[_ Old Earth _] Mosaic Dietary Code Shows Divine Intelligence - John Hopkins

[kendemyer]

ARE THE MOSAIC DIETARY LAWS VERY ADVANCED AND DO THEY SHOW EVIDENCE OF DIVINE KNOWLEDGE? ANY OTHER ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE IN THE TORAH?


PREFACE

I would suggest there is excellent evidence that the Mosaic law was inspired and way ahead of its time. At the time of Moses we must remember that the Egyptians were putting dung on wounds. A website publishes a fascinating chapter from the book "God's Truth" which clearly shows the Mosaic Law was way ahead of its time in its scientific understanding. Here is a link to this chapter and please scroll down to the heading "Health is wealth" and read from that point on: http://www.godstruth.org/chap08

By the way, I do realize that Christians are in no way under the dietary or ceremonial laws of the Old Testament. Paul's letter to the Galatians clearly tells us this.


MACHT STUDY PUBLISHED BY JOHN HOPKINS REGARDING THE MOSAIC DIETARY LAWS AND OTHER DATA

I cite the following webpage that contains information that was published by David I. Macht at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and it concerns itself with the Mosaic Law dietary laws:

http://www.pacifichealthcenter.com/updates/29.asp

Here is the exact citation:

Macht, D. M.D., (1953). “An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of Levitcus XI and Deuteronomy XIV,†Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 27. 444-450

If one reads the Macht study you will see that he tested 88 animals (quadrupeds, birds, and fish) and the Bible came out with excellent results in relation to his toxicity tests and the unclean and clean animals (if one takes the position that the food laws may have some health benefits).

As a result of his research Dr. Macht wrote:

Quote:
"Every word of the Hebrew Scriptures is well chosen and carries valuable knowledge and deep signficance."


I heartily agree!

To this day, there is a David I . Macht award given at John Hopkins as can be seen at: http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/2001/apr0901/09young.html

I would not be surprised if the "David I. Macht" award was a much coveted award despite the admonition regarding coveting in the Ten Commandments!

Here is some information regarding the study published by John Hopkins by Macht (there are awards given in his name at the present time at John Hopkins as can be seen in my previous post):

A website declares regarding the fish portion of Machts study (other animals besides fish were tested):

"Scientific research upholds the contention that Biblical dietary laws contain wisdom regarding one’s choice of foods. For example, Macht (1953) in an experimental study classified fish as toxic or nontoxic. He found thirty-three fish (with scales and fins) to be in the nontoxic category. Common favorites included in this list were cod, haddock, herring, salmon, rainbow trout and yellow perch. He also classified several fish (types of seafood) as toxic (without scales and fins). These included many of the bottom dwellers, scavengers, and slimy creatures such as the catfish, eel, sand shark, and dogfish shark.[3] Although the list by Macht is not complete, it does give evidence that supports the biblical classification of fish based on presence or absence of scales and fins. This classification is useful in determining which of these creatures’ humans should consume. Clearly, a wise person should not intentionally consume toxic fish. Salaman (1995) in her book Foods That Heal stated that seafood eaten several times a week contributes to controlling fat circulating in the blood and also keeps cholesterol levels low. Although she is not writing from a biblical perspective she showed an awareness of the problem with some types of seafood. On page fourteen she writes, “certain seafoods-oysters, crab, clams-are rich in nutrients, but some authorities refer to them as the garbage collectors of the sea, full of pollutants.†Interestingly an even higher authority, the Creator God, has informed us that this characterization is valid (Leviticus 11:9-10 and Deuteronomy 14:9-10). As is always the case, when a complete understanding of scripture is matched up against “true science†they are in agreement. The eating of fish also appears to be very important to a healthy heart and proper blood pressure. This relationship is mainly due to a special group of oils called omega-3 oils. Many of the fish, which are rich in omega-3 oils, match those, which are classified as nontoxic in the Macht study. They include mackerel, salmon, tuna, whitefish, herring and sardines. Many population studies have shown that consuming a diet rich in these omega-3 oils reduces the risk of heart disease and over sixty double blind studies have demonstrated that fish oil supplements are effective in lowering blood pressure (Murray, p. 258-260). Dr. Julian Whitaker recommends salmon and mackerel as good sources of Vitamin B12 in helping to fight anemia (Gottlieb, p.170). Dr. Camran Neshat, M. D. (director of fertility and Edoscopy Center in Atlanta) and Dr. Elson Haas, M. D., (director of the Preventive Medical Center in San Rafael, California) both stated that eating fish can suppress the production of prostaglandin, the hormone which causes cramping and endometriosis in women (Gottleib, p. 290-292). The types of fish they mentioned include mackerel, salmon, tuna, herring, whitefish, and sardines (all of which are found on Macht’s nontoxic list).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
According to Nutrition Almanac consuming fish or fish oils on a regular basis guards against glucose intolerance in Type II diabetes, raises HDL cholesterol, acts as an anti-inflammatory agent, and aids in reducing rheumatoid arthritis symptoms. They also help osteoarthritis, Raynaud’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and migraines. Some fish are also high in the antioxidant coenzyme Q10 and selenium (p. 365)."

taken from: http://www.vision.edu/iws/Foods%20scien ... 0Bible.pdf


THE OMEGA 3 QUESTION

The question of course is what fish are comparatively better when it comes to omega 3 if we are taking the position that the food laws do or do not have health benefits (although Christians are not under them). Do clean fish or unclean fish have comparively more omega 3 per ounce/gram?

DO CLEAN FISH HAVE MORE OMEGA 3?

A webiste states:

"Some fish contain more omega 3s than others. These fish tend to be the deep, cold water variety. You must couple this recommendation with the cautionary notes that pregnant women be careful about the type of fish they choose to eat because of the risk of heavy metal and pesticide contamination that can accumulate in fish. Fetuses can be damaged by these toxic chemicals. The fish especially rich in omega three fatty acids include mackerel, salmon, trout, rockfish, herring, whitefish, anchovy, and tuna.

Pregnant women are warned against eating swordfish, shark or fresh tuna, and all fresh water fish. Fresh water is more apt to be contaminated than ocean waters. Of those fish that are okay to eat, eat a variety of them. This will reduce your risk of overdosing on one particular contaminant."

taken from: http://www.ivillage.com/food/experts/nu ... 55,00.html


Now all of the above fish cited at the nutritional weblink above are clean fish (mackerel, salmon, trout, rockfish, herring, whitefish, anchovy, and tuna). You can see they are clean fish here: http://www.kashrut.com/articles/fish/

I also offer the following website material:

"Among water creatures, only those with fins and scales are kosher. Anything else--including shrimp, lobster, scallops, crabs, and other bottom-dwelling sea scavengers--is unkosher. Note that some fish have fins but not scales (like catfish, shark, and swordfish), and are therefore not kosher.

