[_ Old Earth _] Easter eggs

[Vaccine]

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

~Sparrow

Thanks Sparrow, I sometimes wonder if me and Barbarian are alone here.

 

[Vaccine]

I've posted this before but it is worth another look.
What is Job be referring to here:

"Have you entered the storehouses of snow, or have you seen the storehouses of hail,
which I have reserved for the time of trouble, for the day of battle and war?" Job 38:22

Storehouse of snow and hail reserved for the day of battle and war. This could be referring to a future hail or snowstorm. Technically hail and snow are made in the atmosphere but not stored there. A storehouse implies vast quantities or something that isn't currently being used. Could be the polar ice caps but we know the bible says God will never again destroy the Earth by flood:

"I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” Gen 9:12

The bible isn't a science textbook, but if archaeology can confirm things like the cities Luke mentioned I see no reason other aspects can't be be confirmed too. There is a cloud like region just beyond the orbit of Pluto made up of snow and rocks called the Oort cloud. Beyond Neptune there is a kind of asteroid belt, only made of ice, called the Edgeworth-Kuiper belt. They were proposed to exist in 1943 by the astronomers Kenneth Edgeworth, Gerard Kuiper, and in 1950 by Jan Oort. The Oort cloud is technically still a theory since it can't actually be seen. However, the Edgeworth-Kuiper belt can be seen, Pluto is one such object in the belt. Job specifically mentions "entered" with the storehouse of snow and "seen" with the storehouse of hail. The Oort cloud can't be seen but certainly can be entered. With telescopes and imaging they can see the Edgeworth-Kuiper belt similar to the rings of Saturn. These regions contain many comets and are assumed to be their origin.
Snow. Hail. Days of battle and war. A comet would fit the bill. But how would Job know details about comets such as what they're made of or where they come from? Job did say he was talking to God.

 

[Sparkey]

On those lines - think about what God promised to Abraham regarding his children and their number. They were to be similar in magnitude to a couple things. The Promise of God to the childless one was that his children would be like the number of stars in the sky or like the grains of sand of the sea.

Okay. And we know that's a big number. It's huge. There's something else though. That promise was made before telescopes when the total number of stars that could be seen from every point on the earth with the naked eye was about 4,000. Here's a picture of a pile of sand and somebody took the trouble (actually a group of people) to count them out. So this particular pile is exactly 4,000 grains of sand:

View attachment 4301

That's how many stars that could be seen. No more than that. How can we make sense of the fact that the Bible likened the magnitude of the number of grains of sand to the number of stars. I might be able to quote my source - but I don't have it readily available, still I've read that there is reason to believe that the numbers are very similar (if not the same). I did a quick Google search and found:

I’m going to follow the estimates and calculations made by Dr. Jason Marshall, aka, the Math Dude. According to Jason, there about 700 trillion cubic meters of beach of Earth, and that works out to around 5 sextillion grains of sand.


Millions of Stars

Jason reminds us that his math is a rough estimate, and he could be off by a factor of 2 either way. So it could be 2.5 sextillion or there could be 10 sextillion grains of sand on all the world’s beaches.

So, if the low end estimate for the number of stars matches the high end estimate for the number of grains of sand, it’s the same. But more likely, there are 5 to 10 times more stars than there are grains of sand on all the world’s beaches.

So, there’s your answer, Sheldon. For some “back of the napkin” math we can guess that there are more stars in our Universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth.



Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/106725/are-there-more-grains-of-sand-than-stars/#ixzz2yeAfkzAv

 

[Barbarian]

If your point is that Holy Spirit could have used a different vocabulary when the Word of God was written?

The point is that if we use scripture for things God did not intend it to be used for, we can easily fool ourselves.

Splitting hooves is one thing, splitting words another.

Exactly. As one man said "nothing bothers me more than a faulty argument for a position that I hold, myself." One can know scripture is true, without trying to make up all sorts of specious (and easily refuted) stories to support it.

 

[Barbarian]

On those lines - think about what God promised to Abraham regarding his children and their number. They were to be similar in magnitude to a couple things. The Promise of God to the childless one was that his children would be like the number of stars in the sky or like the grains of sand of the sea.

