Proof by LORD Almighty GOD: by HIS design there is the omer, which is the one optimal daily amount of food for all.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
12 tribes of Israel on the amount of food they are to eat on a daily
basis as per the prescription from LORD Almighty GOD (Exodus 16:16).
It is written that after eating this optimal daily amount (one omer)
of food for 40 years, their feet did not swell (no cardiovascular
disease) and there clothes did not wear out (they stayed lean and
trim). Moreover, they came out of the desert physically able to
defeat all their enemies in combat.
Only our Creator could possibly have known that an omer is the optimal
daily amount of food per HIS design of our bodies... that there is one
optimal daily amount for all.
Meanwhile, satan is very upset about this revelation.
Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement at how he struggles with all
the lies he could possible muster to continue to deceive folks:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/73da7f2259cd74f8?
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
tr...@is-best.com
12 tribes of Israel on the amount of food they are to eat on a daily
basis as per the prescription from LORD Almighty GOD (Exodus 16:16).
It is written that after eating this optimal daily amount (one omer) of
food for 40 years, their feet did not swell (no cardiovascular disease)
and there clothes did not wear out (they stayed lean and trim).
Moreover, they came out of the desert physically able to defeat all
their enemies in combat.
Only our Creator could possibly have known that an omer is the optimal
daily amount of food per HIS design of our bodies... that there is one
optimal daily amount for all."
A few bits of stubborn fact remain. It was mana plus quail that was
eaten in this miricle situation.
It was an omer of mana by volume measure plus an unspecified amount of
quail flesh. There is no direction elsewhere in the OT about an omer
having anything to do with ones diet. This in contrast to the many
detailed laws regarding diet and related practices that are given.
there is no reason to think all 40 years were spent eating only those
foods. There is no reason to think they did not also use the products
of their herds. To my knowledge, all the other claims were not
mentioned in exodus, sources would be welcome.
Tortured logic and dubious facts and incomplete information aside the
above is irrelevant to the posttof which it was a response. That post
is appended and makes the above seem petty spite for being caught out:
It was a measure of volume not two pounds of weight. It was in volume
relative only to mana in the description of its use of how much mana to
collect.
Its application in any other context is simply the invention of the
author. The author misunderstood what unit of measure it was and
continues to do so even when corrected by experts on the subject. Pure
ego and fear of loss of face prohibits him from correcting himself in
this simple truth.
God bless.
Zen Cohen
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heart...@emorycardiology.com> wrote in message
news:1190652676....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> "... one omer for each person in your tent." -- Moses instructing the
> 12 tribes of Israel on the amount of food they are to eat on a daily
> basis as per the prescription from LORD Almighty GOD (Exodus 16:16).
>
> It is written that after eating this optimal daily amount (one omer)
> of food for 40 years, their feet did not swell (no cardiovascular
> disease) and there clothes did not wear out (they stayed lean and
> trim). Moreover, they came out of the desert physically able to
> defeat all their enemies in combat.
>
> Only our Creator could possibly have known that an omer is the optimal
> daily amount of food per HIS design of our bodies... that there is one
> optimal daily amount for all.
So, your 2-pound diet (or whatever you call it) is based entirely on this
one passage in the bible?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > "... one omer for each person in your tent." -- Moses instructing the
> > 12 tribes of Israel on the amount of food they are to eat on a daily
> > basis as per the prescription from LORD Almighty GOD (Exodus 16:16).
> >
> > It is written that after eating this optimal daily amount (one omer)
> > of food for 40 years, their feet did not swell (no cardiovascular
> > disease) and there clothes did not wear out (they stayed lean and
> > trim). Moreover, they came out of the desert physically able to
> > defeat all their enemies in combat.
> >
> > Only our Creator could possibly have known that an omer is the optimal
> > daily amount of food per HIS design of our bodies... that there is one
> > optimal daily amount for all.
>
> So, your 2-pound diet (or whatever you call it) is based entirely on this
> one passage in the bible?
No. The 32 ounces being the optimal daily amount of food was
empirically determined:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/2PD-OMER
Exodus 16:16 is simply Biblical support for the fact that there is one
optimal daily amount of food for everyone by GOD's design.
The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN.
> Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
You are a thick-headed trog. I have seen skeet with more sense than
you have. You are a few bricks short of a full load, a few cards short
of a full deck, a few bytes short of a full core dump, and a few
chromosomes short of a full human. God created houseflies,
cockroaches, maggots, mosquitos, fleas, ticks, slugs, leeches, and
intestinal parasites, then he lowered his standards and made you. I
take it back; God didn't make you. You are
Satan's spawn. You are Evil beyond comprehension, half-living in the
slough of despair. You are the entropy which will claim us all. You
are a green-nostriled, crossed eyed, hairy-livered inbred trout-
defiler.
You make Ebola look good.
Don Kirkman
article <1190652676....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>:
>"... one omer for each person in your tent." -- Moses instructing the
>12 tribes of Israel on the amount of food they are to eat on a daily
>basis as per the prescription from LORD Almighty GOD (Exodus 16:16).
>It is written that after eating this optimal daily amount (one omer)
One omer - dry measure; a handful, a sheaf. One-tenth of an ephah,
roughly two liters or a half gallon. Two sources equate it to something
over three [dry] quarts.
>of food for 40 years,
"Forty" is one of many round numbers in ancient semitic languages; it
more likely means "a long time" than a strict 40 years.
Quail were available and eaten during the same time the manna was
available. Exodus 16:13.
> their feet did not swell (no cardiovascular
>disease) and there clothes did not wear out (they stayed lean and
>trim). Moreover, they came out of the desert physically able to
>defeat all their enemies in combat.
>Only our Creator could possibly have known that an omer is the optimal
>daily amount of food per HIS design of our bodies... that there is one
>optimal daily amount for all.
Provided there are quails to augment the one omer (half gallon or so) of
manna. The Biblical narrative on its face seems to suggest that an omer
is the optimal daily amount of manna, not total intake.
--
Don Kirkman
tr...@is-best.com
this
one passage in the bible?"
It is a long and twisting tale which proceeds it, but in part the answer
is yes. Based on faulty initial information he thought an omer was a
measure of weight of about two pounds and latched unto the notion. Even
now after being shown many times his mistake that it is in fact a
measure of volume he persists.
To clinch it he notes that ex. 16:16 as the notation of the verse is in
sum 32 which is the number of ounces in two pounds.
You really don't want to hear the long version of half truths,
misunderstood facts and conceptual lateral lurches as the scripture
example provides for the whole of it.
God bless.
Cary Kittrell
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in
> article <1190652676....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >"... one omer for each person in your tent." -- Moses instructing the
> >12 tribes of Israel on the amount of food they are to eat on a daily
> >basis as per the prescription from LORD Almighty GOD (Exodus 16:16).
>
> >It is written that after eating this optimal daily amount (one omer)
>
> One omer - dry measure; a handful, a sheaf. One-tenth of an ephah,
> roughly two liters or a half gallon. Two sources equate it to something
> over three [dry] quarts.
So, when Andrew gets his 2PD-OMER "approach" in line with
Biblical scholarship, I'll get to eat up to three quarters
of a gallon of Chocolate Fudge Twirl (with chewy bits) a day?
I'm in!!
-- cary
Zen Cohen
"Don Kirkman" <don...@wavecable.com> wrote in message ......
..... The Biblical narrative on its face seems to suggest that an omer
> is the optimal daily amount of manna, not total intake.
That's how I understood it when I looked up the passage, but I'm sure that's
just the satan in me talking.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> >12 tribes of Israel on the amount of food they are to eat on a daily
> >basis as per the prescription from LORD Almighty GOD (Exodus 16:16).
>
> >It is written that after eating this optimal daily amount (one omer)
>
> One omer - dry measure; a handful, a sheaf. One-tenth of an ephah,
> roughly two liters or a half gallon. Two sources equate it to something
> over three [dry] quarts.
It remains one set daily amount of edible food (not dry grain) for
everyone.
It is written that an omer of edible food (not dry grain) was placed
in a jar that was set in the Ark for future generations.
To this day, edible food rations (meals ready to eat) are quantified
by weight measure rather than volume measure.
If omer were a volume measure, a jar with one omer capacity would have
been filled to be set aside. Instead, an omer was measured (ie
weighed) out first to be placed into a jar to be set aside.
> >of food for 40 years,
>
> "Forty" is one of many round numbers in ancient semitic languages; it
> more likely means "a long time" than a strict 40 years.
Without the LORD, your guesses are meaningless (Ecclesiastes). It is
written that Moses was 80 years old at the start of the desert trek
and 120 years old at its conclusion.
> Quail were available and eaten during the same time the manna was
> available. Exodus 16:13.
Not on a regular basis. As written in Numbers, the 12 tribes of Israel
received quail on one occasion when they rebelled against Moses and
GOD over their getting only an omer of bread (manna) daily and nothing
else. It is written that they even considered going back to Egypt to
become slaves again for the variety of foods they claimed to have
missed, when what actually bothered them was their hunger and their
false belief that Egyptian food would kill their hunger.
> > their feet did not swell (no cardiovascular
> >disease) and there clothes did not wear out (they stayed lean and
> >trim). Moreover, they came out of the desert physically able to
> >defeat all their enemies in combat.
>
> >Only our Creator could possibly have known that an omer is the optimal
> >daily amount of food per HIS design of our bodies... that there is one
> >optimal daily amount for all.
>
> Provided there are quails to augment the one omer (half gallon or so) of
> manna. The Biblical narrative on its face seems to suggest that an omer
> is the optimal daily amount of manna, not total intake.
Not for the discerning, which clearly you are not.
This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict
you:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
Cary Kittrell
> convicted neighbor Don Kirkman wrote:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >
> > >"... one omer for each person in your tent." -- Moses instructing the
> > >12 tribes of Israel on the amount of food they are to eat on a daily
> > >basis as per the prescription from LORD Almighty GOD (Exodus 16:16).
> >
> > >It is written that after eating this optimal daily amount (one omer)
> >
> > One omer - dry measure; a handful, a sheaf. One-tenth of an ephah,
> > roughly two liters or a half gallon. Two sources equate it to something
> > over three [dry] quarts.
>
> It remains one set daily amount of edible food (not dry grain) for
> everyone.
>
> It is written that an omer of edible food (not dry grain) was placed
> in a jar that was set in the Ark for future generations.
>
> To this day, edible food rations (meals ready to eat) are quantified
> by weight measure rather than volume measure.
>
> If omer were a volume measure, a jar with one omer capacity would have
> been filled to be set aside. Instead, an omer was measured (ie
> weighed) out first to be placed into a jar to be set aside.
Because Bast knows it takes an advanced degree in physics to think
of pouring something out of a jar and then measuring the
volume of that poured out.
By that "reasoning", we're also all to dumb to think of subtracting
the weight of the jar when attempting to determine your weight-omer.
-- cary
panam...@hotmail.com
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> "... one omer for each person in your tent." -- Moses instructing the
> 12 tribes of Israel on the amount of food they are to eat on a daily
> basis as per the prescription from LORD Almighty GOD (Exodus 16:16).
>
> It is written that after eating this optimal daily amount (one omer)
> of food for 40 years,
snip
The "Exodus" never happened.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
Ferd Farkel
> 12 tribes of Israel on the amount of food they are to eat on a daily
> basis as per the prescription from LORD Almighty GOD (Exodus 16:16).
>
> It is written that after eating this optimal daily amount (one omer)
> of food for 40 years, their feet did not swell (no cardiovascular
> disease) and there clothes did not wear out (they stayed lean and
> trim). Moreover, they came out of the desert physically able to
> defeat all their enemies in combat.
That's just a silly old story from a silly old book. Pay
it no heed, and soon, mental health will come to pay
your household a permanent visit.
Olrik
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> convicted neighbor Zen Cohen wrote:
>
>
>
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > > "... one omer for each person in your tent." -- Moses instructing the
> > > 12 tribes of Israel on the amount of food they are to eat on a daily
> > > basis as per the prescription from LORD Almighty GOD (Exodus 16:16).