Clean fish include bass, cod, flounder, haddock, halibut, perch, sole, salmon, red snapper, trout, and other fresh and salt water fish having both fins and scales. Scientists tell us that these fish are especially rich in omega-3 fatty acids which can decrease the risk of coronary disease and cancer. Fin-and-scale fish are also a good source of polyunsaturated fatty acids necessary in the production of hormones.

Evidence suggests that eating these fish can also reduce the level of harmful cholesterol in the bloodstream."

taken from: http://www.cjf.org/pages/kosher1.htm


REGARDING FAT:

A website declares:

"Perhaps the most interesting point of all, however, is the fact that medical science has proved there is a correlation between heart disease and diets high in animal fat. Fatal coronary heart disease has been caused by diets containing high levels of fat. Animal fats are high in cholesterol.

But what does this have to do with the Bible? Simply this: Dr. Paul Dudley White, the heart specialist who treated President Eisenhower while he was in the White House, once quoted Leviticus 7:23:

"Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of goat."

Dr. Paul Dudley White asserted, "It is conceivable that a few years from now we medical men may repeat to the citizens of the United States of America the advice that Moses was asked by God to present to the children of Israel 3,000 years ago."

Was Moses way ahead of his time? God told Israel to avoid eating animal fats -- diets high in animal fat -- a major cause of clogged arteries and coronary heart disease!

Here is further evidence that the Biblical health teachings "scooped" modern medical science by 3,400 years!"

taken from: http://www.triumphpro.com/ancient_bible ... today!.htm


OMEGA 3 COMPARISON IS NEEDED

Now one person told me that some species of shark liver oil are excellent sources of omega 3. I would ask and rightfully so, do non clean fish have as much omega 3s comparitively to the clean fish as a species and do these kinds of fish have as much omega 3 as a general category (for example, sharks)? I would also point out we are just talking about the shark liver and we should be concerned with the whole fish I would think. Also, what does Macht say regarding the toxicity of the unclean fish versus the clean fish?

MERCURY IN TUNA OBJECTION

Some might point out that mercury is in tuna which is a clean fish. However, I would say they need to show that mercury was a problem in the pre- christ resurrection era. They would also need to show that Macht at John Hopkins tested for mercury in his study or that mercury levels were high in 1953.

Please note: I do realize that the Bible says in the book of Galations that Christians are not under the dietary laws of the Old Testament

ALSO CONSIDER THIS INFO:

I realize the trichonosis is prevented by cooking pork properly according to most experts although some disagree. I also recognize the following:

"A United States Department of Agriculture pamphlet stated that "In a series of 24 cases of trichinosis reported recently, 22 were said to have resulted from ‘cooked pork.’"

taken from: http://www.giveshare.org/Health/health5.html


DID THE ANCIENT JEWS HAVE COOKING THERMOMETERS?

Now I would assert that the ancient Jews did not have cooking thermometers since some people assert that trichonosis parasites are easily killed through proper cooking. Obviously, few would disagree with me regarding the lack of ancient Jewish thermometers. And of course, there is the question of which meat is comparatively better unclean animals or clean in terms of total parasites, toxins, fat content (the Torah said not to eat the fat which doctors are starting to agree with), etc.


BUT BEEF'S RED MEAT IS KOSHER! IS THIS OBJECTION OVERRULED?

Now some would point out that red meat of beef is not an ideal food and that cattle are considered a clean animal as per the Mosaic Law. I would cite the following:

I cite the following website:

"Simply stated, grass fed beef is HEALTHY BEEF. Cows are ruminants who evolved eating fresh grass - not corn, or grain or whatever the giant feed lot cattle industry feeds them.....

By contrast, most supermarket beef is raised in crowded “feed lots†on a diet of mostly corn and other feed grains or feed “by-productsâ€Â. This is an important distinction in light of new scientific research in the area of human nutrition and health. Several studies on the nutrient composition of beef revealed that grass-fed beef is substantially lower in total fat than grain-fed beef. In fact it is almost as lean as skinless chicken breast. A 6-ounce steak from a pasture-finished steer has almost 100 fewer calories than a 6-ounce steak from a grain-finished steer. Also, the ratio of “ essential fatty acids†(good fat vs. bad fat) in grass-fed beef is much closer to ideal than grain finished beef 1. Nutritionists are currently recommending that people try to maintain a ratio of less than 4 parts “Omega 6†fatty acid to 1 part “omega 3†fatty acid. The average American diet is approximately a ratio of 20 to 1. Current research suggests that this in-balance of essential fatty acids may be a contributing factor in the dramatic increases in heart disease, diabetes, mental illness and certain types of cancer that are so prevalent in America today 2. Grass-fed beef has from 2 to 6 times more “Omega 3†fatty acid as a percent of total fat than grain finished beef 1.

Grass fed beef also has 2 to 5 times more “Conjugated Linoleic Acid†or CLA than grain-fed beef. CLA is another “good fat†that shows promise of reducing cancer, diabetes, obesity, and a number of immune system disorders."

taken from: http://www.vermontbeef.com/

E. COLI OBJECTION

Some might point out the current E. Coli problem. I would ask though the following:

1) Would the ancient Hebrew have processing plants that see tons and tons of meat going through them?

2) In regards to hamburger processing plants, you might want to do some research regarding the relatively air tight modern buildings we have now as far as storage facilities and processing plants and the increased proliferation of E. Coli (natural air has ozone in it which kills E. Coli. Please see: http://www.yourairknowledge.com/ozone.htm ). Ozone kills E. Coli on surfaces.

3) I would also say that I personally do not know if the E. Coli that existed now is more or equally virulent as the E. Coli that existed in ancient Isael or if E. Coli was as prevalent.

4) How much GROUND beef did the ancient Israeli's eat?

(I do realize that the ancient Israelis did not have refridgeration which probably affects things).


ADDENDUM

A limited number of libraries have the Macht reference. I would suggest going to your local university or college health science library. If you have no universities or colleges near you I suggest the following:

If you are looking for a library near you that has the Macht source that was quoted then I suggest you go to a library that has WorldCat access (many do) which will tell you what library near you has the Macht material that was cited. Here is WorldCat's URL: http://www.oclc.org/worldcat/

I am also confident that interlibrary loan can obtain a copy for you as I stated before ( a service where libraries borrow from each other for those who are unacquainted with interlibrary loan). Most libraries have access to interlibrary loan. You do not need to know what library has the Macht material that was cited to use interlibrary loan just in case you are not aware of this. Here is the URL of interlibrary loan: http://www.loc.gov/rr/loan/ "


MOSAIC LAWS WERE ADVANCED IN SANITARY AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAWS

"How was the Black Death finally conquered? Declared David Riesman, Professor of the History of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania: "Isolation of the sick and quarantine came into use. These practices not only eliminated the plague as a pandemic menace for the first time in history but also led to general laws against infectious diseases, thereby laying the foundations upon which modern hygiene rests" (Medicine in the Middle Ages, p. 260).

