The Mosaic Law food laws show evidence of divine knowledge? Law advanced other ways?

Are the Mosaic Law food laws highly advanced? Any other advanced provisions in Torah?I post some material that is not widely known in some portions. I especially wish some feedback regarding the Macht material of John Hopkins since this is not something that is widely known and I find extremely interesting.PREFACEI would also 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 Eygptians 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/chap08By 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.THE MACHT STUDY AND OTHER DATAI 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.aspHere 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. 444-450If one reads the Macht study you will see that he tested 88 animals (not only 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 chose 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.htmlI would not be surprised if the "David I. Macht" award was a much coveted award despite the admonitions 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://216.239.51.104/search?q=cach...vitcus+XI&hl=enTHE OMEGA 3 QUESTIONThe 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?"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/expert...ba=adid=8171818Now 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: KOSHER FISHI 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: CJF Ministries | Messianic Perspectives - Making Messiah Known to the Jewish PeopleREGARDING 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/...lth_secrets_revealed_today!.htmOMEGA 3 COMPARISON IS NEEDEDNow one person told me that some species of shark liver oil are excellent sources of omega 3. I would ask and rightfully so, do they 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 OBJECTIONSome 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 TestamentALSO CONSIDER THIS INFO:Also consider this info:"The indiscriminate eating patterns of omnivores like pigs make them disease carriers. Swine are known to carry up to 200 diseases, including trichinella spiralis, microscopic transparent worms so small that only trained inspectors using high-powered microscopes can detect their existence."taken from: http://www.letsbewellinc.com/s/p/BeyondGarden.htmlI 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: Best Online Casinos Canada 2022 | Real Money Canadian GamblingDID THE JEWS HAVE COOKING THERMOMETERS?Some would assert that trichonosis is killed if cooked at a sufficiently high temperature. I have read conflicting information regarding temperatures but let us say for the sake of discussion this is true.Now I would assert that the ancient Jews did not have cooking thermometers. Obviously, few would disagree with me regarding the lack of thermometers either. 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 (RED MEAT) IS KOSHER! IS THIS OBJECTION OVERRULED?Now some would point out that red meat is not ideal according to may 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-products. 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: ForbiddenSome 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).LAST OBJECTION TO FOOD LAWS BEING EVIDENCE OF DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGEWhy were'nt the food laws continued in the New Testament if they are so darn good?I am guessing it is a matter of priorities. Salvation in Christ is a higher priority than food laws and other laws like sanitation laws. I do not think Christians are under the food laws (clearly stated by Paul in Galations and elsewhere) and sanitation laws but on the other hand I do not think that eating scavengers is as probably as good as a food source nutritionally or that having a lot of human manure around is prudent. One could also say that eventually you are going to die from something and that jumbo shrimp taste pretty good! LOL On a more serious note, the death issue has been solved by God for those who wish to accept his solution. I would also say that Christians were not bound to have land go follow periodically but the dust storms in the dirty 30's in the USA showed the wisdom of the Mosaic law. I would say the same regarding the quarantine laws. I think burying waste which was quite advanced at the time by the way. There are third world countries today which still have problems due to poor public sanitation.ADDENDUMA 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: WorldCat: World’s most comprehensive database of library collections | OCLCI 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: Interlibrary Loan (Researcher and Reference Services Division, Library of Congress) "IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THAT THE FOOD LAWS HAVE EVIDENCE OF DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE?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/...lth_secrets_revealed_today!.htmALSO 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/...lth_secrets_revealed_today!.htmHANDLING DEAD BODIESA 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/...lth_secrets_revealed_today!.htmNow 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.WAS THE MOSAIC LAW ADVANCED WHEN IT CAME TO LEPROSY?BacteriaSome time after I wrote these web pages, a Bible skeptic unwittingly showed me yet another example of advanced scientific/medical knowledge in the Bible. He posted a message on a discussion board that ridiculed some verses in Leviticus 13 and 14 that mention leprosy on walls and on garments. He felt this was silly and an error since leprosy is a human disease. What this skeptic was unaware of is the fact that leprosy is a bacteria, a living organism, that certainly can survive on walls and garments! In fact, the Medic-Planet.com encyclopedia notes that leprosy "can survive three weeks or longer outside the human body, such as in dust or on clothing"2. It is no wonder that God commanded the Levitical priests to burn the garments of leprosy victims! (Leviticus 13:52)Laws of QuarantineIn the same Med-Planet encyclopedia cited above we read that "It was not until 1873 that leprosy could be shown to be infectious rather than hereditary."2 Of course God knew this all along, as His laws to Moses reveal (Leviticus 13, 14, 22, Numbers 19:20). His instructions regarding quarantine to prevent the spread of leprosy and other infectious diseases are nothing short of remarkable, considering that this life-saving practice was several thousand years ahead of its time. Infected persons were instructed to isolate themselves outside the camp until healed, and were to shave and wash thoroughly. The priests that administered care were instructed to change their clothes and wash thoroughly after inspecting a plague victim.It should be re-emphasized that the Israelites were the only culture to practice quarantine until the last century, when medical advances finally demonstrated the importance of sanitation and isolation during plagues. The devastating black plague of the 14th century that claimed millions of lives was not broken until the church fathers in Vienna began encouraging the public to start following the guidelines as set forth in the Bible. The promising results in Vienna compelled other cities to follow suit, and the dreaded plague was finally eradicated3."taken from: http://www.bibleevidences.com/medical.htmAnother website declares:"Another plague which prevailed in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in Europe was leprosy. England, Sweden, Iceland and Norway showed alarming gains in the numbers of leprosy cases in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. But when the authorities began to institute the quarantine, in the form of segregation of leprosy cases, the plague was again brought under control.In Norway rigid national quarantine was introduced in 1856 because of the widespread severity of leprosy. "Ninety years later the health authorities were able to report that Norway had only five per cent of the number of lepers that were there before segregation. Similarly favorable reports come to us from Finland and Sweden, where enforced segregation of lepers had also been instituted," writes D. T. Atkinson (Magic, Myth and Medicine, p. 64).Where did these quarantine laws come from? This same author tells us,"It is most singular that a description of leprosy, as found in the thirteenth
chapter of Leviticus, could have been written so long before our time. it is to
be noticed that such an accurate description of this dread malady as it appears
in the Biblical narrative is not to be found in the literature of any nation for
the next seventeen hundred years" (ibid., p. 25-26).Speaking of the Biblical laws regarding leprosy, Atkinson states:"The laws of health laid down in Leviticus are the basis of modern sanitary
science. Moses ordered that cases of leprosy should be segregated, that
dwellings from which infected Jews had gone should be inspected before
again being occupied, and that persons recovering from contagious disease
were not to be allowed to go abroad until examined. The modern quarantine
harks back to these sanitary regulations of the Old Testament. " (p. 58). "taken from: http://www.triumphpro.com/...lth_secrets_revealed_today!.htmNEXT 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/...lth_secrets_revealed_today!.htmAnother 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...2/28/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.htmlMOSES 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/ne...ssue_detail.aspMORE 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: IIS 8.5 Detailed Error - 404.0 - Not FoundIN 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.acsh.org/healthissues/ne...ssue_detail.aspOBJECTIONS TO CIRCUMCISION BEING EVIDENCE OF DIVINE ADVANCED KNOWLEDGESome 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.This message has been edited by kendemyer, 05-24-2004 09:56 PM