>
> > > It is written that after eating this optimal daily amount (one omer)
> > > of food for 40 years, their feet did not swell (no cardiovascular
> > > disease) and there clothes did not wear out (they stayed lean and
> > > trim). Moreover, they came out of the desert physically able to
> > > defeat all their enemies in combat.
>
> > > Only our Creator could possibly have known that an omer is the optimal
> > > daily amount of food per HIS design of our bodies... that there is one
> > > optimal daily amount for all.
>
> > So, your 2-pound diet (or whatever you call it) is based entirely on this
> > one passage in the bible?
>
> No. The 32 ounces being the optimal daily amount of food was
> empirically determined:
Meaning that Chung is a numerologist, and interprets stuff to his own
liking.
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/2PD-OMER
>
> Exodus 16:16
Thus, 32. Get it? Chung's a numerologist (and a fraud, a liar, a
spammer, etc...)
> is simply Biblical support for the fact that there is one
> optimal daily amount of food for everyone by GOD's design.
Omer :
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omer
"1. An ancient Hebrew unit of dry measure equal to 1/10 ephah, about
3.5 liters (3.7 quarts)."
3.5 liters = 118.349 079 456 ounces [US, liquid]
118.349 ounces = 7.396 812 5 pounds
Olrik
<snip garbage>
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > convicted neighbor Zen Cohen wrote:
> > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >
> > > > "... one omer for each person in your tent." -- Moses instructing the
> > > > 12 tribes of Israel on the amount of food they are to eat on a daily
> > > > basis as per the prescription from LORD Almighty GOD (Exodus 16:16).
> >
> > > > It is written that after eating this optimal daily amount (one omer)
> > > > of food for 40 years, their feet did not swell (no cardiovascular
> > > > disease) and there clothes did not wear out (they stayed lean and
> > > > trim). Moreover, they came out of the desert physically able to
> > > > defeat all their enemies in combat.
> >
> > > > Only our Creator could possibly have known that an omer is the optimal
> > > > daily amount of food per HIS design of our bodies... that there is one
> > > > optimal daily amount for all.
> >
> > > So, your 2-pound diet (or whatever you call it) is based entirely on this
> > > one passage in the bible?
> >
> > No. The 32 ounces being the optimal daily amount of food was
> > empirically determined:
> >
>
> Meaning that Chung is a numerologist, and interprets stuff to his own
> liking.
No, I am not a numerologist.
> > Exodus 16:16
>
> Thus, 32. Get it?
A sign from GOD.
Just as dearly departed Bob Pastorio being taken from us
inauspiciously on Fool's Day is a sign from GOD:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Bob
> Chung's a numerologist (and a fraud, a liar, a
> spammer, etc...)
You do remind me of our dearly departed Bob Pastorio:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/libel.asp
> > is simply Biblical support for the fact that there is one
> > optimal daily amount of food for everyone by GOD's design.
>
> Omer :
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omer
>
> "1. An ancient Hebrew unit of dry measure equal to 1/10 ephah, about
> 3.5 liters (3.7 quarts)."
This would be the case for an omer of grain and **not** an omer of
bread (manna).
To this day, bread is quantified by unit measures of weight and
**not** volume.
Indeed, I have a 20 oz loaf of bread sitting on the kitchen table and
not a 3.7 quart loaf of bread.
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier.... be blessed:
Don Kirkman
>convicted neighbor Don Kirkman wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >It is written that after eating this optimal daily amount (one omer)
>> One omer - dry measure; a handful, a sheaf. One-tenth of an ephah,
>> roughly two liters or a half gallon. Two sources equate it to something
>> over three [dry] quarts.
>It remains one set daily amount of edible food (not dry grain) for
>everyone.
The Biblical story only talks about manna, which apparently was a dry
resinous plant product.
>It is written that an omer of edible food (not dry grain) was placed
>in a jar that was set in the Ark for future generations.
Yes, but irrelevant to the current topic.
>To this day, edible food rations (meals ready to eat) are quantified
>by weight measure rather than volume measure.
Irrelevant; we're not talking about meals ready to eat but to a Biblical
narrative about volumes of manna.
>If omer were a volume measure, a jar with one omer capacity would have
>been filled to be set aside. Instead, an omer was measured (ie
>weighed) out first to be placed into a jar to be set aside.
Actually an omer was measured in a omer-sized measure; that we can infer
from the Exodus story; any talk about weight is a foreign import.
>> >of food for 40 years,
>> "Forty" is one of many round numbers in ancient semitic languages; it
>> more likely means "a long time" than a strict 40 years.
>Without the LORD, your guesses are meaningless (Ecclesiastes). It is
>written that Moses was 80 years old at the start of the desert trek
>and 120 years old at its conclusion.
And one would expect that an editor, somewhere along the line, would
make sure that the figures match, right?
>> Quail were available and eaten during the same time the manna was
>> available. Exodus 16:13.
>
>Not on a regular basis. As written in Numbers, the 12 tribes of Israel
>received quail on one occasion when they rebelled against Moses and
>GOD over their getting only an omer of bread (manna) daily and nothing
>else. It is written that they even considered going back to Egypt to
>become slaves again for the variety of foods they claimed to have
>missed, when what actually bothered them was their hunger and their
>false belief that Egyptian food would kill their hunger.
The "quail" (probably really partridges) actually seem to appear in that
part of the world every year, right up to modern times.
>> >Only our Creator could possibly have known that an omer is the optimal
>> >daily amount of food per HIS design of our bodies... that there is one
>> >optimal daily amount for all.
>> Provided there are quails to augment the one omer (half gallon or so) of
>> manna. The Biblical narrative on its face seems to suggest that an omer
>> is the optimal daily amount of manna, not total intake.
>Not for the discerning, which clearly you are not.
No, I suffer from the shortcoming of depending on logic and evidence
rather than my imagination.
--
Don Kirkman
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote :
> >convicted neighbor Don Kirkman wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> >> >It is written that after eating this optimal daily amount (one omer)
>
> >> One omer - dry measure; a handful, a sheaf. One-tenth of an ephah,
> >> roughly two liters or a half gallon. Two sources equate it to something
> >> over three [dry] quarts.
>
> >It remains one set daily amount of edible food (not dry grain) for
> >everyone.
>
> The Biblical story only talks about manna, which apparently was a dry
> resinous plant product.
It is written that manna is bread from heaven that is edible with the
consistency of wafers and the sweetness of honey.
Moreover, it is written that the manna perished within a day except
lasting a day longer on the sabbath.
This would definitely be bread rather than a dry resinous plant
product.
> >It is written that an omer of edible food (not dry grain) was placed
> >in a jar that was set in the Ark for future generations.
>
> Yes, but irrelevant to the current topic.
Relevant to an understanding that the amount (omer) was as important
as the bread itself.
> >To this day, edible food rations (meals ready to eat) are quantified
> >by weight measure rather than volume measure.
>
> Irrelevant; we're not talking about meals ready to eat but to a Biblical
> narrative about volumes of manna.
Relevant because bread is essentially a meal ready to eat.
> >If omer were a volume measure, a jar with one omer capacity would have
> >been filled to be set aside. Instead, an omer was measured (ie
> >weighed) out first to be placed into a jar to be set aside.
>
> Actually an omer was measured in a omer-sized measure; that we can infer
> from the Exodus story; any talk about weight is a foreign import.
There was no omer-sized measure else that would have been described as
the container set aside to hold an omer of manna in the Ark of the
Covenant.
> >> >of food for 40 years,
>
> >> "Forty" is one of many round numbers in ancient semitic languages; it
> >> more likely means "a long time" than a strict 40 years.
>
> >Without the LORD, your guesses are meaningless (Ecclesiastes). It is
> >written that Moses was 80 years old at the start of the desert trek
> >and 120 years old at its conclusion.
>
> And one would expect that an editor, somewhere along the line, would
> make sure that the figures match, right?
Not one with a heart made discerning by the Holy Spirit.
> >> Quail were available and eaten during the same time the manna was
> >> available. Exodus 16:13.
> >
> >Not on a regular basis. As written in Numbers, the 12 tribes of Israel
> >received quail on one occasion when they rebelled against Moses and
> >GOD over their getting only an omer of bread (manna) daily and nothing
> >else. It is written that they even considered going back to Egypt to
> >become slaves again for the variety of foods they claimed to have
> >missed, when what actually bothered them was their hunger and their
> >false belief that Egyptian food would kill their hunger.
>
> The "quail" (probably really partridges) actually seem to appear in that
> part of the world every year, right up to modern times.
Not in the manner described in Numbers.
> >> >Only our Creator could possibly have known that an omer is the optimal
> >> >daily amount of food per HIS design of our bodies... that there is one
> >> >optimal daily amount for all.
>
> >> Provided there are quails to augment the one omer (half gallon or so) of
> >> manna. The Biblical narrative on its face seems to suggest that an omer
> >> is the optimal daily amount of manna, not total intake.
>
> >Not for the discerning, which clearly you are not.
>
> No, I suffer from the shortcoming of depending on logic and evidence
> rather than my imagination.
Actually, it is clear from above that you have plenty of imagination.
Your fanciful descriptions of manna, omer, 40 years, and availability
of quail came from your imagination and not from either logic or
evidence.
Truth is simple.
Robibnikoff
"Olrik" <olri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190693516.4...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
So, according to Chunks, we're supposed to eat a little over 7 pounds of
food a day? Blech, I don't think so :P
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> convicted neighbor "Olrik" <olri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> convicted neighbor Zen Cohen wrote:
> >> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >>
> >> > > "... one omer for each person in your tent." -- Moses instructing the
> >> > > 12 tribes of Israel on the amount of food they are to eat on a daily
> >> > > basis as per the prescription from LORD Almighty GOD (Exodus 16:16).
> >>
> >> > > It is written that after eating this optimal daily amount (one omer)
> >> > > of food for 40 years, their feet did not swell (no cardiovascular
> >> > > disease) and there clothes did not wear out (they stayed lean and
> >> > > trim). Moreover, they came out of the desert physically able to
> >> > > defeat all their enemies in combat.
> >>
> >> > > Only our Creator could possibly have known that an omer is the
> >> > > optimal
> >> > > daily amount of food per HIS design of our bodies... that there is
> >> > > one
> >> > > optimal daily amount for all.
> >>
> >> > So, your 2-pound diet (or whatever you call it) is based entirely on
> >> > this
> >> > one passage in the bible?
> >>
> >> No. The 32 ounces being the optimal daily amount of food was
> >> empirically determined:
>
> So, according to Chunks, we're supposed to eat a little over 7 pounds of
> food a day?
No.
32 ounces is 2 pounds.
Truth is simple.
> Blech, I don't think so :P
Without the LORD, what you think is clearly meaningless
(Ecclesiastes).
This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict
you:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
Cary Kittrell
Sorry, but we're playing by International Andrew B. Chung
Rules here: a dictionary definition definitively settles
any question, no matter how arcane. abstruse, or technical.
And in case of a tie, the Merriam-Webster definition shall
be final:
omer: an ancient Hebrew unit of dry capacity equal to 1/10 ephah
epah: an ancient Hebrew unit of dry measure equal to 1/10 homer
or a little over a bushel
homer: an ancient Hebrew unit of capacity equal to about 10 1/2 or later
11 1/2 bushels or 100 United States gallons (378 liters)
Thus an omer is equal to 1 U.S. gallon, capacity.
Taking a typical density for ice cream of 1.1, this comes
down to about nine and a quarter pounds of almond fudge a day.
Thanks for playing.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
> convicted neighbor Don Kirkman wrote:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote :
> > >convicted neighbor Don Kirkman wrote:
> > >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >
> > >> >It is written that after eating this optimal daily amount (one omer)
> >
> > >> One omer - dry measure; a handful, a sheaf. One-tenth of an ephah,
> > >> roughly two liters or a half gallon. Two sources equate it to something
> > >> over three [dry] quarts.
> >
> > >It remains one set daily amount of edible food (not dry grain) for
> > >everyone.
> >
> > The Biblical story only talks about manna, which apparently was a dry
> > resinous plant product.
>
> It is written that manna is bread from heaven that is edible with the
> consistency of wafers and the sweetness of honey.
>
> Moreover, it is written that the manna perished within a day except
> lasting a day longer on the sabbath.