Good point. [literalist] Depending on whether God meant actual number of stars in the sky or just those visible, He was telling Abraham that he was going to have either several septillion descendants, or about 6,000 descendents. Neither of which is even close.

People who count sand of the sea, normally only count beaches, which represent a tiny fraction of the sand grains actually in the sea. Again, not very accurate. [/literalist]

Another case where mistaking figurative language for a literal fact leads one into absurdities.

 

[Barbarian]

Can you provide any of the actual details?

By the second century AD, Galen was recommending soap for cleansing and therapeutic purposes.

Soap wasn't routinely used in ancient times. Galen observed the value of cleaning with soap. The Hebrews, for example, were unaware that soap would be vastly more effective than merely washing with water or cleaning the skin with oil.

We are talking about a man who considered a grossly infected wound praiseworthy.

He merely noted that a form of pus in an infected wound indicated a good prognoses, while another did not. Several cultures were aware that pus tinged with blue often had a very good prognosis. We have since learned that the anthocyanins indicated P. aeruginosa, which releases an antibiotic that kills a number of more dangerous pathogens.

In nearly all cases, pus is not something to be worried of in itself, although it is indicative of an underlying infection. Pus is a sign of an active immune system doing its role, and should simply be cleared away regularly.
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-causes-pus.htm

Hence, the concern if a infected wound does not produce pus. Something there is very wrong, and Galen realized it.

I would like to have a better idea what he actually considered clean.

Using soap, for example. Something the Hebrews didn't realize.

Not even on the same level as the specific details Mosaic Law provided

I find it hard to believe God forgot to mention soap. It makes a huge difference in preventing infection.

So Galen swept out his operating room.

And used soap, instead of just water, as Leviticus advises.

Close enough.

Not if you want to prevent infection. Soap and water is vastly more effective than water.

As for sewage system, we agree many practices are obvious.

Which is the point. Mostly, Leviticus is good advice, except as I've noted. Common sense. How could the Hebrews have known that soap was a highly effective disinfectant?

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.

As you say, it's rather obvious that people with filthy habits tend to become ill. They missed soap because they weren't familiar with it, although it would have been simple for them to make.

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.

You actually think that was an option? Scripture is about God and Man and our relationship. Trying to make it something else is always a mistake.

 

[Vaccine]

Soap wasn't routinely used in ancient times. Galen observed the value of cleaning with soap. The Hebrews, for example, were unaware that soap would be vastly more effective than merely washing with water or cleaning the skin with oil.

If I can find it at my library I'd like to read "on the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body" by Galen. Without citing a source now Galen was cleaning up with soap? He was more likely to have used soap to style their hair than anything. He wasn't cleaning wounds with soap, on the contrary he was promoting infection.

"Galen was the author of some 400 works in which he describes removal of nasal polyps, removal of varicose veins, plastic surgery for cleft lip, uvulectomy for coughing, trepanning of the skull, and intestinal or abdominal wall suture of penetrating abdominal wounds of the gladiators. He is considered to have had an overall negative effect on surgical progress because of his advocacy of suppuration as an essential and beneficial component of wound healing."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1570575/#r4-2

Galen did know about Mosaic Laws:
"He was, however, aware of 'Moses' and of the fact emerging Christian doctrine was incompatible with those of the Greeks (Plato and himself) who had 'treated correctly of natural principles'".
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/163/3874/1439.short

By 'natural principles' he meant the 4 humors:
"Essentially, this theory holds that the human body is filled with four basic substances, called humors, which are in balance when a person is healthy. All diseases and disabilities supposedly resulted from an excess or deficit of one of these four humors."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_four_humors

On a positive note he was an advocate of intelligent design:
"Galen's fundamental objective in this large treatise was to demonstrate that the structure of the human body was the direct product of intelligent and divine design."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/163/3874/1439.short

The Hebrews, for example, were unaware that soap would be vastly more effective than merely washing with water or cleaning the skin with oil.

The reason for that is largely because soap as we know it hadn't been invented yet and preventing disease wasn't solely the purpose of the law, it was about purity. They used alkali materials preparing wool and such but it's a modern thing to use it as a disenfactant. Cleanliness going hand in hand with purity is a singularly Hebrew custom.

