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

Dear Sidelined:I wrote:"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."I did not mean to imply in any way that your post was devoid of thought. At the same time, however, I believe the most productive dialogue will occur when two or more parties who have read the study by Dr. Macht have a dialogue regarding it. I also provided ample directions on how individuals can obtain the study published by John Hopkins that Dr. Macht authored. Based on my reading of the study, I believe the study by Dr. Maccht regarding the 88 animals studied was sound and that those who do not read it cannot make any truly significant conclusions regarding if they wish to try to dismiss it. I am sorry to hear that your schedule precludes you the opportunity of reading the study at this time. Perhaps, later you could add a post regarding the study or take part in this discussion if it is still occurring should you choose to do so.After all is said and done, however, I still wish to dialogue with only those who have read the actual study for the reasons I have posted. I do look forward to talking to any individuals who decide to read the study and choose to have a reasonable dialogue regarding it.Sincerely,Ken

What? After I waded through three pages of repetitive, drawn-out, and confusing posts, you only want to discuss this with people that have enough time to follow through forty links, and agree with you to the point that they have enough enthusiasm to research your point of views at local medical libraries? Okey, dokey, I'll pass. Btw, what time is it? Or, do I have to study watchmaking, before I can understand your answer?Edited to be more obscure.This message has been edited by mogur, 05-27-2004 06:36 PM

Ok, your thread, your rules. I'm not going to read the Macht study so I guess you don't care what I have to say.I will point out that study, or no study, this still does not address my original claim (nor the valid points made by others regarding what constitutes divine knowledge) that this topic is subject to the Complex Question Fallacy.I'll show myself out.

You said:"I'm not going to read the Macht study so I guess you don't care what I have to say."Absolutely correct. If you do not want to read the study and how the Mosaic law determined which animals are clean and unclean then I have not very interested in what you have to say. I am only interested in those who wish to do the due diligence to make informed and thoughful commentary. I am not that interested in those who assert. "Oh, it too complex of an issue. Let us just give up."I do not consider myself to be an elitist but I do not wish to have prologued discussions with those who do not make a sufficient effort to make significant commentary. In short, the library doors are open.I would also say that there is theological support for what I have to say! I cite the following:"For he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who DILGENTLY seek Him" (Heb. 11:6).I also cite a website:"The point that I would like to make in this article is that we must diligently seek God to be rewarded by Him.Paul exemplifies a faith that diligently seeks after God from the Old Testament:Noah was divinely warned about the flood and prepared an ark according to the word of God (Heb. 11:7).Abraham obeyed God by faith and sojourned in the land of promise (Heb. 11:8).Abraham offered Isaac by faith (Heb. 11:17).
By faith, Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaoh choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God (Heb. 11:24).By faith, Moses and the children of Israel kept the Passover and passed through the Red Sea on dry land.
By faith, the walls of Jericho fell down after Israel marched around the city for seven days.A person who is diligently seeking after God will go to any length to find God and obey His word. Jesus teaches us that we must have this commitment to God saying: "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul" (Matt. 16:24-25)?Now ask yourself whether you are diligently seeking after God. Are you seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness (Matt. 6:33)? Are you taking up your cross every day and following after Christ (Matt. 14:24)?We know what it means to be diligent. Think about this:If a football player only goes to half the practices, is he diligent?And if an able-bodied Christian only goes to half the church
services, is he diligent?If a student rarely studies at home, is he diligent? And if a Christian rarely studies at home, is he diligent?If a student goes unprepared to class, is he diligent? And if a Christian goes unprepared to Bible class, is he diligent?If an able-bodied club member attends all of the meetings but never helps with the work, is he diligent? And if an able-bodied Christian attends all the church services but never helps with any of the work, is he diligent?We know what it means to be diligent. And we know that God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. And yet I have heard it said of many churches: "10 percent of the people do 100 percent of the work." What do you think? How many of those people will God reward?Join me and seriously ask yourself: "Am I diligently seeking God?"taken from: http://www.biblestudyguide.org/articles/faith-diligent.htmSincerely,Ken