I found out I do not have editing privilidges any longer.I did want to give my readers proper links though and when I transferred the text data some links were lost.Here is the article with working links:IS THE MOSAIC LAW VERY ADVANCED AND IT SHOWS EVIDENCE OF DIVINE KNOWLEDGE? ANY OTHER ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE IN THE TORAH?PREFACEI 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/chap08By 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.SUPPORTING DATAI 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.aspHere 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. 444-450If one reads the Macht study you will see that he tested 88 animals (not only 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 chose 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.htmlI would not be surprised if the "David I. Macht" award was a much coveted award despite the admonitions 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://216.239.51.104/search?q=cach...vitcus+XI&hl=enTHE OMEGA 3 QUESTIONThe 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/expert...ba=adid=8171818Now 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: KOSHER FISHI 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: CJF Ministries | Messianic Perspectives - Making Messiah Known to the Jewish PeopleREGARDING 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/...lth_secrets_revealed_today!.htmOMEGA 3 COMPARISON IS NEEDEDNow one person told me that some species of shark liver oil are excellent sources of omega 3. I would ask and rightfully so, do they 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 OBJECTIONSome 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 TestamentALSO CONSIDER THIS INFO:Also consider this info:"The indiscriminate eating patterns of omnivores like pigs make them disease carriers. Swine are known to carry up to 200 diseases, including trichinella spiralis, microscopic transparent worms so small that only trained inspectors using high-powered microscopes can detect their existence."taken from: http://www.letsbewellinc.com/s/p/BeyondGarden.htmlI 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: Best Online Casinos Canada 2022 | Real Money Canadian GamblingDID THE JEWS HAVE COOKING THERMOMETERS?Some people say that trichnosis is completely eliminated via proper cooking although I have seen this disputed. Let us say for the sake of ddiscussion that it always is eliminated via proper cooking. Now I would assert that the ancient Jews did not have cooking thermometers. Obviously, few would disagree with me regarding the lack of thermometers either. 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 is not ideal according to may 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-products. 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: ForbiddenE. COLI OBJECTIONSome 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).LAST OBJECTION TO FOOD LAWS BEING EVIDENCE OF DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGEWhy were'nt the food laws continued in the New Testament if they are so darn good?I am guessing it is a matter of priorities. Salvation in Christ is a higher priority than food laws and other laws like sanitation laws. I do not think Christians are under the food laws and sanitation laws but on the other hand I do not think that eating scavengers is as probably as good as a food source nutritionally or that having a lot of human manure around is prudent. One could also say that eventually you are going to die from something and that jumbo shrimp taste pretty good! LOL On a more serious note, the death issue has been solved by God for those who wish to accept his solution. I would also say that Christians were not bound to have land go follow periodically but the dust storms in the dirty 30's in the USA showed the wisdom of the Mosaic law. I would say the same regarding the quarantine laws. I think burying waste which was quite advanced at the time by the way. There are third world countries today which still have problems due to poor public sanitation.ADDENDUMA 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: WorldCat: World’s most comprehensive database of library collections | OCLCI 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: Interlibrary Loan (Researcher and Reference Services Division, Library of Congress) "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/...lth_secrets_revealed_today!.htmALSO 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/...lth_secrets_revealed_today!.htmHANDLING DEAD BODIESA 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/...lth_secrets_revealed_today!.htmNow 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.WAS THE MOSAIC LAW ADVANCED WHEN IT CAME TO LEPROSY?BacteriaSome time after I wrote these web pages, a Bible skeptic unwittingly showed me yet another example of advanced scientific/medical knowledge in the Bible. He posted a message on a discussion board that ridiculed some verses in Leviticus 13 and 14 that mention leprosy on walls and on garments. He felt this was silly and an error since leprosy is a human disease. What this skeptic was unaware of is the fact that leprosy is a bacteria, a living organism, that certainly can survive on walls and garments! In fact, the Medic-Planet.com encyclopedia notes that leprosy "can survive three weeks or longer outside the human body, such as in dust or on clothing"2. It is no wonder that God commanded the Levitical priests to burn the garments of leprosy victims! (Leviticus 13:52)Laws of QuarantineIn the same Med-Planet encyclopedia cited above we read that "It was not until 1873 that leprosy could be shown to be infectious rather than hereditary."2 Of course God knew this all along, as His laws to Moses reveal (Leviticus 13, 14, 22, Numbers 19:20). His instructions regarding quarantine to prevent the spread of leprosy and other infectious diseases are nothing short of remarkable, considering that this life-saving practice was several thousand years ahead of its time. Infected persons were instructed to isolate themselves outside the camp until healed, and were to shave and wash thoroughly. The priests that administered care were instructed to change their clothes and wash thoroughly after inspecting a plague victim.It should be re-emphasized that the Israelites were the only culture to practice quarantine until the last century, when medical advances finally demonstrated the importance of sanitation and isolation during plagues. The devastating black plague of the 14th century that claimed millions of lives was not broken until the church fathers in Vienna began encouraging the public to start following the guidelines as set forth in the Bible. The promising results in Vienna compelled other cities to follow suit, and the dreaded plague was finally eradicated3."taken from: http://www.bibleevidences.com/medical.htmAnother website declares:"Another plague which prevailed in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in Europe was leprosy. England, Sweden, Iceland and Norway showed alarming gains in the numbers of leprosy cases in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. But when the authorities began to institute the quarantine, in the form of segregation of leprosy cases, the plague was again brought under control.In Norway rigid national quarantine was introduced in 1856 because of the widespread severity of leprosy. "Ninety years later the health authorities were able to report that Norway had only five per cent of the number of lepers that were there before segregation. Similarly favorable reports come to us from Finland and Sweden, where enforced segregation of lepers had also been instituted," writes D. T. Atkinson (Magic, Myth and Medicine, p. 64).Where did these quarantine laws come from? This same author tells us,"It is most singular that a description of leprosy, as found in the thirteenth
chapter of Leviticus, could have been written so long before our time. it is to
be noticed that such an accurate description of this dread malady as it appears
in the Biblical narrative is not to be found in the literature of any nation for
the next seventeen hundred years" (ibid., p. 25-26).Speaking of the Biblical laws regarding leprosy, Atkinson states:"The laws of health laid down in Leviticus are the basis of modern sanitary
science. Moses ordered that cases of leprosy should be segregated, that
dwellings from which infected Jews had gone should be inspected before
again being occupied, and that persons recovering from contagious disease
were not to be allowed to go abroad until examined. The modern quarantine
harks back to these sanitary regulations of the Old Testament. " (p. 58). "taken from: http://www.triumphpro.com/...lth_secrets_revealed_today!.htmNEXT 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/...lth_secrets_revealed_today!.htmAnother 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/.../urge/world/2000/02/28/nakedaidsAnother 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.htmlMOSES 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/...ues/newsID.776/healthissue_detail.aspMORE 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.asp?Cat2=244&ItemId=569IN 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.acsh.org/...ues/newsID.776/healthissue_detail.aspOBJECTIONS TO CIRCUMCISION BEING EVIDENCE OF DIVINE ADVANCED KNOWLEDGESome 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.

