Are the Mosaic Law food laws highly advanced? Any other advanced provisions in Torah?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by kendemyer, May 24, 2004.

  1. kendemyer

    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Dec 16, 2003
    Likes Received:


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

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


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

    Here is the exact citation:

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

    If one reads the Macht study you will see that he tested 88 animals (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:

    "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:

    I 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:


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


    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:

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

    I also offer the following website material:

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

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

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

    taken from:


    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:!.htm


    Now one person told me that some species of shark liver oil are excellent sources of omega 3. I would ask and rightfully so, do 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?


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

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


    Also consider this info:

    "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:

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

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

    taken from:


    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.


    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:


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

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

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


    Why 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.


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

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

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


    "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:!.htm


    "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:!.htm


    A website declares:

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

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

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

    TAKEN FROM:!.htm

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



    Some 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 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 Quarantine

    In 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:

    Another 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:!.htm


    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:!.htm

    Another website declares:

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

    taken from:

    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:


    "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:


    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:


    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."



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

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Jul 6, 2001
    Likes Received:
    If all the health benefits of the mosaic law is true, is raises some interesting question about why God didn't keep it as guidlines for the Christian church, but indeed, went out of His way to revoke them.
  3. Johnv

    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Oct 24, 2001
    Likes Received:
    This is nothing new. Kosher foods have an overall tendency to be better for you. But it's not a cure-all. Part of it also concerns the limitations OT societies had regarding food preparation and preservation. It's no secret that pork was (and is still often) a carrier or parasites. Hence, mosaic law forbids pork. However, we can safely prapare pork today without the same dangers. Another example is that there's no danger of mixing fresh meat and dairy in one meal these days. There was then. Etc etc.

    On circumcision, there's a similar finding. The practice was one of hygenics. The Hebrews did not bathe daily. That's one of the reasons the ceremonial mikveh (similar to baptism) was to important then. But we're learning that the foreskin, like the appendix or tonsils, do provide a purpose. Today, the health benefits of keeping a male intact (uncircumcised) outweigh circumcision.

Share This Page