 

[Sparkey]

Position A: The Bible is not infallible.

Support for Position A:

• God said he would blot out the memory of the Amalekites. But we can read about them in the Bible so ...
• The bible wrongly states that camels have cloven-hooves. Assuming that 'unclean' necessarily means unhealthy, this too is wrong.
• Assuming that Gen 6:3 refers to mankind's lifespan being limited to 120 years, there are records of people who have lived longer. Therefore God miscounted.
• The bible advocates cleansing and washing with water but does not mention the use of soap (which was undiscovered at the time).

Position B: The Bible is the Word of God and contains God-given knowledge unavailable to man otherwise (Easter eggs).

• Early documentation of the water cycle and 'evaporation'.
• There are more stars than the unaided eye can observe. How did the author (uninspired by the Creator) know?
  
• Regarding contagion through touch, the bible advocates avoidance and cleanliness. No other early source mentions how cleanliness could help prevent contagion.

Subjects that both positions agree on:

• • The Bible is not a medical text, nor is it a science book. God did not indent it to be used as such but instead to inspire His children and act as a light showing clearly the path toward loving Him as well as others.
  • Not every word in the Bible is meant to be taken literally.
  • Soap can be used to clean things.

Biblical exegesis scholars take great care to avoid eisegesis. Both sides may benefit by improving their hermeneutic.

Job 36:27-28; Ecclesiastes 1:6-7; Isaiah 40:12 and Isaiah 55:10 all speak of the hydrological cycle but the term "evaporation" isn't in evidence.
Gen. 13:16 “And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants also could be numbered.” Genesis 15:5 says the stars cannot be numbered by man.
(See also Gen.15:5, Job 22:12; Isaiah 55:9; 1 Corinthians 15:41 and 2 Peter 3:10.)

Gen. 15:5 “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.”

The next time we go out and ponder the vastness of the heavens, let our mind reach out and even as we are not able to comprehend what we can see, so also shall we know that we are not yet able to comprehend or apprehend what we can not see. But this is our promise. It's not about knowing how many stars are in the universe. It's about being able to know God. We shall know even as we are known. We don't yet know what we shall be. It has not entered into the mind of man what God has prepared for him. Even though we don't know what we will be we do know that we will be like Jesus. I get staggered when I try to think about the stars (every time) but then... when we catch a glimpse of the Promise?

Regarding the importance of the Word of God in our lives? Look at the context of the familiar quote spoken by Jesus. He, being the Son of God, humbled himself and lived with us. We are to follow Him. Jesus quoted Moses when he spoke of how we do not live by bread alone.

"He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.
Deut 8:3

Jesus is our mana. The word 'mana' itself means "What is it?" We may ask about Jesus and how our continuing with Him assures life. Let the words of this reply echo in our hearts, "and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand..." even as we humble ourselves daily and inquire of Him.

Our understanding requires the help of our Teacher, the Holy Spirt: John 6:32-35: Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world." 34 They said to him, "Lord, give us this bread always." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst."

Again, Jesus is our mana. Jesus is the Word of God. He clearly explained the work of God:

Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

The splendor of creation isn't found in the stars or the hydrological cycle or in cleansing agents. It is found in us as we continue in Christ, growing in love one for another.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Soap wasn't routinely used in ancient times. Galen observed the value of cleaning with soap. The Hebrews, for example, were unaware that soap would be vastly more effective than merely washing with water or cleaning the skin with oil.

If I can find it at my library I'd like to read "on the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body" by Galen. Without citing a source now Galen was cleaning up with soap?

Hmm... let's take a look...

By the second century AD, Galen was recommending soap for cleansing and therapeutic purposes.
http://www.greekmedicine.net/hygiene/The_Greco-Roman_Bath.html

He was more likely to have used soap to style their hair than anything.