Where did these principles originate? From the Bible!

The Old Testament contains many hygienic injunctions which relate to health. If the world would have obeyed them, its disease toll would have been drastically cut. Until the close of the 17th century, hygienic conditions in cities were generally deplorable. Excrement was often dumped into the streets. Flies, breeding in the filth, and rodents spread and carried disease to millions. During the Industrial Revolution working-class families sometimes lived in squalid, dark, airless tenements, perhaps 30 families sharing one toilet which probably was connected to a cesspool overflowing into the street. Some households simply emptied chamber pots out the window. As a result, streets sometimes looked more like garbage pits than avenues!"

taken from: http://www.triumphpro.com/ancient_bible ... today!.htm

ALSO CONSIDER THIS INFORMATION REGARDING SANITARY LAWS:

"However, unknown to scientists and men of medicine, incredibly, the principle of burying excrement and filth -- the basic underlying principle of MODERN SANITATION -- was a basic LAW given in the Scriptures, fourteen centuries before Christ. God told Moses and the children of Israel:

"Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad:
and thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease
thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which
cometh from thee" (Deut. 23:12-13).

Says Castiglioni, "The regulations in Deuteronomy as to how soldiers should prevent the danger of infection coming from their excrement by covering it with earth constitute a most important document of sanitary legislation" (A History of Medicine, p. 70). Castiglioni declared, "Study of Biblical texts appears to have demonstrated that the ancient Semitic peoples, in agreement with the most modern tenets of epidemiology, attributed more importance to animal transmitters of disease, like the rat and the fly, than to the contagious individual" (Ibid., p. 71).

An indication that the Hebrews knew that the rat was implicated in the spread of plague is found in I Samuel 6:4-5, where an outbreak of plague was associated with "rats that have ravaged the whole land" (Living Bible). But 3,000 years later, when the Bubonic Plague devastated Europe, this knowledge had generally been lost. Some blamed noxious fumes in the air, some blamed the stars, some blamed a conjunction of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, some blamed the Jews, and many blamed God.

Generally, the world did not wake up to the importance of hygiene and cleanliness until about the end of the 18th century. Yet vital principles of sanitation and cleanliness were expounded long ago by God to Moses!

taken from: http://www.triumphpro.com/ancient_bible ... today!.htm


HANDLING DEAD BODIES

A website declares:

"Consider another example. In Vienna in 1846 Ignaz Semmelweis noticed that one patient in eight died of puerperal fever in one ward where they were tended by physicians and medical students who had just performed autopsies on victims who had died. He noticed that in a ward ministered by midwives, however, the death rate was much lower. He ordered all attendants to wash their hands before treating the patients and the following year the death rate dropped to zero. Unfortunately, the medical "authorities" were not impressed, refused to believe there was any direct connection, and Semmelweis was summarily dismissed from his job!

But the really remarkable fact is that Semmelweis, even though he was far ahead of the prevailing medical opinion of his time in the mid-1800's, was still 3,200 years behind in medical knowledge! Almost 1,500 years before Christ, God gave Moses detailed instructions on cleaning one's hands and body after handling the dead! You can read these extensive hygienic laws in Numbers, the 19th chapter, verses 11-22.

Semmelweis made an important discovery, but merely washing the hands once would not be accepted as proper sanitation in any reputable hospital, today. However, the Biblical laws went further. They stated the person who touched a corpse was to be considered "unclean seven days." The third day he was to purify himself and be sprinkled with the water of separation or purification. That is, the water was to be thrown on him (Hebrew zaraq, "to throw" or "sprinkle"). Some authorities say that running water was to be used (verse 17). This duty was to be repeated on the seventh day, and the individual was then to wash his clothes and bathe himself in water -- and then he would be considered "clean." "

TAKEN FROM: http://www.triumphpro.com/ancient_bible ... today!.htm

Now some would say that not much disease is perhaps transported via the handling of dead bodies. Of course, this raises the question of whether it is better or not better to elaborately wash after handling a corpse and to separate yourself for a time and not necessarily the likelihood of transmission. I would also say that the Israeli did not have access the Mayo Clinic or have public department of health and so perhaps preventative measures would be more prudent at this time in history (although I do believe in supernatural healing and I have experienced it). I would also say that running water was not a luxury everyone had at this time and so perhaps the infectious material would be on their body longer.


NEXT LET US TAKE A LOOK AT CIRCUMCISION:

A website declares:

"Interestingly, cancer of the cervix -- which comprises about 25 percent of the cancer of women in general -- is very rare among Jewish women. Wrote Dr. Louis Lasagna,

"Since the beginning of the nineteenth century it has been known that, married
or unmarried, Gentile women have two to three times as high an incidence of
genital cancer (particularly cancer of the cervix) as do Jewish women. Wherever
physicians have compiled statistics-in New York and Vienna, Budapest and London,
Leeds and Amsterdam-this differential susceptibility to genital cancer has emerged"
(ibid., p. 243).

This finding astounded the medical experts. Why are Jewish women comparatively free from this dreaded scourge?"

taken from: http://www.triumphpro.com/ancient_bible ... today!.htm

Another website declares:

"The authors cite a study, published a decade ago, of 422 Kenyan men who habitually visited prostitutes. The research showed that the uncircumcised men had an 8.2 times greater risk of infection. Of 38 additional investigations, 27 from eight different countries found a similar association between uncut men and infection."

taken from: http://archive.salon.com/health/sex/urg ... nakedaids/

Another website declares:

"The AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] withdrew its opposition to circumcision because accumulating evidence suggests it does have health benefits, preventing penile cancer and reducing urinary tract infections in infants."

taken from: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a940128.html

MOSES RISES FROM THE GRAVE AND CONFIRMS BENEFITS OF CIRCUMCISION?

"In an important survey based on 22 epidemiological studies from 10 countries, a group led by Dr. David Moses of the University of Manitoba found that uncircumcised men had, on average, 4 times the risk of HIV infection compared to circumcised men. Most of the studies that served as the basis of Moses's survey had been conducted in African countries and other parts of the Third World, where AIDS is chiefly a heterosexual disease. But according to a report from Seattle, Washington, homosexual men are likewise at higher risk if they are uncircumcised.

