise, the only issue with eating blood is the ease with which it spoils. Pretty much like hamburger. Which is why it's risky to eat either raw unless you know for sure that it's been handled and stored properly.

As you know, leprosy organisms are quite fragile and cannot survive more than a day on a wall. That also is quite wrong. I'm pretty sure that God didn't decide that trout were fine to eat, but catfish were unhealthy for you. Again, that's quite wrong.

The real trap in assuming that even things that don't have to do with God's plan for our salvation, have the same infallibility as those things that do:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation.
Dei Verbum
Solemnly Promulgated
by His Holiness
Pope Paul VINovember 18, 1965

 

[Vaccine]

We seem to be going down a rabbit hole. The point of Mosaic law was not to prevent disease, it was to teach us how to love God. That the law also helps prevent disease is just a side benefit.
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work."
2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is God breathed and profitable. I think "profitable" is the perfect word to describe Mosaic law.

Barbarian observes:
Galen is closer to Moses than to us. And as you see, he had no more technology to discover microbes than Moses. It was pretty obvious that contagion was a fact, and that cleanliness could help prevent it.

I hate to keep pointing this out but none of the sources you cited mentioned "cleanliness could help prevent it".
There haven't been any sources cited to back up these assertions:
"the idea of contagion is much older than the Hebrews"
" it had been so in China, and other parts of the world for much earlier.
" it was also avoidance of what modern medicine calls 'fomites'."

Galen emphasized cleaning of the operating room as a means of protecting the patient.

If he thought "cleaning" was a means of protecting the patient then why did he believe:

*Not Safe For Lunch (NSFL)*
(If anyone is eating or squeamish I suggest skipping past the blue text)
-that the formation of pus was ESSENTIAL for wound healing.
-that wounds productive of a creamy, yellow ooze tended to run a chronic course, taking months to heal
-Conversely, a thin, watery discharge was associated with a fatal outcome, with the patient dying of sepsis within days

(Alexander JW: The contributions of infection control to a century of surgical progress. Ann Surg 201:423–428, 1985)

Galen's ideas were so entrenched that from his day until the 19th century:
-Infection rates were 100%
-Surgeons' hands, rarely washed, were placed directly into the patient's wounds. Frequently, onlookers were encouraged to "take a feel" for educational purposes
-Surgical instruments were crudely wiped, placed back into their velvet carriers, and reused, some having been sharpened on the sole of the surgeon's boot.
-The floors of the surgical wards were covered with human feces, urine, blood, and pus, and the hospital walls displayed a collage of phlegm. Consequently, infection was a major cause of death, with 80% of operations plagued by "hospital gangrene" and a nearly 50% mortality rate.

(Stone JL: W.W. Keen: America's pioneer neurological surgeon. Neurosurgery 17:997–1010, 1985)

Joseph Lister (1827–1912; Fig. 1), a professor of surgery at Glasgow, was the first to see the connection between Pasteur's discovery of the fermentation process and the suppuration of wounds. In April 1867 he published his ground-breaking paper on antisepsis, stating that "all the local inflammatory mischief and general febrile disturbance which follow severe injuries are due to the irritating and poisoning influence of decomposing blood or sloughs." Lister began applying carbolic acid to compound fracture wounds. The wound healed without suppuration, amputation was averted, and the mortality rate from amputation plummeted from 45 to 15%.
(Alexander JW: The contributions of infection control to a century of surgical progress. Ann Surg 201:423–428, 1985)

The principles of cleanliness were not adopted until the 19th century.

Clearly, camel meat is not in any way less healthy than that of other ungulates. To say otherwise is just plain wrong.

Remember the law is for our benefit, not a list of things that will kill you. Pork won't kill us if we eat it either but it isn't the healthiest meat. There isn't much information about Camel meat yet but:
"They found that levels of a particular organic compound, malondialdehyde (MDA), increased substantially as the meat aged." Maybe God forbid eating it because of the way people stored meat back then.

Don't you believe the bible is the inspired word of God?

Do you think that no one today knows about the Amalekites? The Bible says that the memory of Amalekites will be blotted out by God. Yet we know of them today.