Since I do not have editing privilidges I give the two remaining properly working links to replace the 2 broken links for my readers:http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:q4Q9W4FwkEMJ:< !--UB http://www.vision.edu/...ical+Appreciation+of+Levitcus+XI&hl -->http://www.vision.edu/...acological+Appreciation+of+Levitcus+ XI&hl">http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:q4Q9W4FwkEMJ:http://www.vision.edu/...acological+Appreciation+of+Levitcus -->http://www.vision.edu/...acological+Appreciation+of+Levitcus">http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:q4Q9W4FwkEMJ:http://www.vision.edu/...acological+Appreciation+of+Levitcus +XI&hl< !--UE-->= enandhttp://www.ivillage.com/...rition/qas/0,,242255_1755,00.htmlSincerely,Ken

Dear readers:Since my editing privilidges were taken away a few minutes ago I will give one more attempt to help the readers which some person evidently does not want to happen or simply does not care:http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:q4Q9W4FwkEMJ:< !--UB http://www.vision.edu/...ical+Appreciation+of+Levitcus+XI&hl -->http://www.vision.edu/...acological+Appreciation+of+Levitcus+ XI&hl">http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:q4Q9W4FwkEMJ:http://www.vision.edu/...acological+Appreciation+of+Levitcus -->http://www.vision.edu/...acological+Appreciation+of+Levitcus">http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:q4Q9W4FwkEMJ:http://www.vision.edu/...acological+Appreciation+of+Levitcus +XI&hl< !--UE-->= en

To: AdminAsgaraOn the other hand, it would be very simple to restore the editing privilidges that were taken away a few minutes ago and make things far less distracting. But alas, that would be too simple. I understand that you are not a fan of pro Bible material but I would say this is unwarranted and distracts from the main point which is the content of the post itself. I do not expect any change in status however without Percy who graciously extended me the opportunity to publish material in your column section.Sincerely,Ken

TO:ALLI am most interested in hearing what people who obtain a copy of the Macht (noted researcher at John Hopkins) study and examine it have to say. I would encourage all to read the study rather than take some commentators opinion of it (whether the commentator be a Bible supporter or professed atheist).I clarified which 88 animals Macht studied (Macht studied quadrupeds, birds, and fish).I will return to the board after I believe sufficient number of people have obtained the Macht study so a more intelligent discussion can develop.Here is my revised information: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 chose 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.htmlI would not be surprise if the "David I. Macht" award was a much coveted award despite the admonitions regarding coveting in the Ten Commandments!I do realize that Christians are not under the food laws and this can clearly be seen in Galations.Sincerely,Ken