Sub-Saharan Africa's "AIDS belt," which includes most East African countries, is home to only 2 percent of the world's population but has half the world's 16 million HIV cases. In the Third World, the primary transmitters of HIV are long-distance truck drivers who have, outside their villages, contracted the disease from prostitutes. Circumcision of men at high risk of HIV infection has been proposed to stem the raging AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa. Recently, scientists John and Pat Caldwell studied the factors in this epidemic. In a detailed article published in 1996 in Scientific American, the Caldwells concluded that lack of male circumcision was the one factor that correlated with rampant HIV transmission."

taken from: http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID ... detail.asp

MORE REGARDING CIRCUMCISION:

A website declares:

"MAN SAID it has no real value. In 1971, the prestigious American Academy of Pediatrics said, "Circumcision may have some religious reason but it delivers no medical benefit whatsoever." Up until that time male circumcision was routine in America.

Now, THE RECORD: First let it be noted that the covenant of circumcision was initially entered into by Abraham, the Old Testament patriarch. J. Free writes the following in his scholarly book titled, Archaeology and the Bible as History:

"Archaeological discoveries show that the practice of circumcision can be traced back to the days of Abraham. This surgical operation is pictured on the reliefs of Egypt which go back into Old Testament times."

.....Birth records of 219,755 male children born in U.S. Armed Forces hospitals from 1975 to 1979 were examined. It was found that the uncircumcised experienced an 1100% higher incidence of urinary tract infections. After nine different studies were reviewed, the finding was that the uncircumcised suffered urinary tract infections 12 times more often than those who were circumcised. The uncircumcised are 800% more likely to acquire AIDS via a heterosexual relationship......

In 50,000 penile cancer cases recorded in the U.S., 49,990 were among uncircumcised men. Only ten of those cancer victims were circumcised! Ten thousand of the 50,000 penile cancer cases died as a result of the disease. Uncircumcised men have twice the incidence of prostate cancer. Plus, later in a man's life, he is twice as likely to have erectile dysfunction as his circumcised counterpart.

The circumcision issue also affects the female. Studies have documented higher rates of cervical cancer in women who have had one or more uncircumcised partners. The benefits from male circumcision run on and on. I have listed several of them."

taken from: http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.as ... ItemId=569


IN A HURRY? NEED A QUICK SKILLFUL CIRCUMCISION? SEE THE RABBI NOT THE DOCTOR!

A website declares:

"Skilled circumcisers generally perform the procedure in less than five minutes. (In my opinion, the operation should never last more than 10 minutes.) True adepts, including religious circumcisers (in Judaism, called mohels), generally perform the procedure in less than 2 minutes. When it is performed properly, the operation is simple, safe, and brief."

TAKEN FROM: http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/schoen1.html

OBJECTIONS TO CIRCUMCISION BEING EVIDENCE OF DIVINE ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE

Some would say that the benefits of circumcision shows design flaws. Of course, to show that there were design flaws you must show that cancer and vendereal disease, and infections were not a result of a fall in the Garden of Eden). I do not think this objection can be sustained.

I know there is not 100% consensus regarding circumcision. I do believe, however, that circumcision while not medically necessary does have its advantages and that the pros outweigh the cons. And since I am not afraid of both positions material by any means I offer the following pro and con cicumcision sites for the readers to examine and make their own determination (one of the sites was cited earlier):

PRO CIRCUMCISION:

http://www.circumstitions.com/Morris.html

AGAINST CIRCUMCISION:

http://www.nocirc.org/position/aap1999.htm


RESULTS, RESULTS, RESULTS

Here is something that I thought was interesting:

Cecil Roth has published some figures showing how the Jews have remained healthier than their neighbours right down to modern times.19 One year when statistics were collected for the death rates among infants less than a year old in Czarist Russia, the rate for Jews was 13.2 per cent and for non-Jews 26.0 per cent. In Vienna it was 8.3 per cent for Jews, 16.1 per cent for non-Jews. In New York in 1915 it was 7.8 per cent for Jews, 10.5 per cent for non-Jews. "Even today [he wrote in 1956] the infant death rate in Israel is the lowest in the world."

19 C. Roth, The Jewish Contribution to Civilisation. Horovitz, London, 1956

taken from: http://www.godstruth.org/chap08#19

Here is something I wrote:

Let me ask you this: "Do arabs eat camel meat?" Is camel meat kosher or non-kosher? What did Dr. Macht's study say about the toxicity of camel meat? Since you did not read the study camel meat is non kosher and toxic. The Jews and Arabs are both from ANE cultures yet whose dietary habits are validated by a John Hopkins study?

Next, do you think long term that eating more toxic foods or less toxic foods is more healthy? Would the effects be long term or short term likely? Do people keel over immediately from eating a more toxic camel meat or a ham sandwhich? Which is smarter, "Eating certain types of food for the short term or looking more at the long term? How did Moses get all the quadrupeds, fish, birds, etc correct out of the 80 or so tested by Macht but get zero wrong in terms of toxicity/non-toxicity and cleanness or uncleaness. Can you give me a very similar feat in ancient literature especially with something so subtle in its likely long term effects?

Next, can you give me a large body of literature from ancient times that has no harmful dietary, sanitational, or health practices. I would submit that the Egyptians put dung on wounds. I would submit that even the Journal of the American Medical Association likely endorsed medical practices as healthy but were later shown otherwise.

The Chinese are a very old culture. The Chinese will eat almost anything. I would readily admit that perhaps the Chinese had population pressure to eat anything. I am guessing a civilization living in the regions of the Middle East which can be arid might have a strong temptation to eat everything too though. And again, the benefits of eating these food and not eating these food would often seem long term. Plus Macht got a perfect score!


Here is an abbreviated dialogue I had with someone:


What is it so reasonable about NEVER eating hares to an ancient Israeli?

(I realize that Macht tested rabbit which are somewhat similar to a hare I am guessing. I also realize that the rabbits tested toxic and that they are unclean according the Mosaic code!)

What is so reasonable about NEVER eating a camel to an ancient Israeli? (Macht tested camel )

What is so reasonable about NEVER eating bear meat to an ancient Israeli? (Macht tested bear although not Middle eastern bear)

What is so reasonable about NEVER eating fish (aqua life) that do not only have fins and scales? (Macht tested the fish [aqua life] catagory)

What is so reasonable about eating some bird meat like quail but NEVER eating the birds that were declared unclean some of which Macht tested? (Macht tested clean and unclean bird catagory)

I could go on but I would state that since X did not know these animal catagories were tested he/she cannot make any reasonable comments. I would also say I only gave some of the quadrupeds and birds that Macht tested.

Now I realize that hunting bear can be dangerous! I realize that if you eat a camel you cannot ride a camel! I realize that hares and rabbits are hard to catch! But I would say that X wholly failed to show the reasonableness and given that he/she never read the study I would not find this amazing. In short, X needs to show why it is reasonable to eat or not eat the approximately 80 animals that were tested in the Macht study and also address why there appears to be a 100% corellation between non-toxicity and cleanness and also toxicity and uncleaness for ALL of the animals studied!

