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

Ken:I believe that Egyptian references (on tomb walls and stella both) referencing both circumcision and abominable foodstuffs predate the writing of the Hebrew Bible by many centuries.That you would totally discount ancient Egypt as the real source of much of the "Mosaic" laws regarding acceptable food and ritual practices simply because Egyptians used croc feces for medicinal applications seems very narrow.You also are attributing dietary laws regarding scaled and finned fish to a ethnic group who lived in the Sinai (unlikely) or the Judean Highlands (more likely) at the time of the supposed recording of the Law. That being the case, what would "Moses" know of tuna, salmon, trout, mackerel, and the other omega-3 rich seafood you cite at the top of this thread? Likewise, what would a desert dweller or Judean highlander know of shark, shrimp, lobster, oysters, and the other "bottom-dwelling" saltwater species you also list as examples of your theory?As regards pork, there is very little basis for thinking that a pig's diet is the reason for the Judaic prohibition of pork. It is much more likely that pigs were considered abominable because they were the preferred sacrificial animal of many pagan neighbors and invaders of Judea. Similarly, vestments of cloth blended from wool and linen are prohibited most likely for the reason that such vestments were commonly worn by pagan priests.Many of the laws have nothing whatsoever to do with hygiene, health, or preventative medicine, and are designed simply to "set Israelites apart from" and "keep Hebrews seperate from" other peoples as is repeated over and over throughout scripture. The Law was cast aside by Peter and Paul (both former Pharisaical Jews) specifically in order to spread their brand of Judaic beliefs to the widest audience possible ... including pagans. Paul especially targeted pagans for conversion, and found the Law mighty hard to sell.As regards leprosy, you will find that the first order of treatment was to sprinkle the person, the house walls, and other surfaces suspected to be contaminated with a mixture of dove blood and water dispensed from a broom made of hyssop bound to a cedar handle with a crimson ribbon. How advanced is that?To avoid belaboring issues to the extent you obviously are fond of (ad nauseum), I will terminate this post at this time.Peace. Ab.This message has been edited by Abshalom, 05-28-2004 03:50 PM

Ken:I have dutifully scoured your entries, and have failed to find the link to Macht's study. Therefore, I have no access to your required reading. I think that your insisting that we read everything you require of us before you'll engage in discussion to be quite puerile.I did, however, read several of your suggested links, and found them informative and even interesting in some cases. If you have provided a link to Macht's study, please inform me of its location, and I will read it as I find the time.Peace. Ab.

Leviticus 11; 29 - 31: "Now for you, these are tamei among the swarming creatures that swarm on the earth: the weasel, the mouse, and the great lizard according to its kind; (30) The gecko, the monitor, and the lizard, the sand-lizard and the chamelion. (31) These are the ones tamei for you among all the swarming creatures; whoever touches them when they are dead shall be tamei until sunset."Okay, let's assume that at 12:00 noon, one touches a dead animal from the above list, and by touching the carcass becomes contaminated. The Bible says that person becomes clean at sunset.Okay, let's assume that at one minute or even one second before sunset a second person touches the carcass of an abominable creature. Supposedly that second contaminated person also becomes decontaminated at sunset.Okay, is it the elapsed time between the touching (contamination) and sunset that purifies the contaminated person, or is it the act of the sun setting below the horizon that decontaminates the person?Neither seems very scientifically or medically sound does it?Conclussion: Myth or superstition = medical error.This message has been edited by Abshalom, 05-28-2004 04:49 PM

Also with regard to dead lizards, weasels, and mice, Leviticus 11; 35 and 36 has this rather unscientific and unsound medical advice:"(35) Anything else on which their (mice, weasel, and lizard) carcasses fall shall be tamei; an oven or a two-pot stove is to be demolished for they are tamei and are to remain tamei for you. (36) However, a spring or a cistern gathering water shall remain pure, but one who touches the carcass shall be tamei."So, here we have the advice that if a mouse, weasel, or lizard carcass falls on an oven or stove, we must destroy it since even fire or high heat cannot purify it. However, if the same carcass falls into a well, the water in the well remains pure, but the person removing the carcass from the well is contaminated until sunset re-purifies him.Again, not very scientific or medically sound.This message has been edited by Abshalom, 05-28-2004 05:01 PM

Custard:The art of wiping one's bilge hole had to wait until the writing of another inspired book ... the Quran.Peace. Ab.

Dear Ken:My point was and remains:Lev. 11:35 says that an oven or stove that comes in contact with an unclean animal carcass must be destroyed while Lev. 11:36 says that a cistern into which an unclean animal carcass falls remains pure.Do you not see the illogical connection?Intense heat from the stove's fire would purify the oven. What purifies the well water?Furthermore Lev. 11:36 implies that the person removing the carcass from the cistern becomes unpure while the water in the well remains pure. How logical is that?If you cannot see the disconnection here, I cry uncle.Peace. Ab.

Dear Custard:I was referring to the part where directions are given for cleaning one's bung with a smooth round stone or a clump of dry dirt. I would suppose that circa 670 CE., the value of paper was such that it would hardly have been used for butt-wipe. That ignoble task had to wait for 20th Century consumerism.Peace. Ab.

to: kenYou have to prove that a dead rat in the cistern does not impart impurity to the water. What is scientifically sound about drinking water from a cistern contaminated with dead rats? Is water self-purifying?Again, he who cannot see the disconnect between Lev. 11:35 and Lev. 11:36 must no longer ask for examples of "nonmedical" Biblical references. There is no doubt that the cistern becomes hygienically defiled when a dead rat drops into it, and of course this emphasises the fact that Lev. 11:36 is not scientifically or medically accurate! Remember the Black Plague? Rats, dead or alive, are dangerous!Peace. Ab.

Dear Kenny (kendemyer):I am not eligible for your terms of engagement partially because I have not had time in the last hour or so to go to the library to retrieve the Macht study and thereby qualify myself to receive the almighty wisdom you seem so wanting to impart only to those who succumb to your terms.Be that as it may, my intent is not to "prove my claim." My intent was simply to provide you with what you asked for: an example of medical or scientific advice from the Bible that doesn't stand up to a reasonable test. It is quite clear that I did so.I have not seen you respond to or admit that I was able to meet your challenge.Enjoy your holiday weekend. See you in August.Peace. Ab.This message has been edited by Abshalom, 05-28-2004 06:16 PM