TO: Purpledawnre: Dr. Macht study published by John HopkinsIf the study published by John Hopkins is not under copyright provisions or I obtain a copyright waiver I may scan it and publish it here. This will not occur in the short term (if it ever occurs) and if anyone wants details regarding the Dr.Macht study I gave directions on how they can obtain it but it would be very time consuming to give all the details at various boards.re: getting kosher foodI am not Jewish and I have no idea.TO: ALLI wanted people to have working links for my essay. Here is a board where all the links are working. I also made some small revisions:http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;...Sincerely,Ken

To: Purpledawn, an addendumI am guessing the Mosaic Laws would be compatible to the Jewish race or Middle Eastern races and that these would be the races for which primarily used them. I am making this judgement based on the Dr. Macht study and the other data I provided using inductive logic that the food laws show divine knowledge.Sincerely,Ken

TO: BrianDid you get my email?TO: PurpledawnIt does not surprise me that Girl Scout cookies are kosher. The Girl Scouts are a awesome marketing army. I liken them to the Israeli Armed Services.Sincerely,Ken

TO: ALLI wish to addres 3 things:1) 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 both pro and con sites for the readers to examine and make their own determination:PRO CIRCUMCISION:http://www.circumstitions.com/Morris.htmlAGAINST CIRCUMCISION:Error 404 - Not Found2) I wish to reiterate that I would like an informed scientist to review the Dr. Macht study regarding the clean and unclean animals in regards to their toxicities.3) I WISH TO OFFER TWO RETRACTINGSI like to have solid corroborated information in my material. I also make efforts to strain out material that does not have enough corroboration.1) I have decided to retract the material below:"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.’"There is no way to corroborate such a vaguely cited reference. I also do not like the site in general that uses this vaguely cited reference. For example, they have bad Biblical exegesis.2) I retract:Also consider this info:"The indiscriminate eating patterns of omnivores like pigs make them disease carriers. Swine are known to carry up to 200 diseases, including trichinella spiralis, microscopic transparent worms so small that only trained inspectors using high-powered microscopes can detect their existence."taken from: http://www.letsbewellinc.com/s/p/BeyondGarden.htmlI simply cannot corroborate the information regarding the 200 diseases. I think the Macht data published by John Hopkins regarding swine is far more
compelling.I think this site is far more compelling regarding swine diseases:"This web site page lists over 140 pig, hog and swine diseases / conditions in alphabetical order. Simply select the pig disease of choice from the list below"see: | The Poultry Site Sincerely,Ken