(please note: I said about 80 animals because not all of the 88 animals that Macht studied were Biblical animals. For example, Dr. Macht tested duck).


MACHT STUDY ONLINE

Here is the citation for the journal article cited earlier.

Macht, D. M.D., (1953). “An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of Levitcus XI and Deuteronomy XIV,†Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 27. 444-450

Here are some webpages that gives the article cited above which is in the Bulletin of the History of Medicine:

http://www.geocities.com/jg167/macht/1-medium.gif

http://www.geocities.com/jg167/macht/2-medium.gif

http://www.geocities.com/jg167/macht/3-medium.gif

http://www.geocities.com/jg167/macht/4-medium.gif

http://www.geocities.com/jg167/macht/5-medium.gif

http://www.geocities.com/jg167/macht/6-medium.gif

http://www.geocities.com/jg167/macht/7-medium.gif

http://www.geocities.com/jg167/macht/8-medium.gif

You will see by looking at the first 6 footnotes in the references that the test Dr. Macht employed was published in respected journals such as the journal Science.

 

[kendemyer]

Here is an excellent article written by the scientist Alan Hayward :

A Law Ahead of its Time

Imagine one of those programmes where a man in a busy street with a microphone and a television camera stops passers by.

"Excuse me, Sir, (or, Madam). I wonder if you can tell me who first spoke these words: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself?"

Leaving out the "Don't know" and the "Don't care" brigade, it is a fair bet that most people will answer, "Why, Jesus, of course!"

But they would be wrong. Those words first appear in the book of Leviticus,1 near the beginning of the Old Testament. All Jesus did was to remind people of their importance.

The first five books of the Bible-Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy-contain the code of laws under which the children of Israel lived. Together they are called "The Law of Moses", or simply "The Law".

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" illustrates how far the Law was ahead of its time. Jesus is regarded as a very advanced moral teacher, and, of course, He was. Yet one of His most famous sayings was a quotation from the Law of Moses.

There is no need to spend much time discussing the Ten Commandments. No other document in the world has had so much influence on the legal and moral codes that civilised man lives by. Other men in the ancient world, like the famous Hammurabi, drew up their own codes of law. Yet none of these has had the lasting effect of the Ten Commandments.

But at the moment I am more concerned with the Law of Moses as a law of love. Men think of it as a stern, strong law, and it was so. It had to be, in that far-off lawless age. But in many ways it was also a tender, merciful law. And considering the age in which it was written, that is little short of a miracle.

A little over a hundred years ago, a famous cartoon appeared in an English journal. It bore the following caption:

" Whos 'im, Bill?"

"A stranger!"

"Eave arf a brick at im."2

This typifies the attitude of men to strangers all through history. Now contrast what Moses said:

"The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt."3

Not only your neighbour, but you must also love the foreigner as yourself! Here Moses was not only ahead of his time, but ahead of our time, too. Think how much racial strife would be avoided in the world today, if men would only do as Moses commanded.

The Law was concerned with little things as well as big. Think of all the mental suffering that has been caused by malicious, gossiping tongues. The Law clamped down on this:

"Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people."4

Among the other ancient nations there was no end to mans cruelty to his fellow men. Only among the Jews was cruelty kept in check. There was no death by prolonged torture in Israel. The only forms of capital punishment prescribed by the Law of Moses led to a quick death.

The Law also set a limit to the extent of corporal punishment. Other nations would flog criminals indefinitely, until often they died beneath the lash. But Moses said that forty strokes must be the maximum.5 The Law even ruled against cruelty to animals.6

All through history the moneylender has been the curse of primitive societies. Even today, in many underdeveloped countries starving peasants spend their whole lives in debt, while the moneylenders grow rich from disgracefully high rates of interest. Many Jews are among those who have made fortunes from moneylending. But they would not have been if they had appreciated the spirit of their Law.

For the Law set an example to all mankind by frowning on this practice. Israelites were allowed (though not encouraged) to take interest from foreigners. But three different books forbade Israelites to charge one another interest.7 At the same time Moses insisted that, if a poor citizen needed an interest-free loan or a gift, he must be given it.8 Although the lender was allowed to ask for the borrowers coat as security for a loan, he must not keep it after sundown if the owner needed it for warmth.9

Pure Worship

When Israel first became a nation, the religions of their neighbours were indescribably vile. The world was full of idols, in whose name the foulest deeds were done. Human sacrifice, black magic, ritual prostitution, witchcraft-there was no end to the evils perpetrated under the guise of religion.

Now and again some outstanding man-such as King Amenhotep IV, who ruled Egypt during the fourteenth century B.C.-would try to reform his countrys religion. But none of them had any lasting influence on mankind. There was only one nation whose Law shone like a beacon in a dark world:

"I am the Lord thy God.... Thou shalt have none other gods beside Me."10

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord, and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."11

There was only one God, not a thousand and one. Because of that, a man must be single-minded in his devotion to that One God. The idols of the other nations were as nothing; therefore they must not have the slightest influence upon a mans thoughts or deeds.

" Thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord."12

Right up to the time of Christ there was not another nation that had followed Moses example, and banned all these hideous religious practices of the ancient world.

Health is Wealth

"Whats he got that I haven't got?" is a common human complaint. One reason for the Jews unpopularity is that men have often had cause to be jealous of them.

Professor Rendle Short, who was a surgeon as well as a Bible student, gives an interesting example from fourteenth-century Italy.13 Plague was sweeping the country, and the Italians noticed that the Jewish communities escaped much more lightly than themselves. They guessed, correctly, that the Jewish Law had something to do with it. So they adopted the Jewish system, and their death rate fell.

As a twentieth-century Italian doctor has written in an ordinary medical textbook:

"No-one can fail to be impressed by the careful hygienic precautions of the Mosaic period. The extremely stringent quarantine rules very likely did a great deal of good."14

Here are some of the provisions of the Law that helped to keep Israel healthy.

Isolation. "Lepers" (the Biblical term includes a whole group of infectious diseases, along with the modern leprosy) were commanded to live separately from the rest of the people.15 The modern practice of isolating sufferers from infectious diseases was derived directly from the Jews.
Washing after handling dead bodies. When a Jew had handled a dead body he was regarded as "unclean". He was to be quarantined for seven days, and to undergo an elaborate washing procedure before he was regarded as fit to mix with society again.16 Until about a hundred years ago surgeons used to handle the dead and the dying, and then go straight into the operating theatre without washing. Thousands of their patients died through infection. Many of them might have lived if those early surgeons had kept the Law of Moses.
Sanitation. In 1969 I walked along the main street of a large African city and watched human excrement drifting along the open drains at the sides of the road. I reflected on the high incidence of disease in that city, and the low expectation of life. And then I wondered how much better off the people would be if only they obeyed the Law of Moses:
"You must have a latrine outside the camp and go outside to it; you must carry a spade among your weapons, and when you relieve yourself outside, you must dig a hole with it, to cover up your filth."17

It was not until the eighteenth century that Western Europe began to see the life-saving wisdom of this part of the Law. And hundreds of millions of people have not seen the wisdom of it yet.