You're thinking of the Hebrews:
Records show that ancient Egyptians bathed regularly. The Ebers Papyrus, a medical document from about 1500 B.C., describes combining animal and vegetable oils with alkaline salts to form a soap-like material used for treating skin diseases, as well as for washing.
At about the same time, Moses gave the Israelites detailed laws governing personal cleanliness. He also related cleanliness to health and religious purification. Biblical accounts suggest that the Israelites knew that mixing ashes and oil produced a kind of hair gel.
http://www.cleaninginstitute.org/clean_living/soaps__detergent_history.aspx

He wasn't cleaning wounds with soap, on the contrary he was promoting infection.

In fact, soap is a pretty effective disinfectant. Something Leviticus neglects. But Galen didn't. Neither use of soap nor cleaning operating rooms promotes infection; quite the opposite.

Galen was the author of some 400 works in which he describes removal of nasal polyps, removal of varicose veins, plastic surgery for cleft lip, uvulectomy for coughing, trepanning of the skull, and intestinal or abdominal wall suture of penetrating abdominal wounds of the gladiators. He is considered to have had an overall negative effect on surgical progress because of his advocacy of suppuration as an essential and beneficial component of wound healing."

The issue is that he realized that an infected wound without pus was a sign of trouble. I do note that he was successful with surgical procedures that weren't even considered possible by many later surgeons. Possibly because cleanliness was an important part of the process.

Galen did know about Mosaic Laws:
"He was, however, aware of 'Moses' and of the fact emerging Christian doctrine was incompatible with those of the Greeks (Plato and himself) who had 'treated correctly of natural principles'".
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/163/3874/1439.short

And he also knew that soap was important, which Leviticus doesn't mention, opting for water alone.

On a positive note he was an advocate of intelligent design:

Not surprising. Being pagan, the idea of an omnipotent God was beyond him. So the designer-demiurge concept came easily to him.

Barbarian said: ↑

The Hebrews, for example, were unaware that soap would be vastly more effective than merely washing with water or cleaning the skin with oil.​

The reason for that is largely because soap as we know it hadn't been invented yet

See above. The Egyptians had it, and used it to clean. The Israelites seem to have viewed it as a sort of pomade.

 

[Vaccine]

The splendor of creation isn't found in the stars or the hydrological cycle or in cleansing agents. It is found in us as we continue in Christ, growing in love one for another.

Sparrowhawke very fair and accurate summary.
I hadn't thought how it ties in with mana, thanks for shedding some light here.

 

[Barbarian]

Psalm 19.1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the expanse sheweth the work of his hands.

But I do agree with Sparrow; the point of the Bible is the message of salvation, not disinfection or phase changes in matter. We do badly when we forget that.

 

[Vaccine]

Barbarian observes:
Soap wasn't routinely used in ancient times. Galen observed the value of cleaning with soap. The Hebrews, for example, were unaware that soap would be vastly more effective than merely washing with water or cleaning the skin with oil.

I did some checking about "Galen observed the value of cleaning with soap". Simply not true:

"In general, while Galen did in truth place the highest value on the empirical testing of medicines, his speculative conceptions of the way they worked constrained him occasionally to see a positive value in such “medicines” as excrement and amulets, in spite of his rejection of the magico-irrational medicine, which was then very popular"
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Galen.aspx

"In spite of the fact he believed in the efficacy of dove's dung and of pouring writing ink on ulcers, he applied wine (natural antiseptic) to wounds and recognized that pus, although considered a good sign of healing (a notion that eventually led to the idea of pus bonum et laudabile), wasn't essential."
http://books.google.com/books?id=H3...EwAA#v=onepage&q=galen medicine feces&f=false

"Pitch, vetch four,dove dung or Oak leaves can all be pressed into service in a pinch when 'practicing in the field'"
http://books.google.com/books?id=5D...page&q=Simp. med. 10.2.15 (12.285–86K&f=false

"Peasants eat food that is indigestible to Galen and his friends; he treats their wounds with urine and dung, in-gredients too harsh and repulsive for his softer-bodied patient" p. 116
http://f3.tiera.ru/1/genesis/570-574/573000/14af3c487d9816c1a9f7e6d2c731bf13

As mentioned earlier, from the National Institute of Health:
"He is considered to have had an overall negative effect on surgical progress because of his advocacy of suppuration as an essential and beneficial component of wound healing."