>
> This would definitely be bread rather than a dry resinous plant
> product.
The bread you eat spoils in a day?
Where are you getting it, from dumpsters?
-- cary
>
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Incorrect.
The rules that apply here are GOD's.
> And in case of a tie, the Merriam-Webster definition shall
> be final:
>
> omer: an ancient Hebrew unit of dry capacity equal to 1/10 ephah
The Biblical omer is a unit measure of edible bread (manna) and not a
unit of dry capacity of inedible grain.
> epah: an ancient Hebrew unit of dry measure equal to 1/10 homer
> or a little over a bushel
>
> homer: an ancient Hebrew unit of capacity equal to about 10 1/2 or later
> 11 1/2 bushels or 100 United States gallons (378 liters)
>
>
> Thus an omer is equal to 1 U.S. gallon, capacity.
Irrelevant because the context here is Exodus 16:16, where folks are
measuring quantities of edible bread and not inedible grain.
Truth is simple.
Play by GOD's rules or keep losing.
This victory belongs to GOD, Who deserves all the glory and praise.
Laus Deo ! ! !
Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for compelling you
to unwittingly be a good sport :-)
Laus Deo ! ! !
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
tr...@is-best.com
> "1. An ancient Hebrew unit of dry measure equal to 1/10 ephah, about
> 3.5 liters (3.7 quarts)."
"This would be the case for an omer of grain and **not** an omer of
bread (manna).
To this day, bread is quantified by unit measures of weight and **not**
volume.
Indeed, I have a 20 oz loaf of bread sitting on the kitchen table and
not a 3.7 quart loaf of bread."
Another interesting in a now long series of lateral cognitive lurches.
Let us see if we can match it with another lateral and equally
irrelevant cognitive lurch.
The container in which the loaf of bread came occupies a given volume
when the loaf is in it. To this very day a loaf following basic physics
occupies space and thus volume. Indeed this volume can be said to equal
a volume that can be measured in some part of an omer which was a
measure of dry grain of which bread is made. The mana was said to be
like flakes which is like grains of which bread is made.
Was this enough of a lateral lurch to serve?
Do we need to bring up a loaf of quail?
God bless.
tr...@is-best.com
> >> Quail were available and eaten during the same time the manna was
> >> available. Exodus 16:13.
> >
> >Not on a regular basis. As written in Numbers, the 12 tribes of
Israel
Then the reverse should be true also, the mana was a one time thing for
one week, seen when comparing the mention in ex. and num. this is a
reasonable conclusion. Or if one wants to say that mana was there the
whole of 40 years then using the same two mentions in each book then
quail was there also in addition to the one example.
Wishful thinking round pegs in square holes do not serve.
God bless.
tr...@is-best.com
> Thus an omer is equal to 1 U.S. gallon, capacity.
"Irrelevant because the context here is Exodus 16:16, where folks are
measuring quantities of edible bread and not inedible grain."
Irrelevant as the bread, mana, was in the form of flakes not unlike
grain. All other references in the OT are with reference to grain.
Another example of an invented special pleading that falls flat on its
face.
Truth is simple, and this is simply the truth. Truth is simple.
God bless.
Ferd Farkel
About how many bong hits is that?
Ferd Farkel
Have you any idea what 2 pounds of marshmallows looks like?
Ferd Farkel
You noticed that too?
One of the bread recipes I cooked said the core of a
freshly baked loaf of bread is sterile. You can apparently
autoclave surgical instruments by wrapping then in foil
and baking them in bread dough. When the bread is
ready, so are the leukotomy needles.
Cary Kittrell
Good.
You will be reminded of that in the future.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
Lessee here ... assume a tidal volume of about 500 cc...
then, um... carry the dominatrix, rationate the funculator, raise
the matissa to chest height... I get around around seven
to eight bong hits.
So maybe you better siddle over to Chung's side, and take
it as a unit of weight instead. Assuming bong smoke
to be about the density of air, and taking an omer
as an omer of water, that'll give you nearly 6000 hits.
Better?
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
> Our armchair lone ranger bible historian of measures opined:
>
> > Thus an omer is equal to 1 U.S. gallon, capacity.
>
> "Irrelevant because the context here is Exodus 16:16, where folks are
> measuring quantities of edible bread and not inedible grain."
>
> Irrelevant as the bread, mana, was in the form of flakes not unlike
> grain. All other references in the OT are with reference to grain.
> Another example of an invented special pleading that falls flat on its
> face.
Well, hey: at least this time he's not invoking "alternate
realities" to exhume himself out of yet another self-inflicted
hole.
-- cary
Don Kirkman
>convicted neighbor Don Kirkman wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote :
>> >convicted neighbor Don Kirkman wrote:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> >It is written that after eating this optimal daily amount (one omer)
>> >> One omer - dry measure; a handful, a sheaf. One-tenth of an ephah,
>> >> roughly two liters or a half gallon. Two sources equate it to something
>> >> over three [dry] quarts.
>> >It remains one set daily amount of edible food (not dry grain) for
>> >everyone.
>> The Biblical story only talks about manna, which apparently was a dry
>> resinous plant product.
>It is written that manna is bread from heaven that is edible with the
>consistency of wafers and the sweetness of honey.
Show me your reference, and I'll show you mine: ". . . there was on the
face of the wilderness a fine, flakelike thing, fine as hoarfrost on the
ground. . . .[i]t is the bread which the Lord has given you." Exodus
16:13, 15. "Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance
like that of bdellium." Numbers 11:7
Bdellium - "The Greeks gave the name bdellium to a transparent, waxy,
fragrant gum obtained from a tree in Arabia, Babylonia, India, and
Media." Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, p. 62
>Moreover, it is written that the manna perished within a day except
>lasting a day longer on the sabbath.
>This would definitely be bread rather than a dry resinous plant
>product.
That inference doesn't hold water. Many foods spoil in a day under some
conditions (like desert summer, maybe?).
Once more, your argument is with what the Bible text says, not with me.
>> >It is written that an omer of edible food (not dry grain) was placed
>> >in a jar that was set in the Ark for future generations.
>> Yes, but irrelevant to the current topic.
>Relevant to an understanding that the amount (omer) was as important
>as the bread itself.
You yourself have changed the measure from what the text says, though,
by claiming it is a modern European unit of weight rather than an
ancient unit of volume.
>> >To this day, edible food rations (meals ready to eat) are quantified
>> >by weight measure rather than volume measure.
>> Irrelevant; we're not talking about meals ready to eat but to a Biblical
>> narrative about volumes of manna.
>Relevant because bread is essentially a meal ready to eat.
Irrelevant because you ignore the textual description of manna as a
fine, frost-like substance and the omer as a unit of volume. You also
obviously don't know that Exodus 16:23 clearly mentions baking and
boiling the manna - hardly a "meal ready to eat."
>> >If omer were a volume measure, a jar with one omer capacity would have
>> >been filled to be set aside. Instead, an omer was measured (ie
>> >weighed) out first to be placed into a jar to be set aside.
>> Actually an omer was measured in a omer-sized measure; that we can infer
>> from the Exodus story; any talk about weight is a foreign import.
>There was no omer-sized measure else that would have been described as
>the container set aside to hold an omer of manna in the Ark of the
>Covenant.
You've sidestepped the main point that the omer was measure of volume,
and overlooked that an omer's amount of manna was placed in a *jar* for
preservation in the ark.
>> >> >of food for 40 years,
>> >> "Forty" is one of many round numbers in ancient semitic languages; it
>> >> more likely means "a long time" than a strict 40 years.
>> >Without the LORD, your guesses are meaningless (Ecclesiastes). It is
>> >written that Moses was 80 years old at the start of the desert trek
>> >and 120 years old at its conclusion.
>> And one would expect that an editor, somewhere along the line, would
>> make sure that the figures match, right?
>Not one with a heart made discerning by the Holy Spirit.
So the writers of the Bible lacked the discernment given by the Holy
Spirit. Curious theology, at best.
>> >> Quail were available and eaten during the same time the manna was
>> >> available. Exodus 16:13.
>> >Not on a regular basis. As written in Numbers, the 12 tribes of Israel
>> >received quail on one occasion when they rebelled against Moses and
>> >GOD over their getting only an omer of bread (manna) daily and nothing
>> >else. It is written that they even considered going back to Egypt to
>> >become slaves again for the variety of foods they claimed to have
>> >missed, when what actually bothered them was their hunger and their
>> >false belief that Egyptian food would kill their hunger.
>> The "quail" (probably really partridges) actually seem to appear in that
>> part of the world every year, right up to modern times.
>Not in the manner described in Numbers.
All I see in Numbers (11:31) is that they were blown to the camp area by
the wind. That hardly seems a unique event.
>> >> >Only our Creator could possibly have known that an omer is the optimal
>> >> >daily amount of food per HIS design of our bodies... that there is one
>> >> >optimal daily amount for all.
Your logic is odd: there is an optimal amount > [improperly] tied to
the omer > that is the proper daily diet amount for all humans (children
excepted, per a previous statement) > optimal amount is because human
bodies are all alike and have been created that way.
That sort of reverses the scientific method of fact finding.
>> >> Provided there are quails to augment the one omer (half gallon or so) of
>> >> manna. The Biblical narrative on its face seems to suggest that an omer
>> >> is the optimal daily amount of manna, not total intake.
>> >Not for the discerning, which clearly you are not.
>> No, I suffer from the shortcoming of depending on logic and evidence
>> rather than my imagination.
>Actually, it is clear from above that you have plenty of imagination.
>Your fanciful descriptions of manna, omer, 40 years, and availability
>of quail came from your imagination and not from either logic or
>evidence.
No, really. I take time to look up things I don't know about. And
unlike you I have been introduced to some of these issues in programs of
higher learning.
>Truth is simple.
That's why I keep bringing it up to you. Someday you will lose the
scales from your eyes and see what everyone else sees already. You have
no evidence for the entire house of cards you've constructed for
yourself. And you know what happens to the house built upon a
foundation of sand.
--
Don Kirkman
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >convicted neighbor Don Kirkman wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote :
> >> >convicted neighbor Don Kirkman wrote:
> >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> >> >> >It is written that after eating this optimal daily amount (one omer)
>
> >> >> One omer - dry measure; a handful, a sheaf. One-tenth of an ephah,
> >> >> roughly two liters or a half gallon. Two sources equate it to something
> >> >> over three [dry] quarts.
>
> >> >It remains one set daily amount of edible food (not dry grain) for
> >> >everyone.
>
> >> The Biblical story only talks about manna, which apparently was a dry
> >> resinous plant product.
>
> >It is written that manna is bread from heaven that is edible with the
> >consistency of wafers and the sweetness of honey.
>
> Show me your reference, and I'll show you mine: ". . . there was on the
> face of the wilderness a fine, flakelike thing, fine as hoarfrost on the
> ground. . . .[i]t is the bread which the Lord has given you." Exodus
> 16:13, 15. "Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance
> like that of bdellium." Numbers 11:7
> Bdellium - "The Greeks gave the name bdellium to a transparent, waxy,
> fragrant gum obtained from a tree in Arabia, Babylonia, India, and
> Media." Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, p. 62
Appearance does not indicate whether edible. Moreover, appearance
like a dry resinous plant product does not mean that it "apparently
was a dry resinous plant product."
Tasting like "wafers made with honey" does indicate that manna was
edible and not a dry resinous plant product:
"The people of Israel called the bread manna. It was white like
coriander seed and tasted like wafers made with honey." (Exodus 16:31)
>
> >Moreover, it is written that the manna perished within a day except
> >lasting a day longer on the sabbath.
> >
> >This would definitely be bread rather than a dry resinous plant
> >product.
>
> That inference doesn't hold water. Many foods spoil in a day under some
> conditions (like desert summer, maybe?).
Dry resinous plant products would not be food nor would they be
expected to spoil.
> Once more, your argument is with what the Bible text says, not with me.
You have already shown that the Bible does not describe manna to be a
dry resinous plant product but rather that it looked like bdellium, a
plant resin.
> >> >It is written that an omer of edible food (not dry grain) was placed
> >> >in a jar that was set in the Ark for future generations.
>
> >> Yes, but irrelevant to the current topic.