I take it that you don't believe the bible is the inspired word of God then.

"You came down on Mount Sinai and spoke with them from heaven and gave them right rules and true laws, good statutes and commandments, 14 and you made known to them your holy Sabbath and commanded them commandments and statutes and a law by Moses your servant." Nehemiah 9:13
I fail to see your point about the Amalekites:
"The Amalekites are unknown historically and archaeologically outside of the Bible except for traditions which themselves apparently rely on biblical accounts"
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Amalekite

The real trap in assuming that even things that don't have to do with God's plan for our salvation, have the same infallibility as those things that do:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation.
Dei Verbum
Solemnly Promulgated
by His Holiness
Pope Paul VINovember 18, 1965

Is believing only the parts relating to salvation are infallible a Roman Catholic belief?
That's not what the bible says:
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work."
2 Tim 3:16

 

[Barbarian]

We seem to be going down a rabbit hole. The point of Mosaic law was not to prevent disease, it was to teach us how to love God.

Good thinking. So if scripture has it wrong about the survivability of leprosy microbes out of the human (or oddly, armadillo) bodies, it's not an issue. The writer just got something wrong on his own.

Barbarian observes:
Galen is closer to Moses than to us. And as you see, he had no more technology to discover microbes than Moses. It was pretty obvious that contagion was a fact, and that cleanliness could help prevent it.

I hate to keep pointing this out but none of the sources you cited mentioned "cleanliness could help prevent it".

Aside from the fact that Galen knew he could prevent complications by systematic cleaning of the operating area. And similar things in Chinese and Iranian literature. The first sanitation and sewage collection systems predated the Hebrews. (Indus Valley Civilization)

There haven't been any sources cited to back up these assertions:
"the idea of contagion is much older than the Hebrews"
" it had been so in China, and other parts of the world for much earlier.
" it was also avoidance of what modern medicine calls 'fomites'."

See above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitation_of_the_Indus_Valley_Civilization

Barbarian said: ↑
Galen emphasized cleaning of the operating room as a means of protecting the patient.
If he thought "cleaning" was a means of protecting the patient then why did he believe:

*Not Safe For Lunch (NSFL)*
(If anyone is eating or squeamish I suggest skipping past the blue text)
-that the formation of pus was ESSENTIAL for wound healing.
-that wounds productive of a creamy, yellow ooze tended to run a chronic course, taking months to heal
-Conversely, a thin, watery discharge was associated with a fatal outcome, with the patient dying of sepsis within days

The 19th century doctors referred to this a "laudable pus", which presaged healing. Neither they nor Galen had any idea that it meant that a vigorous cellular immune system was at work. They just knew that it meant likely survival. An infected wound, minus pus, means that the cellular immune system is not responding. A very bad sign.

Galen's ideas were so entrenched that from his day until the 19th century:
-Infection rates were 100%

As you learned, Galen emphasized sanitation. Later surgeons thought it to be supersition.

Barbarian observes:

Clearly, camel meat is not in any way less healthy than that of other ungulates. To say otherwise is just plain wrong.
Remember the law is for our benefit, not a list of things that will kill you. Pork won't kill us if we eat it either but it isn't the healthiest meat. There isn't much information about Camel meat yet

No, that's wrong, too.

"They found that levels of a particular organic compound, malondialdehyde (MDA), increased substantially as the meat aged."

Actually, it's more of a problem with beef:
http://mkk.szie.hu/dep/aeet/webhely/probaCD/prezentaciok/pdf/Lukacova.pdf

Which is understandable. Beef is fattier than camel, and so you'd expect more MDA from it.

Barbarian observes:

Do you think that no one today knows about the Amalekites? The Bible says that the memory of Amalekites will be blotted out by God. Yet we know of them today.​

I take it that you don't believe the bible is the inspired word of God then.

I take it you're dodging the question. Do you think the Bible was right to claim that no one would remember the Amalekites?

Barbarian obeserves:

The real trap in assuming that even things that don't have to do with God's plan for our salvation, have the same infallibility as those things that do:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation.
Dei Verbum
Solemnly Promulgated
by His Holiness
Pope Paul VINovember 18, 1965​

Is believing only the parts relating to salvation are infallible a Roman Catholic belief?