The food laws. Two chapters in the Law18 are filled with lists of the birds, beasts and fishes which may and may not be eaten. With a few exceptions the lists agree with what modern man regards as healthy and unhealthy food. The flesh-eating creatures, the rats, the reptiles and most insects are forbidden; the vegetarian bird and beasts are permitted.
The main differences from modern practice are that pork and shellfish are forbidden by the Law, yet are eaten today. But there were good reasons for the Laws strictness. Today public health inspectors backed by an elaborate laboratory service can ensure that pigs and shellfish are reared under healthy conditions. Israel had no such facilities.

We know now that two serious diseases, cysticercosis and trichiniasis, can be caught through eating the flesh of pigs infected by parasitic worms. In a primitive society the only safe way to avoid these diseases is to steer clear of pork.

As for shellfish, they are quite harmless if they grow in water free from sewage. But if human excrement is present they feed on it, and then may harbour the germs of typhoid and other intestinal diseases. Modern science takes precautions against this, but the only precaution open to ancient Israel was to abstain from shellfish.

Even modern food science can sometimes slip up, and let an unsafe batch of shellfish on to the market. The last time (the very last!) that I ate oysters I was carried off on a stretcher at midnight. I had a week in hospital-ample time to reflect that Moses was wiser than I.

Cecil Roth has published some figures showing how the Jews have remained healthier than their neighbours right down to modern times.19 One year when statistics were collected for the death rates among infants less than a year old in Czarist Russia, the rate for Jews was 13.2 per cent and for non-Jews 26.0 per cent. In Vienna it was 8.3 per cent for Jews, 16.1 per cent for non-Jews. In New York in 1915 it was 7.8 per cent for Jews, 10.5 per cent for non-Jews. "Even today [he wrote in 1956] the infant death rate in Israel is the lowest in the world."

Conservation of Resources

In 1966 a new body was formed in London by a group of eminent British citizens. It is called "The Conservation Society", and its objects were defined as including:

"(iii) To promote the conservation in the interests of mankind of natural resources and animal life .

(iv) To promote the conservation of human cultures, skills and knowledge ..."20

It has taken the world all this time to realise that the worlds resources are limited and need to be carefully conserved. Meanwhile, human foolishness and greed has done untold harm to the beautiful world in which we live.

Much of this harm could have been prevented if more people had obeyed the Law of Moses. For this Law taught the necessity of conservation of resources several thousand years before man seriously thought about it. Here are three examples:

Bird life. If an Israelite caught a mother bird sitting on a nest, he must not take both the mother and her eggs or young. He could take the eggs or young birds, but had to let the mother go free to perpetuate the species.21
If only modern man had listened to Moses, the museums of the world would not now be full of stuffed examples of extinct birds. We should not have a saying, "Dead as the dodo". The beautiful passenger pigeon of North America, and the great auk of the North Atlantic, would still be thriving in their millions as they were at the beginning of the last century.

Arable land. Every seventh year the Israelite had to let his arable land lie fallow (that is, uncultivated).22 Under modern farming methods this is not necessary. But with more primitive methods of agriculture, constant cropping was liable to destroy the fertility of the land.
The Law of Moses provided an effective method of preventing human greed from ruining the good earth. But mankind disregarded the Law. All over the world man-made deserts sprawl where once were fertile fields. The deserts of Iraq, the coastal belt of North Africa, the dust bowls of the United States-all these might still be rich farmland if the Law had been obeyed.

Fruit trees. In present day warfare anything goes-or almost anything. There are, it is true, a few "rules of war", dating back to the first Geneva Convention in 1864. But they are limited in scope, and not all countries recognise them. Even those that say they accept them sometimes break the rules when the crunch comes.
In the Vietnam war America introduced a new military tactic. It is called "defoliation". The U.S. air force has sprayed many thousands of tons of weedkiller over enemy-occupied territory. Vast areas of jungle where enemy troops once hid have been turned into a temporary desert. Rice crops and fruit trees have also been wiped out, and great numbers of Vietnamese have gone hungry in consequence. Such is "total war", as it is practised today.

But ancient Israel were forbidden to treat nature so ruthlessly. Even under the stress of war they were not allowed to chop down fruit trees to make defensive barriers. Though this might have reduced their own casualties, or even turned defeat into victory, they still must not do it. Moses told them why not: "for the tree of the field is mans life."23

Thus the Jewish Law of three thousand years ago was in this respect far wiser, far more civilised, than American law (or British law, for that matter) of today.

Human strength. This was the most precious of all natural resources, in a world where machine power had not yet come to replace muscle power. The Law of Moses introduced a revolutionary new principle to conserve human strength-a compulsory day of rest, once a week.24
Those far-off days were not noted for any humanitarian tendencies. Yet the astonishing fact about the Sabbath law was this: it applied to everybody in the land, Israelite and foreigner, master and slave alike.25

Such an act of generosity on the part of rulers towards their slaves is without parallel in history. Yet Israels Law commanded it, and, by and large, Israel obeyed.

The great medical historian, Karl Sudhoff, has said:

"Had Judaism given nothing more to mankind than the establishment of a weekly day of rest, we should still be forced to proclaim her one of the greatest benefactors of humanity."26

Family Life

Jews have always been known for the happiness and stability of their home lives,

In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when wife-beating was expressly permitted by English law, the Jewish rabbis could say, "It is not the way of our people to beat their wives as the Gentiles do."27

In 1952 Jewish marriages involving divorced persons numbered 122 out of a total of 1,876, or 6.5 per cent. This was about half the comparable figure for the British people as a whole.28 Most Jewish wives regard homemaking as a full time job. In 1950-52 only 11 per cent of Jewish women went out to work, compared with 34 per cent of the overall population.29

The secret of successful Jewish home life, like so many other things Jewish, lay in the Law. In the ancient world (as in primitive societies today) wives were often regarded as mere chattels, to be used, discarded and replaced at will. Children were nothing more than economic assets to the Gentile nations.

But Israels Law was different. Jewish women had to be respected. Adultery, fornication and prostitution were very severely discouraged. Men had to treat their wives fairly, even if they disliked them.30 Although divorce was not forbidden it was not encouraged, but was carefully regulated.31 And the ideal Jewish marriage was clearly specified in the beginning: one man and one woman, joined together for life.32

The Law laid great stress upon the careful upbringing of children. It was a fathers responsibility to see that his children were well educated in Gods ways.33

The Jewish religion would never have survived without this stress on religious education within every family. At the same time it has had a useful by-product for the Jews. They have always been more advanced than any other nation in every form of education. Without doubt, their success in the world is partly due to this.