>
> >Relevant to an understanding that the amount (omer) was as important
> >as the bread itself.
>
> You yourself have changed the measure from what the text says, though,
> by claiming it is a modern European unit of weight rather than an
> ancient unit of volume.
Incorrect.
> >> >To this day, edible food rations (meals ready to eat) are quantified
> >> >by weight measure rather than volume measure.
>
> >> Irrelevant; we're not talking about meals ready to eat but to a Biblical
> >> narrative about volumes of manna.
>
> >Relevant because bread is essentially a meal ready to eat.
>
> Irrelevant because you ignore the textual description of manna as a
> fine, frost-like substance
"The people of Israel called the bread manna. It was white like
coriander seed and tasted like wafers made with honey." (Exodus 16:31)
> and the omer as a unit of volume.
Things that are described as "fine, frost-like substance" would be
expected to be measured by weight rather than volume, where settling
would be understandably an issue.
> You also
> obviously don't know that Exodus 16:23 clearly mentions baking and
> boiling the manna - hardly a "meal ready to eat."
There are numerous examples of things that can be either baked or
boiled though directly edible.
(1) Apples
(2) Tomatoes
(3) Breadfruit
(4) Bananas
(5) Cherries
> >> >If omer were a volume measure, a jar with one omer capacity would have
> >> >been filled to be set aside. Instead, an omer was measured (ie
> >> >weighed) out first to be placed into a jar to be set aside.
>
> >> Actually an omer was measured in a omer-sized measure; that we can infer
> >> from the Exodus story; any talk about weight is a foreign import.
>
> >There was no omer-sized measure else that would have been described as
> >the container set aside to hold an omer of manna in the Ark of the
> >Covenant.
>
> You've sidestepped the main point that the omer was measure of volume,
> and overlooked that an omer's amount of manna was placed in a *jar* for
> preservation in the ark.
There is only one verse that describes omer to be a measure of volume
and this is appended to Exodus 16 in parentheses making it clear that
it should not be considered part of the original text:
33 So Moses said to Aaron, "Take a jar and put an omer of manna in it.
Then place it before the LORD to be kept for the generations to
come."
34 As the LORD commanded Moses, Aaron put the manna in front of the
Testimony, that it might be kept. 35 The Israelites ate manna forty
years, until they came to a land that was settled; they ate manna
until they reached the border of Canaan.
36 (An omer is one tenth of an ephah.)
> >> >> >of food for 40 years,
>
> >> >> "Forty" is one of many round numbers in ancient semitic languages; it
> >> >> more likely means "a long time" than a strict 40 years.
>
> >> >Without the LORD, your guesses are meaningless (Ecclesiastes). It is
> >> >written that Moses was 80 years old at the start of the desert trek
> >> >and 120 years old at its conclusion.
>
> >> And one would expect that an editor, somewhere along the line, would
> >> make sure that the figures match, right?
>
> >Not one with a heart made discerning by the Holy Spirit.
>
> So the writers of the Bible lacked the discernment given by the Holy
> Spirit.
No.
One expecting an editor to come along "somewhere along the line" to
change the figures in the Bible would be one, like you, without a
heart made discerning by the Holy Spirit.
> Curious theology, at best.
Simply logic.
> >> >> Quail were available and eaten during the same time the manna was
> >> >> available. Exodus 16:13.
>
> >> >Not on a regular basis. As written in Numbers, the 12 tribes of Israel
> >> >received quail on one occasion when they rebelled against Moses and
> >> >GOD over their getting only an omer of bread (manna) daily and nothing
> >> >else. It is written that they even considered going back to Egypt to
> >> >become slaves again for the variety of foods they claimed to have
> >> >missed, when what actually bothered them was their hunger and their
> >> >false belief that Egyptian food would kill their hunger.
>
> >> The "quail" (probably really partridges) actually seem to appear in that
> >> part of the world every year, right up to modern times.
>
> >Not in the manner described in Numbers.
>
> All I see in Numbers (11:31) is that they were blown to the camp area by
> the wind. That hardly seems a unique event.
Then it should be easy for you to cite a modern day news report of
lots of birds being blown into a camp area by the wind.
Ordinarily birds are masters of flight even in windy conditions.
> >> >> >Only our Creator could possibly have known that an omer is the optimal
> >> >> >daily amount of food per HIS design of our bodies... that there is one
> >> >> >optimal daily amount for all.
>
> Your logic is odd: there is an optimal amount > [improperly] tied to
> the omer > that is the proper daily diet amount for all humans (children
> excepted, per a previous statement) > optimal amount is because human
> bodies are all alike and have been created that way.
Actually all human bodies are not alike so that one optimal daily
amount for all is unexpected.
Such unexpected things concerning our bodies would be known only to
our Creator.
> That sort of reverses the scientific method of fact finding.
The scientific method is not about fact finding but hypothesis
testing.
> >> >> Provided there are quails to augment the one omer (half gallon or so) of
> >> >> manna. The Biblical narrative on its face seems to suggest that an omer
> >> >> is the optimal daily amount of manna, not total intake.
>
> >> >Not for the discerning, which clearly you are not.
>
> >> No, I suffer from the shortcoming of depending on logic and evidence
> >> rather than my imagination.
>
> >Actually, it is clear from above that you have plenty of imagination.
>
> >Your fanciful descriptions of manna, omer, 40 years, and availability
> >of quail came from your imagination and not from either logic or
> >evidence.
>
> No, really.
Yes, really.
> I take time to look up things I don't know about.
And when you don't like what you find, your imagination apparently
takes over.
> And
> unlike you I have been introduced to some of these issues in programs of
> higher learning.
It would be your choice to trust extrabiblical sources and your own
imagination.
> >Truth is simple.
>
> That's why I keep bringing it up to you.
Untruthful folks are drawn to the truth.
> Someday you will lose the
> scales from your eyes and see what everyone else sees already.
You remind me of the blind man who would feign vision by evaluating
the vision of the seeing.
> You have
> no evidence for the entire house of cards you've constructed for
> yourself.
Your dispute is with the Bible and not anything that I have
constructed.
> And you know what happens to the house built upon a
> foundation of sand.
Irrelevant for the house that you have imagined that I have
constructed.
This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict
you:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
Ferd Farkel
32 ounces avoirdupois of really stinky skunk weed would
give me how many tokes?
Cary Kittrell
Hey, it's beyond merely unexpected, it's flat-out nonexistent.
Pot. Alabaster. Black.
-- cary
Olrik
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> convicted neighbor Olrik wrote:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > convicted neighbor Zen Cohen wrote:
> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > > > > "... one omer for each person in your tent." -- Moses instructing the
> > > > > 12 tribes of Israel on the amount of food they are to eat on a daily
> > > > > basis as per the prescription from LORD Almighty GOD (Exodus 16:16).
>
> > > > > It is written that after eating this optimal daily amount (one omer)
> > > > > of food for 40 years, their feet did not swell (no cardiovascular
> > > > > disease) and there clothes did not wear out (they stayed lean and
> > > > > trim). Moreover, they came out of the desert physically able to
> > > > > defeat all their enemies in combat.
>
> > > > > Only our Creator could possibly have known that an omer is the optimal
> > > > > daily amount of food per HIS design of our bodies... that there is one
> > > > > optimal daily amount for all.
>
> > > > So, your 2-pound diet (or whatever you call it) is based entirely on this
> > > > one passage in the bible?
>
> > > No. The 32 ounces being the optimal daily amount of food was
> > > empirically determined:
>
> > >http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/2PD-OMER
>
> > Meaning that Chung is a numerologist, and interprets stuff to his own
> > liking.
>
> No, I am not a numerologist.
Incorrect.
> > > Exodus 16:16
>
> > Thus, 32. Get it?
>
> A sign from GOD.
Sane people would see that, at best, as a simple coincidence. And
wrong, since an omer is clearly not two pounds.
And what the other chapter & verse numbers mean, Chung? Are they
ounces too?
I must admit that the "bible" is a mine for numerologists like you.
<snip>
> > > is simply Biblical support for the fact that there is one
> > > optimal daily amount of food for everyone by GOD's design.
>
> > Omer :
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omer
>
> > "1. An ancient Hebrew unit of dry measure equal to 1/10 ephah, about
> > 3.5 liters (3.7 quarts)."
>
> This would be the case for an omer of grain and **not** an omer of
> bread (manna).
>
> To this day, bread is quantified by unit measures of weight and
> **not** volume.
Most stuff occupies a volume.
> Indeed, I have a 20 oz loaf of bread sitting on the kitchen table and
> not a 3.7 quart loaf of bread.
>
> Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier.... be blessed:
Be warned of this other scam by Chung:
> http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/PressRelease
Olrik
<snip>
Olrik
"Exodus 16:16" is numerology, Chung. An "omer" (for what its worth
anyway...) is not 32 ounces, creep.
Olrik
<the usual crappy sig snipped>
jd023456
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> "... one omer for each person in your tent." -- Moses instructing the
> 12 tribes of Israel on the amount of food they are to eat on a daily
> basis as per the prescription from LORD Almighty GOD (Exodus 16:16).
>
> It is written that after eating this optimal daily amount (one omer)
> of food for 40 years, their feet did not swell (no cardiovascular
> disease) and there clothes did not wear out (they stayed lean and
> trim). Moreover, they came out of the desert physically able to
> defeat all their enemies in combat.
>
> Only our Creator could possibly have known that an omer is the optimal
> daily amount of food per HIS design of our bodies... that there is one
> optimal daily amount for all.
>
>
> Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement at how he struggles with all
> the lies he could possible muster to continue to deceive folks:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/73da7f2259cd74f8?
>
> Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
>
> http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/PressRelease
>
> Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
>
> Andrew <><
> --
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
Extremly dangerous advise to Hypoglycemics!!! Do Not allow yourself to
become hungry as a hyopglycemic. This "omer" is 3.76 liters. Where in
the bible does it say they took this manna and processed it? So it was
more than 2 pounds they ate!! I will trust my body before you! People
twist the bible to MAKE it say what they want it to say.
I am a born-again Christian, A Christian Socialist. Unusual but I can
see a con easy and I bet this guy is SELLING something! And we all
remember how Jesus reacted to the moneychangers in the Temple using
God to sell their merchandise!
KC
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heart...@emorycardiology.com> wrote in message
news:1190652676....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> "... one omer for each person in your tent." -- Moses instructing the
> 12 tribes of Israel on the amount of food they are to eat on a daily
> basis as per the prescription from LORD Almighty GOD (Exodus 16:16).
In Exodus 16:8 it says, "Moses also said, 'You will know that it was the
LORD when he gives you meat to eat in the evening and all the bread you want
in the morning ..'" which says to me that there was more to eat each day
than an omer of manna.
Exodus 16:11 & 16:12 agree with Exodus 16:8: 11 The LORD said to Moses,
12 "I have heard the grumbling of the Israelites. Tell them, 'At twilight
you will eat meat, and in the morning you will be filled with bread. Then
you will know that I am the LORD your God.' "
I also am a bit confused by exodus 16:23 which states, "... So bake what you
want to bake and boil what you want to boil..." What is there to bake and
boil if all there is to eat is premade bread from God? It must be that meat
they mentioned in exodus 16:8 & 16:12.
Additionally on page
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2016:16;&version=31;#en-NIV-1964
The footnote says an omer is about 2 liters. I am not sure of what 2 liters
of manna would weigh. However because of exodus16:20 stating, "... some
of them paid no attention to Moses; they kept part of it until morning, but
it was full of maggots and began to smell..." makes me think it was a very
wet bread. the kinds of breads we make today wouldn't get full of maggots.
I think 2 litres of very wet bread (think fruit cake) would weigh quite a
bit. I have heard before that bread a long time ago was not what we think
of as bread today. It was much thicker and heavier. It was not risen like
the bread of today. It was very hearty.
Whatever the weight, I think I could survive on 2 liters of hearty bread per
day, plus meat in the evening.
Here's a link to a site about what to eat while climbing Mt. Everest
http://www.mounteverest.net/expguide/food.htm
This is in relation to your story about seeing a show on Mt. Everest where
the climbers only brought 10 pounds of food for a week. I bet it was really
calorie packed food though. This site talks about bringing really calorie
packed foods, and eating things you wouldn't eat in normal life. Just
because some mountain climbers ate low weight, high calorie packed food for
a week while they were climbing does not mean that is the healthier
lifestyle for the long run. I'll stick with my fresh fruits and veggies.
