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

I couldn't find a picture with visible scales.The puffer does, however, obviously have fins.

It is a time honored principle in debate that he who asserts must prove.It appears that Lionfish (Scorpaenidae) are edible. I cite the following:"By the way, although Scorpionfish are capable of producing and discharging toxins, they are edible, and tasty as well, if you can get past their ugly appearance!"taken from: http://www.abcdivers.com/venomous_animals_part_1.htmNext, is the meat from the apparently edible lionfish toxic? This of course is the CENTRAL issue. Custard offers no evidence of this.Now, the lionfish are NOW found in the Mediterranean. I do not dispute this. I cite the following:http://shrimp.ccfhrb.noaa.gov/research/reprint1541.pdfYou will see from the above link, however, that fish are introduced into habitats at various times. The question is of course, "Were lionfish in the Biblical areas during the Biblical times? I think Custard needs to establish that they were in Biblical areas during Biblical times.Now the lionfish is poisonous as can be seen below:"The majestic Lionfish is really the rose among the thorns in the Scorpaenidae family. This family contains several genera of Lionfish (also known as turkeyfish, featherfins, scorpioncods or zebrafish.) The two types of lionfish are easily separated into the genera Pterois and the Dwarf Lionfish belonging to the genera Dendrochirus. Despite their beautiful appearance, they can deliver a nasty sting and watch out for the Pterois genus which is highly venomous. The elongated spines on their fins are covered with thin lacy tissue, giving them a fragile appearance as they sway in the current."taken from: http://www.abcdivers.com/venomous_animals_part_1.htmBut the question is, "If there were lionfish in the Biblical areas and Biblical times were they the poisonous type?"Sincerely,Ken

To: crashfrogHave you looked at the Dr. Macht study published by John Hopkins? Do you plan to? If so, when?Sincerely,Ken

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

Dear abshalom:Based on our previous encounters I strongly believe you have not read the Dr. Macht study. Hence, there will be no debate between you and I.Sincerely,Ken

Dr. Macht found swine to be toxic in his study published my John Hopkins.

That would be because I never said anything about toxic fish. I don't know why you are attributing that claim to me, but my only contributions to this thread were about logic, not fish.Sixteen posts after I dropped out of this thread because you pulled your 'if you haven't read the Macht report then your position is bupkus' card (which wasn't mentioned anywhere in the title nor specifically stated as a requirement in your first post), and you are still debating me.This message has been edited by custard, 05-28-2004 04:09 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.

TO: CustardMy mistake. I apologize. It is sidelined that is citing the puffer and lionsfish.I did try to address some other objection you raised and if you read the Macht study perhaps we will continue our discussion.TO: AbshalomYou will probably need to walk into a library as I alluded to in my initial post.

TO: ALL, challenges1. Please cite me a large ancient body of literature that has no medical or nutrition errors and in which these matters are discussed plentifully like in the Bible. Ideally this work should have medical or nutritional knowledge that is far ahead of its time.2. Please give me one medical or nutritional error in the Bible.Please note: You will need to read the Dr. Macht study to be eligible for this debate challenge.TO: AbshalomTo be more precise, you will probably need to go to a library to get the Macht study. I give directions what to do at the library for skeptics who are infrequent patrons of the library system.

TO: ALLI hope skeptics are not upset regarding my last note to abshalom in the previous post. I razz in fun and jest.Sincerely,Ken

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

A website declares:"Cecil Roth has published some figures showing how the Jews have remained healthier than their neighbours right down to modern times.19"taken from: http://www.godstruth.org/chap08

TO: Abshalom (abby)Here is some additional help re: your library trip so I can respond to your previous post (Macht study):Yahoo Search - Web SearchSincerely,Ken

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