By the second century AD, Galen was recommending soap for cleansing and therapeutic purposes.
http://www.greekmedicine.net/hygiene/The_Greco-Roman_Bath.html

http://www.greekmedicine.net/hygiene/The_Greco-Roman_Bath.html

They don't cite their source Galen recommended "soap for cleansing" so it's just a baseless assertion. I also see that website said:
"Bathing is also a way of caring for and loving the body by taking good care of it. This ran counter to the Church's prevailing attitude of ascetic denial and despising of the body and its needs."

Considering our "bodies are temples" of the holy spirit (1 Cor 6:19) and wine, a natural antiseptic, was recommended to bound up wounds in Luke 10:34, their claim taking good care of our bodies ran counter to the church is wrong and just plain derogatory toward Christianity. The church was against pride and vanity, not taking good care of ourselves.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Soap wasn't routinely used in ancient times. Galen observed the value of cleaning with soap. The Hebrews, for example, were unaware that soap would be vastly more effective than merely washing with water or cleaning the skin with oil.

I did some checking about "Galen observed the value of cleaning with soap". Simply not true:

A scholar who studied Galen's writing says it's true. That has more credibility with me than unsupported denial.

Here's what he found:
By the second century AD, Galen was recommending soap for cleansing and therapeutic purposes.
http://www.greekmedicine.net/hygiene/The_Greco-Roman_Bath.htm

"In general, while Galen did in truth place the highest value on the empirical testing of medicines, his speculative conceptions of the way they worked constrained him occasionally to see a positive value in such “medicines” as excrement and amulets, in spite of his rejection of the magico-irrational medicine, which was then very popular"
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Galen.aspx

So he was ahead of anyone else of his time, but he wasn't completely free of the old ideas. That's pretty much true of any scientist who makes major progress in his time.

There's no profit for God in anyone claiming the Bible is a science or a health text. Listen to what He's telling you, and be happy with that. It's really all you need.

 

[Sparkey]

Although the Bible was not written as a science book or a medical text book it is none-the-less the Word of God. Countless numbers of scientists as well as medical professionals have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. What now? Shall we divorce science from religion? If you try to take the fruits of Christianity without its roots, the fruits will wither.

Let us rather continue in Christ with thanks.

 

[Barbarian]

Although the Bible was not written as a science book or a medical text book it is none-the-less the Word of God.

And it is fully true. But it is for our relationship with God and our salvation.

Countless numbers of scientists as well as medical professionals have been inspired by the Holy Spirit.

As I am. But that doesn't mean that Leviticus has it right about the survival of leprosy organisms, or the anatomy of camels. In each case, it's quite wrong, if you're trying to use it as a guide to biology. That's not God's fault. He didn't give it to us for that.

What now?

Use it as it was intended to be used. Nothing brings Christianity into more disrepute than arguments that the Bible is an accurate scientific work.

Shall we divorce science from religion?

We should just remember what Scripture is for.

If you try to take the fruits of Christianity without its roots, the fruits will wither.

Christianity is not rooted in Ionian science. It's rooted in the promise God gave to Abraham.

 

[Sparkey]

Barbarian, thanks for the running commentary on my thoughts, but they are mine, after all.

Your style makes me laugh sometimes (no offense) because when I read your reply it sounds (almost) like you understood what I meant. For instance, although I didn't belabor the point, your misunderstanding about 'leprosy organisms or the anatomy of camels' is more about translations of Hebrew into English than it is about the bible being wrong. I don't want to belabor the point but you might want to do some study on your own. I guess it's okay for you to continue in your false impression(s); it is not (as you state) about an issue of salvation so it doesn't matter if your wrong. That's the gist of your premise, right?

Your reply to the comment about the fruits of Christianity assumes that I was trying to say that Christianity was rooted in science but that is not the intent of the Margaret Thatcher (whom I was quoting) at all. Science is the fruit of our relationship with God. Read again.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, thanks for the running commentary on my thoughts, but they are mine, after all.