You couldn't eat enough calories to survive if your diet had lots of fresh
fruits and veggies and you only ate 2 pounds worth.
Plus, I bet the Mt. Everest climbers rehydrated some dehydrated foods on the
trip, which probably made them eat more than 2 pounds of food a day when you
count the weight of the water they added.
Your diet just doesn't hold up to what you say about it when it is examined.
If you just came out saying that you like a calorie restricted lifestyle,
and research shows that it does prolong life in other animals, so probably
in humans too I could buy that. But all this stuff about mountain climbers
and Jews stuck in the desert for 40 years just looks like hooey to me.
KC
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > 12 tribes of Israel on the amount of food they are to eat on a daily
> > basis as per the prescription from LORD Almighty GOD (Exodus 16:16).
>
> In Exodus 16:8 it says, "Moses also said, 'You will know that it was the
> LORD when he gives you meat to eat in the evening and all the bread you want
> in the morning ..'" which says to me that there was more to eat each day
> than an omer of manna.
This simply a sign from GOD in the evening before the start of 40
years of manna without meat.
> Exodus 16:11 & 16:12 agree with Exodus 16:8: 11 The LORD said to Moses,
> 12 "I have heard the grumbling of the Israelites. Tell them, 'At twilight
> you will eat meat, and in the morning you will be filled with bread. Then
> you will know that I am the LORD your God.' "
Again, this was a one time sign in the evening before the start of 40
years of GOD providing manna only.
> I also am a bit confused by exodus 16:23 which states, "... So bake what you
> want to bake and boil what you want to boil..." What is there to bake and
> boil if all there is to eat is premade bread from God?
The manna could be directly eaten or it could be baked or boiled.
There are many examples of foods that we currently eat that can be
either eaten directly or be further cooked.
> It must be that meat
> they mentioned in exodus 16:8 & 16:12.
It is not but rather refers to the 2 omers of manna described in 16:22
that immediately precedes the 16:23 you cite.
> Additionally on page
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2016:16;&version=31;#en-NIV-1964
>
> The footnote says an omer is about 2 liters.
Until we find that jar in the Ark of the Covenant containing the omer
of manna as described in Exodus 16:33, this footnote is not
believable.
Because it is written that manna was very perishable typically lasting
only a day (or two including the Sabbath), I would not expect that
even if this jar were found that it would contain anything to weigh.
> I am not sure of what 2 liters
> of manna would weigh.
There is no reason to believe that an omer measure of bread (manna) is
the same as an omer measure of dry grain. Indeed, there is reason to
believe otherwise because we currently would not think to distribute
bread volumetrically because we currently distribute bread and other
edible foodstuffs by weight because of issues with settling.
> However because of exodus16:20 stating, "... some
> of them paid no attention to Moses; they kept part of it until morning, but
> it was full of maggots and began to smell..." makes me think it was a very
> wet bread.
The omer in the footnote would be a **dry** measure.
> the kinds of breads we make today wouldn't get full of maggots.
Depends on the environment. If there are flies laying eggs on our
breads in the early morning, there may very well be maggots within the
same time frame.
> I think 2 litres of very wet bread (think fruit cake) would weigh quite a
> bit.
Again, the omer in the footnote would be a **dry** measure for grain
and not for moist bread (see above).
> I have heard before that bread a long time ago was not what we think
> of as bread today. It was much thicker and heavier. It was not risen like
> the bread of today. It was very hearty.
>
> Whatever the weight, I think I could survive on 2 liters of hearty bread per
> day, plus meat in the evening.
I and others know we can survive and thrive on 2 pounds of food per
day because we have done so for years now.
> Here's a link to a site about what to eat while climbing Mt. Everest
> http://www.mounteverest.net/expguide/food.htm
> This is in relation to your story about seeing a show on Mt. Everest where
> the climbers only brought 10 pounds of food for a week. I bet it was really
> calorie packed food though. This site talks about bringing really calorie
> packed foods, and eating things you wouldn't eat in normal life. Just
> because some mountain climbers ate low weight, high calorie packed food for
> a week while they were climbing does not mean that is the healthier
> lifestyle for the long run. I'll stick with my fresh fruits and veggies.
> You couldn't eat enough calories to survive if your diet had lots of fresh
> fruits and veggies and you only ate 2 pounds worth.
Then my surviving and thriving over the past 10 years is a miracle
especially when you consider the fact that these past 10 years
included a period of fasting for 40 days and nights because my diet is
a normal one that includes a variety of fresh fruits and veggies.
> Plus, I bet the Mt. Everest climbers rehydrated some dehydrated foods on the
> trip, which probably made them eat more than 2 pounds of food a day when you
> count the weight of the water they added.
Actually calorie-dense foods such as trail mix would neither require
nor accept rehydration very well.
> Your diet just doesn't hold up to what you say about it when it is examined.
The 2PD-OMER Approach has held up since its introduction in 1998.
> If you just came out saying that you like a calorie restricted lifestyle,
> and research shows that it does prolong life in other animals, so probably
> in humans too I could buy that. But all this stuff about mountain climbers
> and Jews stuck in the desert for 40 years just looks like hooey to me.
The mountain climbers served well as an inspiration from GOD. The 40
year trek of the 12 tribes of Israel in the desert serves well to
teach us that "man does not live on bread alone but on every word that
comes from the mouth of GOD." (Deuteronomy 8:3).
Meanwhile, the guarantee for the 2PD-OMER Approach remains in force:
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
Don Kirkman
>convicted neighbor Don Kirkman wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >It is written that manna is bread from heaven that is edible with the
>> >consistency of wafers and the sweetness of honey.
>> Show me your reference, and I'll show you mine: ". . . there was on the
>> face of the wilderness a fine, flakelike thing, fine as hoarfrost on the
>> ground. . . .[i]t is the bread which the Lord has given you." Exodus
>> 16:13, 15. "Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance
>> like that of bdellium." Numbers 11:7
>> Bdellium - "The Greeks gave the name bdellium to a transparent, waxy,
>> fragrant gum obtained from a tree in Arabia, Babylonia, India, and
>> Media." Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, p. 62
>Appearance does not indicate whether edible. Moreover, appearance
>like a dry resinous plant product does not mean that it "apparently
>was a dry resinous plant product."
No, but it indicates it was the size of a bit of frost or a small seed
(coriander is not a large seed - you could look at what's in your pantry
if you're not convinced).
>Tasting like "wafers made with honey" does indicate that manna was
>edible and not a dry resinous plant product:
Edible, yes--that's the whole point of the story. Not rpp: no evidence
either way, only supposition.
>"The people of Israel called the bread manna. It was white like
>coriander seed and tasted like wafers made with honey." (Exodus 16:31)
"Tasted like wafers" is not the same as "was wafers."
>> >Moreover, it is written that the manna perished within a day except
>> >lasting a day longer on the sabbath.
>> >This would definitely be bread rather than a dry resinous plant
>> >product.
>> That inference doesn't hold water. Many foods spoil in a day under some
>> conditions (like desert summer, maybe?).
>Dry resinous plant products would not be food nor would they be
>expected to spoil.
Supposition again, since neither of us knows exactly what manna was (in
fact the name apparently means something like "What is it?" in Hebrew).
>> Once more, your argument is with what the Bible text says, not with me.
>You have already shown that the Bible does not describe manna to be a
>dry resinous plant product but rather that it looked like bdellium, a
>plant resin.
The two are not contradictory but complementary. It is clearly the size
of a small seed, and comes from a plant. It is not literal bread but an
edible substance (remember that even in English "bread" and "meat" are
regularly used metaphorically: "Give us this day our daily bread" and
Jesus' "I have meat to eat you know not of").
>> >Relevant to an understanding that the amount (omer) was as important
>> >as the bread itself.
>>
>> You yourself have changed the measure from what the text says, though,
>> by claiming it is a modern European unit of weight rather than an
>> ancient unit of volume.
>Incorrect.
Then give some verifiable facts that support your use of the omer to
develop a diet measured in pounds. And some verifiable proof that the
omer was not always and everywhere a measure of volume.
>> >> >To this day, edible food rations (meals ready to eat) are quantified
>> >> >by weight measure rather than volume measure.
>> >> Irrelevant; we're not talking about meals ready to eat but to a Biblical
>> >> narrative about volumes of manna.
>> >Relevant because bread is essentially a meal ready to eat.
>> Irrelevant because you ignore the textual description of manna as a
>> fine, frost-like substance
>"The people of Israel called the bread manna. It was white like
>coriander seed and tasted like wafers made with honey." (Exodus 16:31)
>> and the omer as a unit of volume.
>Things that are described as "fine, frost-like substance" would be
>expected to be measured by weight rather than volume, where settling
>would be understandably an issue.
You bring in a lot of suppositions to support this idea, but no proof.
>> You also
>> obviously don't know that Exodus 16:23 clearly mentions baking and
>> boiling the manna - hardly a "meal ready to eat."
>There are numerous examples of things that can be either baked or
>boiled though directly edible.
>(1) Apples
>(2) Tomatoes
>(3) Breadfruit
>(4) Bananas
>(5) Cherries
And which of these fruits is in any way similar to a dry mealy
substance?
>> >There was no omer-sized measure else that would have been described as
>> >the container set aside to hold an omer of manna in the Ark of the
>> >Covenant.
>> You've sidestepped the main point that the omer was measure of volume,
>> and overlooked that an omer's amount of manna was placed in a *jar* for
>> preservation in the ark.
The ark hadn't been built yet, so the manna had to be preserved until it
was.
>There is only one verse that describes omer to be a measure of volume
>and this is appended to Exodus 16 in parentheses making it clear that
>it should not be considered part of the original text:
>33 So Moses said to Aaron, "Take a jar and put an omer of manna in it.
>Then place it before the LORD to be kept for the generations to
>come."
>36 (An omer is one tenth of an ephah.)
I seem to remember pointing this out to you some time ago. The point is
that the Hebrews used an omer and their other measures daily and didn't
need to define them. The added definition obviously was inserted later
for people who didn't know what an omer was. Thank you for pointing
that out again.
>> >> >> >of food for 40 years,
>> >> >> "Forty" is one of many round numbers in ancient semitic languages; it
>> >> >> more likely means "a long time" than a strict 40 years.
>> >> >Without the LORD, your guesses are meaningless (Ecclesiastes). It is
>> >> >written that Moses was 80 years old at the start of the desert trek
>> >> >and 120 years old at its conclusion.
Without knowledge of the culture of that time and place your entire line
of conjecture is meaningless.
>> >> And one would expect that an editor, somewhere along the line, would
>> >> make sure that the figures match, right?
>> >Not one with a heart made discerning by the Holy Spirit.
>> So the writers of the Bible lacked the discernment given by the Holy
>> Spirit.
>No.
>One expecting an editor to come along "somewhere along the line" to
>change the figures in the Bible would be one, like you, without a
>heart made discerning by the Holy Spirit.
You overlook that the "editor" was there in time to write it into the
Hebrew text of Exodus; you're badly mistaken if you think it was done by
some medieval monk. The "editor" was one of the authors of the Bible.
The Biblical text is full of obvious editorial insertions and changes
from some earlier version.
>> Curious theology, at best.
>Simply logic.
Simple, but no logic.
>> >> >> Quail were available and eaten during the same time the manna was
>> >> >> available. Exodus 16:13.
>> >> >Not on a regular basis. As written in Numbers, the 12 tribes of Israel
>> >> >received quail on one occasion when they rebelled against Moses and
>> >> >GOD over their getting only an omer of bread (manna) daily and nothing
>> >> >else. It is written that they even considered going back to Egypt to
>> >> >become slaves again for the variety of foods they claimed to have
>> >> >missed, when what actually bothered them was their hunger and their
>> >> >false belief that Egyptian food would kill their hunger.
"Received . . . on one occasion" is not the same as "Received . . . on
only one occasion."
>> >> The "quail" (probably really partridges) actually seem to appear in that
>> >> part of the world every year, right up to modern times.