I wish to clarify something I wrote to custard.I wrote:"If you do not want to read the study and how the Mosaic law determined which animals are clean and unclean then I have not very interested in what you have to say."I wish to say instead:"If you do not want to read the study and how the Mosaic law determined which animals are clean and unclean then I have not very interested in what you have to say about the Macht study and any significance it may or may not have in your estimation."To: ALLI wish to reiterate that I believe the Macht study published by John Hopkins was sound. If you wish to state otherwise then please read the actual study first before having a dialogue with me. I wish to only have an extended dialogue with reasonably informed individuals.Sincerely,Ken

TO: ALL, postscriptI did write in a previous post that I do plan on returning to the board in about 3 months to have a dialogue with any individuals who read the study. I think 3 months is a reasonable time to allow people to have a chance to read the study (Plus June, July, and August is my work busy season).I posted this information at other boards plus sent it to various individuals/organizations who I thought would have interest.Sincerely,Ken

TO: ALL, some commentary on Custards initial post and last postI read Custard's initial post and I saw that it reflected he/she did not read the Macht study or may (and I use the word may) have not been very familiar with the Mosaic diet code as far as some of its dietary code provisions and I did not offer much commentary on Custard's initial post. I wish to say something in brief now though.Custard wrote:"I submit that your topic is an example of the Complex Question Fallacy. ForbiddenWhether Mosaic food laws, or anything else in the Tanakh or NT for that matter, are reasonable does not infer that they were inspired by divine knowledge; nor does it infer the existence of any sort of deity."Now here is the complex question fallacy:"Definition:Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.Examples:(i) You should support home education and the God-given right of parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs.(ii) Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?(iii) Have you stopped using illegal sales practises? (This asks two questions: did you use illegal practises, and did you stop?)Proof:Identify the two propositions illegitimately conjoined and show that believing one does not mean that you have to believe the other."taken from: ForbiddenMY REPLY:As I stated before, I do not believe Custard or any other person for that matter can make truly significant commentary regarding the Macht study and the Mosaic dietary code unless he reads the study and it reasonably informed on how the clean and unclean animals were outlined in the Mosaic law.I wish to focus on this part of Custard's post:"Whether Mosaic food laws, or anything else in the Tanakh or NT for that matter, are reasonable does not infer that they were inspired by divine knowledge; nor does it infer the existence of any sort of deity."Now the key word I wish to focus on is custard's word "reasonable".Let us ask some questions first: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)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 duck or quail or other clean birds but NEVER eating the birds that were declared unclean some of which Macht tested? (Macht tested clean and unclean bird catagory) By the way, I do not know if duck is native to the ancient near east.I could go on but I would state that since Custard 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 Custard wholly failed to show the reasonableness and given that he never read the study I would not find this amazing. In short, Custard needs to show why it is reasonable to eat or not eat the 88 animals that were tested in the Macht study and also address why there is a 100% corellation between non-toxicity and cleanness and also toxicity and uncleaness for ALL of the animals studied!So I wish to reiterate that I wish only to have an extended dialogue with those who have read the Macht study.I also do not think it is unreasonable for someone to look up a study before commenting on it if they wish to make informed and intelligent commentary.I realize that the question of whether an issue is complex and the complex question fallacy are separate and distinct. I realize that a recent post of mine did not fully address Custard's last and initial post. I would also want to reiterate that Custard needs to read the study before making any significant conclusions regarding the study and any signifance it may or may not have. I, however, believe the Macht study was sound and there is significance to the study. I await to hear any reasonable objections to the study but I have some doubt I will hear any since it will require some due diligence on the part of respondents and sometimes people are not willing to go the extra mile although sometimes they do. Obviously, though it is better to be informed than ill informed.Sincerely,Ken

I said:"I am not that interested in those who assert. "Oh, it too complex of an issue. Let us just give up." "I realize that Custard never said it was too complex of an issue and that we should just give up. I read Custard's initial post fully the first time but the second time I did not reread the link given to the "complex question fallacy" in my initial reply. I apologize for my lack of due diligence in responding to my critic but I believe I made amends as best I could and adequately responded to Custard's post. I know think the ball is in Custard's court as far as reading the Macht study. Whether Custard is interested in the "tennis match" will be seen. I do believe though that in order for Custard to adequately assess the Macht study and its significance or lack of significance that Custard needs to read it first. In short, first sox then shoes.Sincerely,Ken

Ken,Who are you talking to ? (how come you never use the 'reply' button)Have you abandoned your other topics ?Just curious ?