I wish to add some information.It would seem as if the rabbi's do an excellent job in their cicumcisions:I offer:"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: WordPress › ErrorHere are more details regarding the pros and cons of circumcision:Is Circumcision Healthy? Yes
by Dr. Edgar J. Schoen
American Council on Science and Health, Contents: Volume 9 Number 4 (1998)"Circumcision is like a substantial and well-secured annuity; every year of life you draw the benefits. Parents cannot make a better paying investment for their little boys." An 1891 book on the medical aspects of neonatal (newborn) circumcision included this statement by Dr. P. C. Remondino, a prominent California physician of the era. Now, over a century later, a burgeoning body of peer-reviewed reports in the scientific literature confirms that circumcision is an important preventive health measure.That circumcision is protective against penile cancer and local infection (balanoposthitis) has long been known. Remondino was also aware that uncircumcised men have a higher likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), particularly syphilis and chancroid, than have circumcised men. During World War II many U.S. recruits were circumcised to protect them against balanoposthitis. Such infection was a significant cause of active-duty loss among troops, particularly in the North African campaign (because of the combination of sand and poor hygiene). Military medics also felt that circumcision helped prevent STDs. In the past decade published studies have shown that the presence of a foreskin increases the risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs), which are most dangerous during infancy, and the risk of HIV infection.The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 1989 Task Force on Circumcision, which I chaired, was aware of the work of U.S. Army neonatologist Thomas Wiswell. Using the armed-forces database Wiswell had shown that significant UTIs were 10 to 20 times more common in uncircumcised infants than in circumcised infants. But the AAP Task Force felt that this finding remained to be proved. Since then, nine major published studies have substantiated that neonatal circumcision prevents serious UTIs in the first year of life. Moreover, studies have shown that uncircumcised Australian preschool boys and uncircumcised young men had a higher risk of UTI than their circumcised peers.The mechanism by which the foreskin predisposes to UTI has been well described. Serious UTIs are caused by specific intestinal bacteria (particularly by a group called "fimbriated E. coli"). Electron micrography has shown that these tentacled germs have a strong tendency to stick to the moist, mucous underside of the foreskin. From this undersurface they move toward the tip of the penis, enter the urethra (the canal within the penis), and ascend the urinary tract. The resulting infection is most dangerous in the first year of life, when it can lead to scarring of the kidneys and can spread to the bloodstream, causing a potentially deadly generalized infection.Tulane University urologist James Roberts, who helped identify the mechanism of UTIs in uncircumcised boys, has said that repeated, symptomless (continued on page 26) UTIs in uncircumcised infants may, later in their lives, result in unexplained hypertension and diminishment of kidney function. But convincing long-term evidence of such results is lacking.In the late 1980s studies from Nairobi, Kenya, first showed a link between the foreskin and HIV infection. According to reports of these studies published in 1989:Two factors increase the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men exposed to HIV-infected female prostitutes: (1) a sore on the penis due to an STD (usually syphilis or chancroid), and (2) the presence of a foreskin.Compared with circumcised men, uncircumcised men had 3 to 4 times the risk of becoming HIV-positive, and uncircumcised men with a penile sore had 7 times the risk.
Several explanations have been proposed for the increase in risk. In the case of ulcerating STDs (e.g., syphilis and chancroid), HIV can enter through the open sore. In uncircumcised men the virus can enter through sexually induced tears in the foreskin. And there is evidence that special cells (Langerhans cells) in the foreskin facilitate HIV adherence.