>> >Not in the manner described in Numbers.
>> All I see in Numbers (11:31) is that they were blown to the camp area by
>> the wind. That hardly seems a unique event.
>Then it should be easy for you to cite a modern day news report of
>lots of birds being blown into a camp area by the wind.
Modern day accounts are poor support for events that supposedly happened
2500 years ago, but here are some selections from one Bible commentary
on the Exodus 16 story:
"Quails, or partridges, . . . in spring [. . .] move northward in great
numbers, flying low, and when they drop exhausted to the ground can be
easily caught. . . they now provided meat for the hungry wanderers."
"In the morning they found the manna. They had never seen it before and
they said, 'What is it?'" "Just what [manna] was we do not know. The
sweet juice of the Tarfa tree . . . has been suggested. . . . it forms
'small round white grains, which partly adhere to the twigs of the
trees, and partly drop to the ground. In the early morning it is of the
consistency of wax, but the sun's rays soon melt it.'
[The Abingdon Bible Commentary, p. 266]
>Ordinarily birds are masters of flight even in windy conditions.
Like kiwis, eh? Actually there are about forty species that can't fly
at all, and others like gooney birds that take off and land with
difficulty--and soar much more than they actively fly. Quails and
partridges, being among the chicken-like birds, are primarily ground
dwellers and fly only short distances. When startled into flight they
take to cover within a few hundred yards. I guess you've never been
quail hunting.
>Actually all human bodies are not alike so that one optimal daily
>amount for all is unexpected.
Not only unexpected but there is no reason to believe it's even true.
>> That sort of reverses the scientific method of fact finding.
>The scientific method is not about fact finding but hypothesis
>testing.
And what is the final result of testing hypotheses? If not to find
factual evidence why bother?
>> >> No, I suffer from the shortcoming of depending on logic and evidence
>> >> rather than my imagination.
>> >Actually, it is clear from above that you have plenty of imagination.
>> >Your fanciful descriptions of manna, omer, 40 years, and availability
>> >of quail came from your imagination and not from either logic or
>> >evidence.
>> No, really.
>Yes, really.
>> I take time to look up things I don't know about.
>And when you don't like what you find, your imagination apparently
>takes over.
No, I have enough training in gathering and analyzing evidence that I
can handle that dispassionately.
>It would be your choice to trust extrabiblical sources and your own
>imagination.
So which of us is the one citing all the Biblical evidence? :-)
>> >Truth is simple.
>> That's why I keep bringing it up to you.
>Untruthful folks are drawn to the truth.
No, really. In truth you seem to be bent on avoiding the truth when it
is put before you.
>> Someday you will lose the
>> scales from your eyes and see what everyone else sees already.
>You remind me of the blind man who would feign vision by evaluating
>the vision of the seeing.
Wow, I thought that had dropped out of your macro file; I haven't seen
it for years now. :-)
>Your dispute is with the Bible and not anything that I have
>constructed.
And which of us is the one offering Biblical evidence?
--
Don Kirkman
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >convicted neighbor Don Kirkman wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> >> >It is written that manna is bread from heaven that is edible with the
> >> >consistency of wafers and the sweetness of honey.
>
> >> Show me your reference, and I'll show you mine: ". . . there was on the
> >> face of the wilderness a fine, flakelike thing, fine as hoarfrost on the
> >> ground. . . .[i]t is the bread which the Lord has given you." Exodus
> >> 16:13, 15. "Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance
> >> like that of bdellium." Numbers 11:7
> >> Bdellium - "The Greeks gave the name bdellium to a transparent, waxy,
> >> fragrant gum obtained from a tree in Arabia, Babylonia, India, and
> >> Media." Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, p. 62
>
> >Appearance does not indicate whether edible. Moreover, appearance
> >like a dry resinous plant product does not mean that it "apparently
> >was a dry resinous plant product."
>
> No, but it indicates it was the size of a bit of frost or a small seed
> (coriander is not a large seed - you could look at what's in your pantry
> if you're not convinced).
Bottom:
The manna was edible tasting like wafers made from honey regardless of
how it looked.
> >Tasting like "wafers made with honey" does indicate that manna was
> >edible and not a dry resinous plant product:
>
> Edible, yes--that's the whole point of the story. Not rpp: no evidence
> either way, only supposition.
Plant resin is not edible.
> >"The people of Israel called the bread manna. It was white like
> >coriander seed and tasted like wafers made with honey." (Exodus 16:31)
>
> "Tasted like wafers" is not the same as "was wafers."
Did not write that manna was wafers but bread.
> >> >Moreover, it is written that the manna perished within a day except
> >> >lasting a day longer on the sabbath.
>
> >> >This would definitely be bread rather than a dry resinous plant
> >> >product.
>
> >> That inference doesn't hold water. Many foods spoil in a day under some
> >> conditions (like desert summer, maybe?).
>
> >Dry resinous plant products would not be food nor would they be
> >expected to spoil.
>
> Supposition again, since neither of us knows exactly what manna was (in
> fact the name apparently means something like "What is it?" in Hebrew).
Something that tastes like wafers made from honey and feeds folks for
40 years is simply food.
> >> Once more, your argument is with what the Bible text says, not with me.
>
> >You have already shown that the Bible does not describe manna to be a
> >dry resinous plant product but rather that it looked like bdellium, a
> >plant resin.
>
> The two are not contradictory but complementary.
They are simply not equivalent.
> It is clearly the size
> of a small seed, and comes from a plant.
It is written that manna came from heaven and was the color of
coriander seed.
> It is not literal bread but an
> edible substance (remember that even in English "bread" and "meat" are
> regularly used metaphorically: "Give us this day our daily bread" and
> Jesus' "I have meat to eat you know not of").
Manna is simply bread from heaven.
> >> >Relevant to an understanding that the amount (omer) was as important
> >> >as the bread itself.
> >>
> >> You yourself have changed the measure from what the text says, though,
> >> by claiming it is a modern European unit of weight rather than an
> >> ancient unit of volume.
>
> >Incorrect.
>
> Then give some verifiable facts that support your use of the omer to
> develop a diet measured in pounds. And some verifiable proof that the
> omer was not always and everywhere a measure of volume.
Folks have simply to note that the Bible excluding the editorially
added verse Exodus 16:36 leaves omer unspecified about whether it was
a unit measure of weight or volume. However, those with discerning
hearts know from understanding what is written in Exodus 16 that omer
is indeed a unit measure of weight.
> >> >> >To this day, edible food rations (meals ready to eat) are quantified
> >> >> >by weight measure rather than volume measure.
>
> >> >> Irrelevant; we're not talking about meals ready to eat but to a Biblical
> >> >> narrative about volumes of manna.
>
> >> >Relevant because bread is essentially a meal ready to eat.
>
> >> Irrelevant because you ignore the textual description of manna as a
> >> fine, frost-like substance
>
> >"The people of Israel called the bread manna. It was white like
> >coriander seed and tasted like wafers made with honey." (Exodus 16:31)
>
> >> and the omer as a unit of volume.
>
> >Things that are described as "fine, frost-like substance" would be
> >expected to be measured by weight rather than volume, where settling
> >would be understandably an issue.
>
> You bring in a lot of suppositions to support this idea, but no proof.
GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to prove.
> >> You also
> >> obviously don't know that Exodus 16:23 clearly mentions baking and
> >> boiling the manna - hardly a "meal ready to eat."
>
> >There are numerous examples of things that can be either baked or
> >boiled though directly edible.
>
> >(1) Apples
> >(2) Tomatoes
> >(3) Breadfruit
> >(4) Bananas
> >(5) Cherries
>
> And which of these fruits is in any way similar to a dry mealy
> substance?
The edible insides of breadfruit.
> >> >There was no omer-sized measure else that would have been described as
> >> >the container set aside to hold an omer of manna in the Ark of the
> >> >Covenant.
>
> >> You've sidestepped the main point that the omer was measure of volume,
> >> and overlooked that an omer's amount of manna was placed in a *jar* for
> >> preservation in the ark.
>
> The ark hadn't been built yet, so the manna had to be preserved until it
> was.
You are arguing with yourself here.
> >There is only one verse that describes omer to be a measure of volume
> >and this is appended to Exodus 16 in parentheses making it clear that
> >it should not be considered part of the original text:
>
> >33 So Moses said to Aaron, "Take a jar and put an omer of manna in it.
> >Then place it before the LORD to be kept for the generations to
> >come."
> >
> >34 As the LORD commanded Moses, Aaron put the manna in front of the
> >Testimony, that it might be kept. 35 The Israelites ate manna forty
> >years, until they came to a land that was settled; they ate manna
> >until they reached the border of Canaan.
> >
> >36 (An omer is one tenth of an ephah.)
>
> I seem to remember pointing this out to you some time ago. The point is
> that the Hebrews used an omer and their other measures daily and didn't
> need to define them. The added definition obviously was inserted later
> for people who didn't know what an omer was.
You are guessing that the motivation behind the insertion of this
verse was innocent.
It remains possible that this insertion was an act of deception.
> Thank you for pointing
> that out again.
You are welcome.
Would redirect your thanks to GOD, so that we will both be that much
more blessed (hungrier).
> >> >> >> >of food for 40 years,
>
> >> >> >> "Forty" is one of many round numbers in ancient semitic languages; it
> >> >> >> more likely means "a long time" than a strict 40 years.
>
> >> >> >Without the LORD, your guesses are meaningless (Ecclesiastes). It is
> >> >> >written that Moses was 80 years old at the start of the desert trek
> >> >> >and 120 years old at its conclusion.
>
> Without knowledge of the culture of that time and place your entire line
> of conjecture is meaningless.
Describing what is written in the Bible is not conjecture.
Bottom line:
You are untruthful.
> >> >> And one would expect that an editor, somewhere along the line, would
> >> >> make sure that the figures match, right?
>
> >> >Not one with a heart made discerning by the Holy Spirit.
>
> >> So the writers of the Bible lacked the discernment given by the Holy
> >> Spirit.
>
> >No.
>
> >One expecting an editor to come along "somewhere along the line" to
> >change the figures in the Bible would be one, like you, without a
> >heart made discerning by the Holy Spirit.
>
> You overlook that the "editor" was there in time to write it into the
> Hebrew text of Exodus; you're badly mistaken if you think it was done by
> some medieval monk. The "editor" was one of the authors of the Bible.
> The Biblical text is full of obvious editorial insertions and changes
> from some earlier version.
What you imagine to be obvious is not reality.
> >> Curious theology, at best.
>
> >Simply logic.
>
> Simple, but no logic.
Without the LORD, your opinion remains meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
> >> >> >> Quail were available and eaten during the same time the manna was
> >> >> >> available. Exodus 16:13.
>
> >> >> >Not on a regular basis. As written in Numbers, the 12 tribes of Israel
> >> >> >received quail on one occasion when they rebelled against Moses and
> >> >> >GOD over their getting only an omer of bread (manna) daily and nothing
> >> >> >else. It is written that they even considered going back to Egypt to
> >> >> >become slaves again for the variety of foods they claimed to have
> >> >> >missed, when what actually bothered them was their hunger and their
> >> >> >false belief that Egyptian food would kill their hunger.
>
> "Received . . . on one occasion" is not the same as "Received . . . on
> only one occasion."
It is the same as "Not received regularly."
> >> >> The "quail" (probably really partridges) actually seem to appear in that
> >> >> part of the world every year, right up to modern times.
>
> >> >Not in the manner described in Numbers.
>
> >> All I see in Numbers (11:31) is that they were blown to the camp area by
> >> the wind. That hardly seems a unique event.
>
> >Then it should be easy for you to cite a modern day news report of
> >lots of birds being blown into a camp area by the wind.
>
> Modern day accounts are poor support for events that supposedly happened
> 2500 years ago
In short, you have nothing in your modern day experience to support
your opinion that a large flock of quail being blown from over the sea
into a camp area by the wind "hardly seems a unique event."
> , but here are some selections from one Bible commentary
> on the Exodus 16 story:
>
> "Quails, or partridges, . . . in spring [. . .] move northward in great
> numbers, flying low, and when they drop exhausted to the ground can be
> easily caught. . . they now provided meat for the hungry wanderers."