I visit this thread only because I made the mistake of responding to it, once. I guess you guys have been here, done it, done with it. Who the hell are you talking to??? Gimme some of that medicine.

TO: ALLMacht tested duck which is not in the Bible to my knowledge (based on research I did last night) so technically he tested less than 88 animals relating to the Bible (also sometimes Macht tested similar animals [bear meat not native to Middle East for example] ).TO: MoqurI am talking to people who visit to the thread for the first time or people who are going to do their due diligence or at least have some interest like yourself. If there are none who wish to do their due diligence on the skeptical side of the aisle that is certainly not my fault. Time will tell. Valid human knowledge is based on research and careful study. Please do not discourage the advancement of human knowledge.Sincerely,Ken

TO: Willow treeI may return to my previous strings but it will not be until my edit key is restored since it is annoying. Second, I may publish some columns since Percy wrote to me and extended the offer. I have some new info that tends to corroborate the virgin birth and is not widely known for example (Details will be provided later).Lastly, my work busy season is June, July, and August.Sincerely,Ken

Custard recently says:"I did a search of the web and found that there are {in the Red Sea at least} creatures of fin and scale that are poisonous.Puffer fish and lion fish both occupy these waters and,I have the hunch,also occupy other waters of the Middle East.These fish are not edible by any means and are extremely dangerous so one is left to wonder if Moses neglected to mention these for some reason or if,perhaps, his "laws" were more a rule of thumb. As I tried to point out to Ken it is not hard to expect an observant person to eventually figure out where boundries on food sources can be drawn without expecting the source of wisdom to be divine in origin."taken from: http://EvC Forum: Food and mosaic law (Not a discussion of Macht Study) -->EvC Forum: Food and mosaic law (Not a discussion of Macht Study)Now according to Dr. Macht's study published by John Hopkins puffer fish do not have fins and scales.A orthodox Jew site says puffer fish are NOT kosher.KOSHER FISHI have found no resources saying whether lionfish (or lion fish) are kosher or non-kosher. Let us say I have my doubts on whether they are kosher.I have read although I have not confirmed that some modern biologist consider all fish to have scales:I cite the following:"In simple terms, the NEW breed of marine biologist TEACHES
that ALL fish, of whatever group, have SCALES. These scales, they
claim, range from the PLACIOD scale of the shark to the THIN
flexible and transparent types found on the cod and herring.
Some scales, they claim, such as those on the EEL, are so minute
they can only be seen through a MICROSCOPE."taken from: http://www.keithhunt.com/Foodlaw3.htmlI do think it would be poor Biblical exegesis to count eel scales as "Biblical scales". Perhaps, the lionfish is just such an example.I do not have a problem with skeptics who make mistakes. Christian apologists make mistakes too! I do have a problem with those who refuse to do research when it is simple to look up the Dr. Macht study.Here is an essay that I fully agree with:Why Bible Critics Do Not Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt by JP Holding:http://www.tektonics.org/calcon.htmlIf someone could inform Custard of his/her error it would be appreciated. I cannot post yet everywhere since AdminAsgara is still upset that my Jonah string prevailed and that the skeptics did quite poorly in that string (see: http://EvC Forum: Jonah and the whale - It happened! -->EvC Forum: Jonah and the whale - It happened! ).Sincerely,Ken

?

TO: crashfrogIs it my very mild astigmatism or is it impossible to see scales in your pic? See also my Biblical exegesis and scale size comment.Did you read the Dr. Macht study published by John Hopkins and do your due diligence?Sincerely,Ken