Thus, for example, a census taken in 1861 revealed that more than half the adult population of Italy could not read or write, but that only one Italian Jew in 17 could not read or write.34 A census of university students in Britain in 1954-5 revealed that 2.8 per cent of students were Jews,35 although Jews form only 0.8 per cent of the countrys population.

How Did Moses Manage It?

Once more we have a remarkable fact to face. The Law of Moses (contained in the first five books of the Bible) was astonishingly advanced in its provisions. It was at least three thousand years ahead of its time. The rest of the world did not realise the wisdom of many parts of the Law until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

How are we going to account for this? How did Moses manage to give his people such a revolutionary and brilliantly successful law?

Here is Moses own explanation:

" What great nation is there that hath a god so nigh unto them as the Lord our God is?... What great nation is there that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this Law?... The Lord spake unto you . . . The Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments."36

Moses took no credit for himself. He was not the greatest legalistic genius of all time. He was not a man 3,000 years ahead of his time. It was not his brain that anticipated so many discoveries of modern sociology, hygiene, medicine and economics. His Law, he says, came from God.

This explanation by Moses fits the facts. Is there an alternative explanation that fits them half as well? How do the unbelievers explain the stubborn facts?

The answer is that they don't. They cannot provide a rational explanation for the facts, so they fall back once more on the technique of side-stepping them.

"Moses didn't write the Law," they cry. "It was compiled by other men, between five and ten centuries after the time of Moses."

As if that made any difference! If true, it would only make the Law two thousand-odd years ahead of its time, instead of three thousand. And in any case, as we shall see later, it is by no means proved that Moses did not write the Law.

So they try another tactic. "Pah, this is just a load of pro-Jewish propaganda!"

Again: so what? Facts are still facts, even if somebody throws dirty words like "propaganda" at them. And in any case, it is not true. My feelings are certainly pro-Bible, but they are not pro-Jewish. I have no particular liking, nor any dislike, for the Jews. I am just a neutral observer of what anyone can see to be an extraordinary people, with an extraordinary Law.

Ask yourself: how do you explain these facts? You know how Moses explained them. He said that he received his astonishing Law from God Almighty.

If this is not true, how did he manage to produce such a Law?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Lev. 19:18

2 Punch, London,

3 Lev. 19:34

4 Lev. 19:16

5 Deut. 25:3

6 Deut. 25:4

7 Exod. 22:25; Lev. 25:36, 37; Deut. 23:19, 20

8 Lev. 25:35, 36

9 Deut. 24:1()~13

10 Deut. 5:6, 7 (RV marginal rendering)

11 Deut.6:4,5

12 Deut. 18:9-12

13 A. R. Short, The Bible and Modern Medicine. Paternoster Press, Exeter, 1964

14 Aldo Castellani and Albert John Chambers, Manual of Tropical Medicine) Bailliere, London, 1910

15 Lev. 13:45, 46

16 Num. 19:11-19

17 Deut. 23:12, 13 (Moffatt's translation)

18 Lev. 11; Deut. 14

19 C. Roth, The Jewish Contribution to Civilisation. Horovitz, London, 1956

20 Constitution of The Conservation Society, London, 1966

21 Deut.22:6,7

22 Lev. 25:1-7

23 Deut.20:19,20

24 Exod.10:8-10

25 Exod.20:10

26 Quoted by Roth in Reference 19

27 C. Roth, op. cit.

28 Quoted by S. J. Prais in the symposium, Jewish Life in Modern Britain, edited by J. Gould and S. Esh. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1964

29 E. Kransz, in Reference 28

30 Deut. 21:13-16; 22:13-19

31 Deut. 24:1-4

32 Gen.2:18,24

33 For example, Deut. 4:9, 10; 6:7; 32:46

34 C. Roth, op. cit.

35 E. Kranz, in Reference 28

36 Deut. 4:7, 8, 12, 14 (RV)

taken from: http://www.godstruth.org/chap08

More ways the Torah was advanced!

CARL B. G A R N E R


WASH YOUR HANDS!

It is amazing to see the advances being made in the field of medicine. Doctors are capable of doing things today that were not even dreamed of twenty years ago. We fuss about doctors, hospitals and the cost of health care, but when we get sick, or when we are injured, or when a loved one is ill, we begin to look for a doctor. And we get in line with the rest of the folks at the pharmacy.

The past few weeks have seen near panic in central Texas. The Strep A virus has parents and everyone on their toes watching for symptoms of this dangerous, deadly disease. We watch the news daily to see if we are approaching an epidemic stage in fighting against such deadly threats. We pore over the newspaper to see how we can protect ourselves from this invasion into our family.

You have probably noticed that at the top of every prevention list is the same simple instruction:
Wash your hands often with plenty of soap and water.

That is so elementary that we almost overlook the wisdom of this basic step in personal hygiene. You see it in the doctor¹s office. You see it in public rest rooms. You see it in magazine articles. You see it everywhere. Even in the Bible! We often speak of the fact that the Bible contained truths and principles of science and medicine long before modern science "discovered" them. This "wash your hands" principle was a part of the sanitation laws given to the Jews on Mount Sinai. They may not have understood the importance of cleanliness, but they were commanded to maintain good personal and collective hygiene.

Upon their release from Egyptian captivity, Israel traveled over 200 miles to Sinai. They had seen the plagues brought upon the Egyptians, and they had even seen God¹s power over those who opposed them in their journey. Some of their own people had been stricken with death and illness. When they arrived at Sinai, Moses was inspired to write the following words to Israel:
"If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth thee," Exodus 15:26.

Note God¹s promise: "I will put none of these diseases upon thee." What measures did God give for their preservation and protection from disease? Some of the laws given to Israel may have been a bit puzzling to them, and we still may not know the purpose of all of them, but the most prominent was, to put it simply: "Wash your hands!" In Numbers 19:19, God gave His instructions on the subject of cleanliness for all who came in contact with an infected person: "And on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even." They were not aware of bacteria, but they could be protected.

A young doctor in Vienna, Ignaz Semmelweis, noted in the 1840¹s that many in the maternity wards were dying from unknown causes. He found that the women were being examined by doctors just after they had finished performing autopsies. Had they washed their hands, he asked. No, they had not. Upon initiating this simple rule, deaths diminished quickly. Had they read their Bible, most of these deaths could have been prevented. Such rules of hygiene are commonplace today, but they were virtually unknown as recently as the 19th century. Unfortunately, for many years the medical community ignored Doctor Semmelweis¹ discovery before finally realizing that the washing of a doctor¹s hands is a must for safe medical practice.