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.In India and other parts of Asia, HIV infection is becoming epidemic as a heterosexual disease transmitted by cross-country truck drivers. A recent New England Journal of Medicine editorial on this imminent epidemic stated that the spread of HIV appeared less rapid in those Asian countries in which circumcision is routine (e.g., the Philippines, Indonesia, and Bangladesh). Because of the compelling evidence linking the foreskin and HIV transmission, many physicians previously ambivalent about recommending universal neonatal circumcision have come to support it.In view of the documented, significant medical benefits of circumcision, why is there reluctance and sometimes outright antipathy toward the measure? Below are some reasons.Evidence of such benefits, particularly concerning UTIs and HIV infection, has been published only since the early 1980s and has not been widely disseminated.Most of the members of the committee that developed the AAP's early, anticircumcision pronouncements in the 1970s were neonatologistsspecialists in diseases of newborns. Neonatologists are the physicians most apt to see any immediate complications of circumcision and least apt to see its health benefits, which are postneonatal.Although after reviewing the current medical evidence the AAP (continued on page 28) reversed its early statements on circumcision, vociferous lay organizations continue to promulgate the outdated statements.Pain, of course, is a valid concern. 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. But it is painful. And although infants heal quickly, they do feel and react to pain. Nevertheless, relief agents are available and should be used. Local anesthesia (dorsal penile nerve block) works well, as does ingesting a sugar solution (which stimulates secretion of endorphins). Initially, there was some apprehension about using local anesthesia in neonatal circumcision, but the safety and effectiveness of such use has been convincingly documented.Anticircumcision activists claim that the foreskin increases sexual pleasure. But data from recent studies suggest the contrary. According to a report from the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), published in 1997 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, sexual dysfunction was more common among uncircumcised men than among circumcised men, especially later in life. While nearly every type of sexual dysfunction was likelier for uncircumcised men, the likelihood of difficulty in getting or maintaining an erection was significantly higher than the likelihood of other types of dysfunction.Sex appeal is another valid concern, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. According to a study published in 1988, young, heterosexual, middle-class women in Iowa City preferred the circumcised penis over the uncircumcised penis by a margin of 3 to 1. Seventy-five percent of the 100 women said it looked sexier; 85 percent said it felt better; 92 percent said it stayed cleaner; and 77 percent said it seemed "more natural." (In her bestseller Operating Instructions, about her experience as a new mother, Anne LaMott stated that she had chosen circumcision for her newborn for reasons of hygiene and appearance. She said uncircumcised penises looked "sort of marsupial, or like little rodents stuck in garden hoses.")
Cultural, religious, and ethnic factors strongly affect the decision whether or not to request circumcision. Circumcision of members of observant Muslim and Jewish families is a religious rite. But some culturesHispanic and Asian, for exampledo not embrace circumcision. In California, where 45 percent of newborns are Hispanic, the rate of circumcision is less than 50 percent. Circumcision has been on the decline there as the birth rate of Hispanics and Asians has increased. In the midwestern United States, where immigrants and minorities constitute a smaller proportion of the population, the circumcision rate is 75 to 80 percent. Educational factors are important as well. Of those men in the NHSLS group whose mothers had not graduated from high school, 62 percent had been circumcised; but of those whose mothers had undergone further education, 85 percent had been circumcised.Complications of neonatal circumcision are uncommon. Minor bleeding and infection occur in one out of every 300 to 500 cases and are easily controlled. Serious complications are rare and are usually related to poor surgical technique. In a survey of 500,000 neonatal circumcisions in New York State, researchers found that no deaths or penile amputations had resulted.The lifetime health benefits of neonatal circumcisionincluding the long-known benefits of genital-hygiene improvement and prevention of local infection and penile cancerfar exceed the risks of the procedure. Circumcision prevents serious kidney infections, particularly in infancy; and there is strong evidence that it has a protective effect against some serious STDs, especially HIV infection, syphilis, and chancroid. A one-week-old circumcised boy has a significant health advantage over his uncircumcised contemporary. And being without a foreskin won't dent his sex life.Edgar J. Schoen, M.D., is Director of Regional Perinatal Screening in the Department of Genetics at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Oakland, California.taken from: WordPress › Error