It's not a required belief. If is merely the primary view of Catholics and Protestants. Since Jesus remarked that Scriptures were for our salvation, but never said they were for disease prevention, it's not hard to understand why.

That's not what the bible says:

Here, it does:
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work."
2 Tim 3:16

Notice, nothing about disease prevention, astronomy, biology, etc.

 

[Sparkey]

Sorry to interrupt, Barb, but sometimes I can't help myself. Do you remember the Amalekites?

 

[Barbarian]

Sorry to interrupt, Barb, but sometimes I can't help myself. Do you remember the Amalekites?

Yes, in the sense it was written in Hebrew. It doesn't refer to personal experience, but to historical record.

There are often little glitches like this, which you might notice, never have anything to do with salvation or God's plan for us. Sort of like the way the author of Leviticus thought that camels didn't have divided "hooves." Actually, Leviticus doesn't distinguish between claws and hooves, hence the description of rabbits as dividing the hoof.

 

[Sparkey]

I tried to find the passage that you were talking about but after examining every instance of the word Amelekites (with two concordances, both Strongs Exhaustive and Young's Analytical) my search gave me no results. I have found no reference to the memory of the Amalekites being blotted out by God. None whatsoever.

I was thinking that I would examine the verb tense of the word translated "blotted out" to see if it was a future event and if so, considered the possibility that God's promise to blot out their memory has not yet been accomplished but will be done at some point in the future (like after Judgment). But then I Googled your statement exactly and found Exodus 17:14 where God instructed Moses that He would blot out the name of Amalek.

Here's the quote you're trying to recite:

"Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this in a book as a memorial and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."
​

It seems rather strange to me that the Lord would tell Moses to write it as a memorial if what you're alleging is true. This is just another one of those instances where somebody has tried to force their interpretation into what God has said. As you know, communication involves both a sender and a receiver and it can only properly be called "communication" when the receiver understands the message as the sender intended, but you don't need me to lecture you on that.

Cordially,
Sparrow (being a bit of a pain while trying to be a 'legal eagle')

 

[Sparkey]

Sort of like the way the author of Leviticus thought that camels didn't have divided "hooves." Actually, Leviticus doesn't distinguish between claws and hooves, hence the description of rabbits as dividing the hoof.

I'm no Hebrew scholar, not by a long shot, but I've always understood the word that was translated "hoof" to mean claw or 'cloven-footed' and/or hoof. I'm not sure why this is an issue to you, nor how you draw your conclusion(s) from these instances.

You'll need to work a little harder if you'd like to support your premise convincingly, but this isn't the place for that. You're welcome to debate your point in Apologetics and Theology forum. I'm certain there will be many "takers" for those who would like to oppose.

I should apologize for my attempt at "keeping you honest" here because I knew it would lead to a side-track.

~Sparrow

 

[Barbarian]

I'm no Hebrew scholar, not by a long shot, but I've always understood the word that was translated "hoof" to mean claw or 'cloven-footed' and/or hoof. I'm not sure why this is an issue to you, nor how you draw your conclusion(s) from these instances.

Again, it should be a warning for those who think the Bible is also a science textbook or a medical manual. Leviticus says that camels are cloven-hoofed, but they are not. They just appear to be, because of the pad of their foot.

As you say, the word we translate as "hoof" can mean "claw" as well as "hoof." But it's still incorrect, for camels.

You'll need to work a little harder if you'd like to support your premise convincingly

It's just there. No work required. But no greater goof than the idea that walls of a room can be a fomite for leprosy for weeks.