>
> "In the morning they found the manna. They had never seen it before and
> they said, 'What is it?'" "Just what [manna] was we do not know. The
> sweet juice of the Tarfa tree . . . has been suggested. . . . it forms
> 'small round white grains, which partly adhere to the twigs of the
> trees, and partly drop to the ground. In the early morning it is of the
> consistency of wax, but the sun's rays soon melt it.'
> [The Abingdon Bible Commentary, p. 266]
It would be your choice to rely on extrabiblical commentaries for
understanding of Scripture while my choice is:
Solus Scriptura cum Spiritus Sancti.
> >Ordinarily birds are masters of flight even in windy conditions.
>
> Like kiwis, eh? Actually there are about forty species that can't fly
> at all, and others like gooney birds that take off and land with
> difficulty--and soar much more than they actively fly. Quails and
> partridges, being among the chicken-like birds, are primarily ground
> dwellers and fly only short distances. When startled into flight they
> take to cover within a few hundred yards. I guess you've never been
> quail hunting.
It is written that this particular flock of quail was blown in from
the sea, so that there is the understanding that they had the ability
to fly quite well.
> >Actually all human bodies are not alike so that one optimal daily
> >amount for all is unexpected.
>
> Not only unexpected but there is no reason to believe it's even true.
... unless inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it.
> >> That sort of reverses the scientific method of fact finding.
>
> >The scientific method is not about fact finding but hypothesis
> >testing.
>
> And what is the final result of testing hypotheses?
To advance new theories in order to make useful predictions.
> If not to find
> factual evidence why bother?
See above.
> >> >> No, I suffer from the shortcoming of depending on logic and evidence
> >> >> rather than my imagination.
>
> >> >Actually, it is clear from above that you have plenty of imagination.
>
> >> >Your fanciful descriptions of manna, omer, 40 years, and availability
> >> >of quail came from your imagination and not from either logic or
> >> >evidence.
>
> >> No, really.
>
> >Yes, really.
>
> >> I take time to look up things I don't know about.
>
> >And when you don't like what you find, your imagination apparently
> >takes over.
>
> No, I have enough training in gathering and analyzing evidence that I
> can handle that dispassionately.
That is not what I discern.
> >It would be your choice to trust extrabiblical sources and your own
> >imagination.
>
> So which of us is the one citing all the Biblical evidence? :-)
See above for the answer.
Hint: You have been citing extrabiblical commentaries.
> >> >Truth is simple.
>
> >> That's why I keep bringing it up to you.
>
> >Untruthful folks are drawn to the truth.
>
> No, really.
Yes, really.
> In truth you seem to be bent on avoiding the truth when it
> is put before you.
It remains my choice to continue an ever closer walk with the truth,
Who is LORD Jesus Christ.
> >> Someday you will lose the
> >> scales from your eyes and see what everyone else sees already.
>
> >You remind me of the blind man who would feign vision by evaluating
> >the vision of the seeing.
>
> Wow, I thought that had dropped out of your macro file; I haven't seen
> it for years now. :-)
>
> >Your dispute is with the Bible and not anything that I have
> >constructed.
>
> And which of us is the one offering Biblical evidence?
Asked and answered already :-)
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease
Father Haskell
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> Bottom:
>
> The manna was edible tasting like wafers made from honey regardless of
> how it looked.
"Manna" was the sweet gummy exudate produced by sapsucking
scale insects.
Bug shit.
> > >Tasting like "wafers made with honey" does indicate that manna was
> > >edible and not a dry resinous plant product:
>
> > Edible, yes--that's the whole point of the story. Not rpp: no evidence
> > either way, only supposition.
>
> Plant resin is not edible.
Hashish and opium are quite edible.
Don Kirkman
>convicted neighbor Don Kirkman wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >convicted neighbor Don Kirkman wrote:
>> >> Show me your reference, and I'll show you mine: ". . . there was on the
>> >> face of the wilderness a fine, flakelike thing, fine as hoarfrost on the
>> >> ground. . . .[i]t is the bread which the Lord has given you." Exodus
>> >> 16:13, 15. "Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance
>> >> like that of bdellium." Numbers 11:7
>> >> Bdellium - "The Greeks gave the name bdellium to a transparent, waxy,
>> >> fragrant gum obtained from a tree in Arabia, Babylonia, India, and
>> >> Media." Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, p. 62
>> >Appearance does not indicate whether edible. Moreover, appearance
>> >like a dry resinous plant product does not mean that it "apparently
>> >was a dry resinous plant product."
>> No, but it indicates it was the size of a bit of frost or a small seed
The first "it" = the Biblical text
>> (coriander is not a large seed - you could look at what's in your pantry
>> if you're not convinced).
>Bottom:
>Plant resin is not edible.
I don't recall anybody arguing that it is, although it may be. I'm no
expert about that, and I don't think you are either.
>> >Dry resinous plant products would not be food nor would they be
>> >expected to spoil.
>> Supposition again, since neither of us knows exactly what manna was (in
>> fact the name apparently means something like "What is it?" in Hebrew).
>Something that tastes like wafers made from honey and feeds folks for
>40 years is simply food.
Too bad you weren't out there in the desert with Moses so you could
'splain it to 'um. And if you say it's simply food why not just talk
about food instead of the texture and taste and color and whatever else
and fussing about what it was exactly? After all, even the people who
saw it, gathered it, and ate it apparently didn't know what it was.
>> >You have already shown that the Bible does not describe manna to be a
>> >dry resinous plant product but rather that it looked like bdellium, a
>> >plant resin.
>> The two are not contradictory but complementary.
>They are simply not equivalent.
Odd as it may be, things that are contradictory or complementary are
almost never equivalent. YMMV.
>> It is not literal bread but an
>> edible substance (remember that even in English "bread" and "meat" are
>> regularly used metaphorically: "Give us this day our daily bread" and
>> Jesus' "I have meat to eat you know not of").
>Manna is simply bread from heaven.
Wonder Bread or Roman Meal? You have a bad habit of making metaphors
into literalistic interpretations, and that corrupts what you want to
prove as well as what others have written.
>Folks have simply to note that the Bible excluding the editorially
>added verse Exodus 16:36 leaves omer unspecified about whether it was
>a unit measure of weight or volume. However, those with discerning
>hearts know from understanding what is written in Exodus 16 that omer
>is indeed a unit measure of weight.
And those who have learned from their shul and from their Rabbis and
their priests and their ministers and their University professors know
that it is a dry measure of about 3/4 gallon. And you may recall that
rabbis and others have posted lots of messages pointing that out to you
in the past few years.
>> >> Irrelevant because you ignore the textual description of manna as a
>> >> fine, frost-like substance
>> >Things that are described as "fine, frost-like substance" would be
>> >expected to be measured by weight rather than volume, where settling
>> >would be understandably an issue.
>> You bring in a lot of suppositions to support this idea, but no proof.
>GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to prove.
You would serve yourself and God better if you wedded your intent to
inform to some correct information and interpretation.
>> >There are numerous examples of things that can be either baked or
>> >boiled though directly edible.
>> >(1) Apples
>> >(2) Tomatoes
>> >(3) Breadfruit
>> >(4) Bananas
>> >(5) Cherries
>> And which of these fruits is in any way similar to a dry mealy
>> substance?
>The edible insides of breadfruit.
So naming the other fruits was an error, eh?
"breadfruit - a large round seedless or seeded fruit with a texture like
bread; eaten boiled or baked or roasted or ground into flour; the
roasted seeds resemble chestnuts"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/breadfruit
Apparently the texture is like (modern?) bread, not dry and mealy. And
it seems to be prepared before it is eaten, contrary to your assertion
that it is directly edible.
>> The ark hadn't been built yet, so the manna had to be preserved until it
>> was.
>You are arguing with yourself here.
That would be a neat trick--this is the first time I've mentioned the
ark not yet existing at the time of the Exodus.
>> >There is only one verse that describes omer to be a measure of volume
>> >and this is appended to Exodus 16 in parentheses making it clear that
>> >it should not be considered part of the original text:
>> >33 So Moses said to Aaron, "Take a jar and put an omer of manna in it.
>> >Then place it before the LORD to be kept for the generations to
>> >come."
>> >34 As the LORD commanded Moses, Aaron put the manna in front of the
>> >Testimony, that it might be kept. 35 The Israelites ate manna forty
>> >years, until they came to a land that was settled; they ate manna
>> >until they reached the border of Canaan.
>> >36 (An omer is one tenth of an ephah.)
>> I seem to remember pointing this out to you some time ago. The point is
>> that the Hebrews used an omer and their other measures daily and didn't
>> need to define them. The added definition obviously was inserted later
>> for people who didn't know what an omer was.
>You are guessing that the motivation behind the insertion of this
>verse was innocent.
And you have apparently decided to argue with me, deciding that based on
your vast knowledge of the Scripture it must not have been innocent.
>It remains possible that this insertion was an act of deception.
And the poor deluded Hebrews/Jews who decided what should be in the
Bible let a malicious bit of editorial information stay in?
>> >> >> >> "Forty" is one of many round numbers in ancient semitic languages; it
>> >> >> >> more likely means "a long time" than a strict 40 years.
>> >> >> >Without the LORD, your guesses are meaningless (Ecclesiastes). It is
>> >> >> >written that Moses was 80 years old at the start of the desert trek
>> >> >> >and 120 years old at its conclusion.
>> Without knowledge of the culture of that time and place your entire line
>> of conjecture is meaningless.
>Describing what is written in the Bible is not conjecture.
Your conjectures are not written in the Bible; the argument here is
about what the written text means, and you seldom support your ideas
from the text.
>Bottom line:
Well, apparently not. :-)
>> >> >> And one would expect that an editor, somewhere along the line, would
>> >> >> make sure that the figures match, right?
>> >One expecting an editor to come along "somewhere along the line" to
>> >change the figures in the Bible would be one, like you, without a
>> >heart made discerning by the Holy Spirit.
>> You overlook that the "editor" was there in time to write it into the
>> Hebrew text of Exodus; you're badly mistaken if you think it was done by
>> some medieval monk. The "editor" was one of the authors of the Bible.
>> The Biblical text is full of obvious editorial insertions and changes
>> from some earlier version.
>What you imagine to be obvious is not reality.
It seems to pass for a well supported conclusion among many who know
more about these things than either you or I.
>> "Received . . . on one occasion" is not the same as "Received . . . on
>> only one occasion."
>It is the same as "Not received regularly."
And who among us said "received regularly"?
>> , but here are some selections from one Bible commentary
>> on the Exodus 16 story:
>> "Quails, or partridges, . . . in spring [. . .] move northward in great
>> numbers, flying low, and when they drop exhausted to the ground can be
>> easily caught. . . they now provided meat for the hungry wanderers."
>> "In the morning they found the manna. They had never seen it before and
>> they said, 'What is it?'" "Just what [manna] was we do not know. The
>> sweet juice of the Tarfa tree . . . has been suggested. . . . it forms
>> 'small round white grains, which partly adhere to the twigs of the
>> trees, and partly drop to the ground. In the early morning it is of the
>> consistency of wax, but the sun's rays soon melt it.'
>> [The Abingdon Bible Commentary, p. 266]
>It would be your choice to rely on extrabiblical commentaries for
>understanding of Scripture while my choice is:
I'm sorry, but I don't know of any infrabiblical commentaries; do you? I
suppose not, since I see no evidence you're using any commentaries at
all.
You could try this excerpt, though; it's certifiably evangelical:
[Begin]
i. The quails mentioned here "migrate regularly between south Europe and
Arabia across the Sinai Peninsula. They are small, bullet-headed birds,
with a strong but low flight, usually roosting on the ground or in the
low bushes at nightfall. When exhausted, they would be unable to . . .
take off again. The birds are good eating, and were a favorite delicacy
of the Egyptians." (Cole)
[http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/0216.htm]
>Solus Scriptura cum Spiritus Sancti.
I'm correcting your Latin: Sola Scriptura cum Spiritus Sancti
Scriptura is the noun, so the adjective "solus -a -um" must agree with
it in case, gender, and number.
Before you decide to argue about it, Spiritus is the second noun, but
Sancti is not an adjective but a noun so it takes the genitive, "the
Spirit of Holiness."