I wish to make a retraction.A "mohel is a person of the Jewish faith who is ordained to do circumcision under the guidelines of the Jewish religion"quote taken from: http://philo.ucdavis.edu/.../RST23/STDNTPAGES/Hunt/mohel.htmBut as you can see from the above site not all mohels are rabbis. I am also guessing not all rabbis are mohels!Sincerely,Ken

TO: AllDr. Macht who's study was published by John Hopkins studied 88 animals in regards to toxicity levels and found that the clean animals in the Mosaic code were non toxic and the unclean animals were toxic. Dr. Macht studied quadrupeds, birds, and fish (a clean fish was one that had fins and scales).I am particularly interested in careful scholars/individuals examination of Dr. Macht's study and their input.I realize,however, that not all libraries have the study in their buildings. It may require people to use Worldcat and Interlibrary loan. At the same time, however, I will say that I found the study in the first library I checked which was a health science library at a university. With this in mind, I will check back at this site in 3 months (June, July, August is my work busy season) and see what input, if any, was posted here. We then can have a dialogue regarding the Dr. Macht study.TO: BrianNo hurry on responding to my email. I just wanted to offer a friendly note to you.Sincerely,Ken

Dear Sidelined,Dr. Macht studied both clean and unclean animals and the clean animals turned up non-toxic.I also think your post reflects a person who has not read the actual study. It is natural that people will make comments on the study before reading it. At the same time, however, I would say that it is the people who read the study who are going to be able to make the most informed and thoughtful commentary regarding the study.TO: ALLI am only interested in the input of those individuals who have read the actual study. My time priorities at this time do not allow me to elaborate on the study at all the boards I posted this information at in order to benefit those who may have interest in this topic and wish to investigate further. I do not think it is a unreasonable request for people to look up the original study before having a dialogue with me. If it is a unreasonable request, I would say that on this matter of it being a unreasonable request we will have to agree to disagree. I will say though that scholars commonly use interlibrary loan and services like WorldCat.Sincerely,Ken

TO: ALL, a clarificationI said in my previous post:"I am only interested in the input of those individuals who have read the actual study."I was referring to the Dr. Macht study.I also wish to add that it is the Dr. Macht study that I am most interested in discussing. I know the circumcision debate can get intense because it is dealing with a certain part of the male anatomy, but I wish to reiterate that it is the Dr. Macht study regarding the toxicity of the clean and unclean animals in the Mosaic code that I am most interested in discussing. I really have seen no skeptic make any informed commentary on this study published by John Hopkins. I think a dialogue could be helpful if both parties discuss the topic in a reasonable manner.Sincerely,Ken