 

[Vaccine]

Aside from the fact that Galen knew he could prevent complications by systematic cleaning of the operating area. And similar things in Chinese and Iranian literature. The first sanitation and sewage collection systems predated the Hebrews. (Indus Valley Civilization)

Can you provide any of the actual details? We are talking about a man who considered a grossly infected wound praiseworthy. I would like to have a better idea what he actually considered clean.
"his described methods of preparing a clean operating theater reveal a keen awareness of contagion."
That could mean he swept the room and used clean linens. Not even on the same level as the specific details Mosaic Law provided:
"And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'When any man has a discharge from his body, his discharge is unclean. And this shall be his uncleanness in regard to his discharge; whether his body runs with his discharge, or his body is stopped up by his discharge, it is his uncleanness. Every bed is unclean on which he who has the discharge lies, and everything on which he sits shall be unclean. And whoever touches his bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. He who sits on anything on which he who has the discharge sat shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. And he who touches the body of him who has the discharge shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. If he who has the discharge spits on him who is clean, then he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. Any saddle on which he who has the discharge rides shall be unclean. Whoever touches anything that was under him shall be unclean until evening. He who carries any of those things shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. And whomever the one who has the discharge touches, and has not rinsed his hands in water, he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. The vessel of earth that he who has the discharge touches shall be broken, and every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water. And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in running water; then he shall be clean."

So Galen swept out his operating room. Close enough.


As for sewage system, we agree many practices are obvious. The stench would have prompted anyone to build a sewage system.
Other details aren't so obvious. In this modern age there are signs posted in just about every restaurant to remind employee's to wash their hands after using the bathroom. Jews ritually washed their hands before praying. They also ritually washed their hands before eating and after going to the bathroom. They didn't wash their hands because they knew about germs, they did it because God commanded them to. Moses said he went up on the mountain and talked with God. It didn't say he went up the mountain communed with nature and then made up a bunch of laws for people to follow. That's the difference between the bible and Ben Hur, one is the collaborative effort of God and man the other is solely the thoughts of one man. That the laws accomplish so much on so many different levels shows it's more than just the invention of some man.

 

[Sparkey]

Again, it should be a warning for those who think the Bible is also a science textbook or a medical manual. Leviticus says that camels are cloven-hoofed, but they are not. They just appear to be, because of the pad of their foot.

As you say, the word we translate as "hoof" can mean "claw" as well as "hoof." But it's still incorrect, for camels.



It's just there. No work required. But no greater goof than the idea that walls of a room can be a fomite for leprosy for weeks.

Okay, one thing at a time -- I don't mind but we may be trying the patience of the thread itself to belabor the subject. Seems that you're stuck on the word "cloven" more than the word "hoof". The word translated 'cloven' means split or torn apart. It can mean 'divided'. I would challenge you to show the scripture that suggests that there is only one way of splitting or dividing or tearing a claw or foot or hoof. If you'd like to interpret the word "scientifically" you'd be looking at the wrong source. That much we can agree upon, right?

If your point is that Holy Spirit could have used a different vocabulary when the Word of God was written? Again, the sender and the receiver must be considered. I can't believe there are any orthodox Jews even today who could not tell you if a rabbit or a camel were clean or unclean. He spoke clearly to His audience. They understood perfectly and there was no need for anybody to ascend up to heaven to fetch back His meaning. Even WIKI knows the answer to that one.

But maybe we could establish your argument if we weren't talking about Hebrew. Both Greek and Latin are used by science because of the very precise meanings the languages support. I can imagine that you'd have more success if you found what you were looking for in the Septuagint or Latin Vulgate or even another translation but you'd lose that argument too because it is the Word of God in the original language that is God Breathed.
I'd ask for your quote reference for the "formite for leprosy" (I'm guessing you mean to ask if Tzaraath must carry the exact same meaning when used to describe clothing or buildings) but before we go there I'd like you to acknowledge that God did not say he would blot out the memory of the Amalekites. Let's take it one thing at a time. Were you trying to recite Exodus 17:14 there? Do you agree that you got it wrong?

Splitting hooves is one thing, splitting words another. This is not really the place for this discussion especially when we agree that the bible is not a science text. If that is the only point of this discussion there is no need for further discussion. If you're going to try to continue to support the position that the Bible is only infallible when it addresses salvation? We have irreconcilable differences and this isn't the place to hash it out.

I would like to yield the conversation to Vaccine and his point about cleanliness -- but mostly because I enjoy listening more than arguing.

~Sparrow