In Deuteronomy 23:11-13, Moses gave instruction requiring sanitation laws regarding human waste. And Leviticus 13 mandates the quarantine and separation policies necessitated by rampant contagious diseases. These and other means of prevention and treatment of disease were not discovered by men of science for another 2,000 years.

Egyptians were told that baldness could be prevented if they applied "a mixture of six fats, namely those of the horse, the hippopotamus, the crocodile, the cat, the snake, and the ibex. To strengthen it, anoint it with the tooth of a donkey crushed in honey." Scientists in Moses¹ day taught that applying "goose grease, asses¹ hoofs, lizard¹s blood, asses¹ dung and worm¹s blood" would heal certain diseases. Moses was taught those things in his youth in the court of Pharaoh, Acts 9:22. But when he wrote the books of Genesis through Deuteronomy, he wrote truths that were scientifically and medically centuries ahead of their time. How? Because God, the Great Physician, gave Moses the words. In None of These Diseases, a book by S. I. McMillen, M.D., several other related things are discussed that also illustrate the inspiration of the Bible. Truly "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," 2 Timothy 3:16. Count on it; the "scripture cannot be broken," John 10:35.

Christians are told, "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts," James 4:8. Clean hands and pure hearts are a good combination! Both physically and spiritually.

taken from: http://www.swsbs.edu/pages/writings/Garner/disease.html

HAMMURABI CODE VERSUS MOSAIC CODE. WHICH IS BETTER?

Here is a comparison of the Mosaic code versus the Hammarabi code:

The Two Codes differ in their morality:

From the ethical and spiritual standpoint the Mosaic legislation, as would be expected, offers a considerable advance over the Babylonian code. For instance, Hammurappi's laws name at least ten varieties of bodily mutilation for various offences. If a doctor performs an operation that is unsuccessful, his hand is to be cut off. There is, though, one instance of mutilation in the law of Moses: Deut. 25:11-12. In the Hebrew laws a greater value is generally placed on human life, and the place of women is much better tan in the rest of the ANE, or even the present Near East (under Islam). Slaves are treated amazingly better than in any other Near Eastern country. Moreover, the Babylonian code has nothng in it corresponding to the twofold golden thread running through the Mosaic legislation: love God and love your neighbor (Mat. 22:37-40).

It can be summarized this way (thanks to Alfred Jeremias):

a. There is no control of lust.

b. There is no limitation on selfishness.

3. There is nowhere to be found the postulate of charity.

d. There is nowhere to be found the religious motif which recognizes sin as the destruction of the people because it is in opposition to the fear of God. In the Hammurappi Code every trace of religious thought is absent; behind the Iraelite law stands everywhere the ruling will of God; the Mosaic legislation bears a religious character.

In fact, this last point differentiates everything in the OT from the rest of ANE literature and society: the monotheism and the stress on love for God and love for neighbors. This is absolutely unique in world history. (There is nothing outside the Bible like Deuteronomy 6:4-9, for instance).

Examples of Hammurrappi's laws:

21 If a man made a breach in a house, they shall put him to death in front of that breach and wall him in.

25 If a fire broke out in a man's house and a man, who went to extinguish it, cast his eye on the goods of the owner of the house and has appropriated the goods of the owner of the house, that man shall be thrown into the fire.

110 If a hierodule, a "lady of a god", who is not living in a temple, has opened the door of a wineshop or has entered a wineshop for a drink, they shall burn that woman.

127 If a man pointed the finger at a "lady of a god" or the wife of another man, but has proved nothing, they shall drag that man into the presence of the judges and also cut off half his hair.

129 If the wife of a man has been caught while lying with another man, they hsall bind them and throw them into the water. If the husband of the woman wishes to spare his wife, then the kig in turn may spare his subject.

132 (cf. Num. 5:11-31) If a finger was pointe at the wife of a man because of another man, but she has not been caught while lying with the other man, she shall throw herself into the river for the sake of the husband. (the word River has the determinitive for deity, indicating that the river -- the Euphrates-- was being called upon to act as a judge).

192 If the adopted son of a chamberlain or the adopted son of a votary has said to his foster father or his foster mother, "You are not my father," "You are not my mother", they shall cut out his tongue.

193 If the adopted son of a chamberlain or the adopted son of a votary found out his parentage and came to hate his foster father and his foster mother and so has gone off to his paternal home, they shall pluck out his eye.



http://www.theology.edu/egypt3.htm

I also cite the following about kosher meat and food combinations:

I once had the privilege to write about the late Dr. David Israel Macht of Baltimore who strongly believed there was no contradiction between Judaism and science and in a number of studies offered experimental proof to support this view. In a fascinating article entitled "The Bible as a Source of Subjects for Scientific Research" (Medical Leaves 1940; 3:174-184), Dr. Macht showed the harmful physiological effects of meat and milk combinations and the diminution of this toxicity at a ratio of one part of one ingredient to fifty-nine of the other. Among his many other findings were the demonstration of the toxic effects of the blood and various tissues of animals slaughtered through conventional means as opposed to those slaughtered in accordance with Jewish law (shechita) and the differences in puerperal blood according to gender of the child (see Leviticus 12:1-5).



http://ohr.edu/ask/ask199.htm

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

If there isn't a rule against flooding, and there ought to be, this is at least breaking rules against obscene post length. This is really just absurd.
If you want to start a debate about something, then start a debate and create an argument, by yourself, based on whatever evidence you want, pasting long inane diatribes is just annoying.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Natural air at ground level does not have appreciable levels of ozone in it. Ozone will occur, associated with thunderstorms, but it is in extremely low concentrations and last for only a few minutes in the vicinity of the lightning bolt before reverting back to normal O2.

Ozone is used as a disinfectant, I know because we work with it in such a context at my place of employment. However, it should be noted that this is DISSOLVED ozone. It tends to be expensive to generat, dangerous to work with, and is very short lived (lasting only a matter of minutes).

Ozone concentrations in the air could act as a disinfectant, however at such concentrations ozone would also oxidixe the meat. It would also oxidize the skin, eyes and lungs of anybody around it. In attidion it would cause chromozomal damage.

When ozone does occur at ground level, it is associated with industrial activitiy and is considered a form of pollution. There are very serious health effects from ozone exposure - including death. Fortunately, as I said before, ozone does not occur at ground level under natural conditions as you claim (except for very very low concnetrations. lasting only for a few minutes, and only in very localized areas under very special circumstances).

Check the photocopier in your office. See the carbon filter? That is there to protect you from the ozone generated by the machine.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Mosaic law says that a man should be stoned to death for picking up sticks on teh sabbath. Doesn't sound much less barbaric then Babylonian.

Besides, Jesus changed Moses' laws. Where Moses allowed divorce, Jesus forbade it.