Your style makes me laugh sometimes (no offense) because when I read your reply it sounds (almost) like you understood what I meant. For instance, although I didn't belabor the point, your misunderstanding about 'leprosy organisms or the anatomy of camels' is more about translations of Hebrew into English than it is about the bible being wrong.

It's not wrong. It's just that people confuse the ritual cleaning of a dwelling with hygiene. As you see, that's not what it is.

I don't want to belabor the point but you might want to do some study on your own.

One of my degrees is in bacteriology, and one project was to find out what record we have of ancient cases of infection and how it was understood and handled in those times. So I'm aware of the difference between a ritual purification and actual hygiene.

I guess it's okay for you to continue in your false impression(s); it is not (as you state) about an issue of salvation so it doesn't matter if your wrong. That's the gist of your premise, right?

What concerns me, is those who try to make it something other than it is, turn away people who might otherwise accept Christianity. That's no small concern.

Your reply to the comment about the fruits of Christianity assumes that I was trying to say that Christianity was rooted in science but that is not the intent of the Margaret Thatcher (whom I was quoting) at all. Science is the fruit of our relationship with God. Read again.

I suppose God also loved Galen and Democritus. Maybe you're right.

 

[Sparkey]

When I spoke of your possible mistranslated meaning of the Hebrew word after it has been translated into Greek then to English as "leprosy" you replied citing your credentials in bacteriology. This is another case, another one of the typical errors that we see when written text is translated. My meaning was expressed entirely in English yet I was not understood as intended.

Again, it's more about the intent of the sender than what alternative meanings may be derived or imagined. In order for you to support your premise about leprosy on walls you would have to prove that the more general meaning of having scales or being rough (ie, mildew or mold) could in no case be preferred as the word was applied to walls or clothing. The same word applies to different conditions, leprosy included.

Regarding camels, God was speaking about clean and unclean states and what was allowed and disallowed. There is more to it than "healthy" which seems to be what your strawman argument is about.

What I understand of your conclusion, that not all Scripture is profitable for reproof, and only those passages that address Salvation have authority, is still unproven. You've suggested it but have not given sufficient support to validate it beyond the opinion of one man. But even if I were to agree with you about God making "mistakes" while he inspired the Word and if God didn't know as much about camels as you, or as much about leprosy as you, I would not agree that the Word of Truth, and by that I mean 'all Scripture', is profitable.

Roman 15:4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.

2 Peter 1:21
For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

That word "carried along" carries a connotation or meaning of a log being carried on a river. The log has no say in determining its course. Those who penned the Word of Truth were borne by the Holy Spirit in their writings. For whatever things were written aforetime were written for our learning…

1Cor 12:7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.

I suppose God also loved Galen and Democritus. Maybe you're right.

I do believe that to be true but would add to your thought that God makes the sun to shine on both good and evil alike. That's part of His goodness. Our knowledge isn't limited to what was passed directly to us through the Prophets. We profit from every good gift that descends down from the Father of Lights.

 

[Sparkey]

One of my favorite translators speaks about "sound clues" in the Hebrew. He used the word play surrounding the word paniym (translated face) in the meeting between Jacob and Esau (Gen 33) to illustrate his point but my mind goes to another, perhaps even more profound, sound meaning.

Listen to the sound only of the following:

• l·tzu tzu
• l·tzu qu

• l·qu
• qu

• l·qu zoir
• zoir bit zoir shm

Does it remind you of anything? No, I'm not trying to say that Dr. Seuss wrote this passage but it almost sounds like he did, right?
The Lord is reminding us that we are babies. It's almost like He's speaking in a nursery rhyme. Say it to yourself but add just a little sing-song to the sound.

What was God talking about? Would it surprise you to find out that part of what was said includes the Sender's intended audience? The context of that passage quoted about talks about those whom God gives knowledge and interpretation. He says that knowledge and interpretation would not be given to babies; not given to those just weaned from the breast.

It's almost as if the Word given through the Prophet Isaiah was meant to sound like a nursery rhyme. We were being instructed on how to read the Word of Truth. The silent point that is also made is that we are like babes all too often.

 

[Barbarian]

As Jesus said, you come to Him as a little child, or not at all. "Abba" is the Aramaic word children used for their father. "Daddy" in other words.