"Sola Scriptura" is the ancient doctrine that the Scriptural teachings
are the central authority of Christianity, to which ecclesiastic and
hierarchic teachings are subservient. This doctrine became the linchpin
for the Protestant Reformation, and remains strong in that tradition.
"Sola Scriptura" is one of five key tenets of early Christianity, each
of them a two-word phrase.
Now, where did you find the ". . . cum Spiritus Sancti"? Google
apparently can't find it linked to "Sola Scriptura" though it's often
related to other things done "with the Holy Spirit". Do you have an
extrabiblical source for it?
>> >Actually all human bodies are not alike so that one optimal daily
>> >amount for all is unexpected.
>> Not only unexpected but there is no reason to believe it's even true.
>... unless inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it.
Which the Holy Spirit would never do, not even in this instance. It
would be nice to have some physical evidence supporting your assertion
that there is in fact only one optimal diet amount for all humans.
>> >> That sort of reverses the scientific method of fact finding.
>> >The scientific method is not about fact finding but hypothesis
>> >testing.
>> And what is the final result of testing hypotheses?
>To advance new theories in order to make useful predictions.
You seem to want to skip over the stage of observing the objective
evidence on which the hypothesis is based; a successful hypothesis tends
to confirm that the observation is reliable, and *therefore* can lead to
predictions and theories, which can lead to additional observations and
new hypotheses. You generally skim over the evidence and observation
stage in your religious musings as well.
>> >> >Your fanciful descriptions of manna, omer, 40 years, and availability
>> >> >of quail came from your imagination and not from either logic or
>> >> >evidence.
>> >> No, really.
>> >And when you don't like what you find, your imagination apparently
>> >takes over.
>> No, I have enough training in gathering and analyzing evidence that I
>> can handle that dispassionately.
>That is not what I discern.
But as we all know your discerner has been broken for a long time. :-)
>> >It would be your choice to trust extrabiblical sources and your own
>> >imagination.
>> So which of us is the one citing all the Biblical evidence? :-)
>See above for the answer.
>Hint: You have been citing extrabiblical commentaries.
Fact: and you have been using none, nor any other sources; you might as
well be writing fiction.
>> >You remind me of the blind man who would feign vision by evaluating
>> >the vision of the seeing.
>> Wow, I thought that had dropped out of your macro file; I haven't seen
>> it for years now. :-)
>> >Your dispute is with the Bible and not anything that I have
>> >constructed.
Oh, I can't dispute a macro, but I can certainly dispute an unsupported
assertion of what the Biblical text means. I was just highlighting the
reappearance of that poor old crippled analogy. It should have been
allowed to remain retired.
>> And which of us is the one offering Biblical evidence?
>Asked and answered already :-)
I see considerably more citations and sources in my writing than in
yours.
--
Don Kirkman
percy
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> I don't recall anybody arguing that it is, although it may be. I'm no
> expert about that, and I don't think you are either.
What you have written is meaningless.
> Too bad you weren't out there in the desert with Moses so you could
> 'splain it to 'um. And if you say it's simply food why not just talk
> about food instead of the texture and taste and color and whatever else
> and fussing about what it was exactly? After all, even the people who
> saw it, gathered it, and ate it apparently didn't know what it was.
They knew it simply as food.
> Odd as it may be, things that are contradictory or complementary are
> almost never equivalent. YMMV.
What you have written remains meaningless.
> Wonder Bread or Roman Meal? You have a bad habit of making metaphors
> into literalistic interpretations, and that corrupts what you want to
> prove as well as what others have written.
Sarcasm noted.
GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to prove.
> And those who have learned from their shul and from their Rabbis and
> their priests and their ministers and their University professors know
> that it is a dry measure of about 3/4 gallon. And you may recall that
> rabbis and others have posted lots of messages pointing that out to you
> in the past few years.
Those with hearts made discerning by the Holy Spirit rely only on HIS
Word for understanding.
Sola Scriptura cum Spiritus Sancti.
> You would serve yourself and God better if you wedded your intent to
> inform to some correct information and interpretation.
Wiser to do GOD's will than the will of others.
> So naming the other fruits was an error, eh?
It was GOD's command to name the fruits and all other things from the
very beginning :-)
> "breadfruit - a large round seedless or seeded fruit with a texture like
> bread; eaten boiled or baked or roasted or ground into flour; the
> roasted seeds resemble chestnuts"
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/breadfruit
>
> Apparently the texture is like (modern?) bread, not dry and mealy. And
> it seems to be prepared before it is eaten, contrary to your assertion
> that it is directly edible.
It can be directly eaten because it is a fruit.
> That would be a neat trick--this is the first time I've mentioned the
> ark not yet existing at the time of the Exodus.
You are full of tricks for it is a trickster that guides you.
> And the poor deluded Hebrews/Jews who decided what should be in the
> Bible let a malicious bit of editorial information stay in?
It was GOD Who allows deception though HE does not deceive.
> Your conjectures are not written in the Bible; the argument here is
> about what the written text means, and you seldom support your ideas
> from the text.
Did not conjecture.
> Well, apparently not. :-)
Glad you agree :-)
> It seems to pass for a well supported conclusion among many who know
> more about these things than either you or I.
It should be obvious to the most casual observer :-)
> And who among us said "received regularly"?
Those who wish to believe that we need more than an omer of manna
daily to survive.
> I'm sorry, but I don't know of any infrabiblical commentaries; do you?
There a intrabiblical commentaries.
For example, disciple John, in the Holy Spirit, had written that he
supposed that if everything that Jesus did had been written down that
there would not be enough room in this world for all the books that
would have been written.
> I
> suppose not, since I see no evidence you're using any commentaries at
> all.
See above.
> You could try this excerpt, though; it's certifiably evangelical:
>
> [Begin]
> i. The quails mentioned here "migrate regularly between south Europe and
> Arabia across the Sinai Peninsula. They are small, bullet-headed birds,
> with a strong but low flight, usually roosting on the ground or in the
> low bushes at nightfall. When exhausted, they would be unable to . . .
> take off again. The birds are good eating, and were a favorite delicacy
> of the Egyptians." (Cole)
> [http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/0216.htm]
Meaningless.
> I'm correcting your Latin: Sola Scriptura cum Spiritus Sancti
>
> Scriptura is the noun, so the adjective "solus -a -um" must agree with
> it in case, gender, and number.
>
> Before you decide to argue about it, Spiritus is the second noun, but
> Sancti is not an adjective but a noun so it takes the genitive, "the
> Spirit of Holiness."
>
> "Sola Scriptura" is the ancient doctrine that the Scriptural teachings
> are the central authority of Christianity, to which ecclesiastic and
> hierarchic teachings are subservient. This doctrine became the linchpin
> for the Protestant Reformation, and remains strong in that tradition.
>
> "Sola Scriptura" is one of five key tenets of early Christianity, each
> of them a two-word phrase.
>
> Now, where did you find the ". . . cum Spiritus Sancti"? Google
> apparently can't find it linked to "Sola Scriptura" though it's often
> related to other things done "with the Holy Spirit". Do you have an
> extrabiblical source for it?
The Holy Spirit is extrabiblical, HE is GOD, and HE continues to guide
me in everything I say, do, and write.
> Which the Holy Spirit would never do, not even in this instance. It
> would be nice to have some physical evidence supporting your assertion
> that there is in fact only one optimal diet amount for all humans.
The 2PD-OMER Approach has allowed more that 625,550 people achieve
sustained weight loss for a period of more than 5 years.
This evidence has allowed the offering of an unprecedented million-
dollar guarantee whose details have been freely given and discussed
here in sci.med.cardiology as archived by Google:
.
> You seem to want to skip over the stage of observing the objective
> evidence on which the hypothesis is based; a successful hypothesis tends
> to confirm that the observation is reliable, and *therefore* can lead to
> predictions and theories, which can lead to additional observations and
> new hypotheses. You generally skim over the evidence and observation
> stage in your religious musings as well.
The existence of a hypothesis presupposes observations.
It is evidence that tests a hypothesis.
A hypothesis that survives testing becomes a theory that would then
endure more rigorous testing by others to remain a viable theory.
> But as we all know your discerner has been broken for a long time. :-)
You still remind me of the blind man who would feign vision by
pretending to evaluate the vision of the seeing :-)
> Fact: and you have been using none, nor any other sources; you might as
> well be writing fiction.
It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.
> Oh, I can't dispute a macro, but I can certainly dispute an unsupported
> assertion of what the Biblical text means. I was just highlighting the
> reappearance of that poor old crippled analogy. It should have been
> allowed to remain retired.
The truth does not retire :-)
> I see considerably more citations and sources in my writing than in
> yours.
I prefer the truth.
V
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> "... one omer for each person in your tent." -- Moses instructing the
> 12 tribes of Israel on the amount of food they are to eat on a daily
> basis as per the prescription from LORD Almighty GOD (Exodus 16:16).
>
> of food for 40 years, their feet did not swell (no cardiovascular
> disease) and there clothes did not wear out (they stayed lean and
> trim). Moreover, they came out of the desert physically able to
> defeat all their enemies in combat.
>
> Only our Creator could possibly have known that an omer is the optimal
> daily amount of food per HIS design of our bodies... that there is one
> optimal daily amount for all.
>
> Meanwhile, satan is very upset about this revelation.
>
> Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement at how he struggles with all
> the lies he could possible muster to continue to deceive folks:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/73da7f2259cd74f8?
>
>
>
> Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
>
> Andrew <><
> --
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
Healthy foods, organics, even non organic fruit and vegetables are so
expensive. Even if you can afford the fruits and vegetable much of it
is out of sight when it comes to affordability.
I bought some organic peaches the other day at Krogers. They were on
sale for $2 a pound, so I bought $4 worth. When I got home and cut
into them they were mottled brown inside had to trash them all...what
a waste. When I lived in L.A. I could go to the Santa Monica or
Hollywood farmers market and get some decent peaches (with the fuzz on
them) But even then the costs were crazy, sometimes running as high as
$2 a peach.
Some local produce costs:
one large apple $1.58
one large orange .96 cents
one large pear $2.12
a bag of cherries $14.30
an organic yam $5.75
one fig .94 cents
a pint of blueberries $6
Besides unaffordable high prices, our food is all f...'d up and
getting worse every day that goes by.
It is factory made, genetically engineered poison.
The fruits and vegetables taste like rubber and seem to rot before
they ripen.
The fruits from Chile are really scary to eat...might as well say they
were made in some factory in China!
When I was a kid growing up in L.A. we could pick apricots from a tree
in the alley and they had fabulous flavor even when somewhat green.
What do you get now with apricots...tasteless rubber for $3 a pound.
The peaches have lost their fuzz since they are picked green, buffed
and waxed with poisons and anti fungals.
You can't wash it off either.
Soak a buffed peach in water and you will get a rainbow oil slick on
the surface of the water composed of poison...no matter how many times
you rinse it.
Sure you can peel it to get at the poisonous rubber that is on the
inside of the peach.
They not only poison our foods from the outside, they poison them from
the inside out as well.
Most of what people eats comes from factories and has its start in the
scientist's test tubes.
Scientists like to brag about 'nature identical' food creations from
the lab.
It is only nature identical in their minds.
I've tested some of these and know they are not nature identical in
practice, as my body reacts differently to them. This is what sparked
my study of this whole conversation some years ago...nature identical.
These artificial foods create a sensation addiction within humans as
well as animals that get fed this crap.
It is a losing battle of eating poison devoid of nutrition to satisfy
our basic needs for life.
No matter how much of it we eat, it is bankrupt nutrition and we are
not able to stop or ever get honest nutrition.
It is like people drinking sea water to try and satisfy thirst.
Futile
Fat is a real epidemic...just look around you as people age.
Same with salt produced illnesses arthritis, kidney failure, high
blood sugar, diabetes, heart problems, cancers...all fueled by our
diet.
Sure some of these are from nature, but man does not need to help
nature along with promoting such sickness.
In addition, we are bombarded with radio waves, magnetic fields and
other unhealthy man made creations.
If you wonder why the corn tastes so tough nowadays, it is being
genetically modified to kill insects that eat it.
Farm raised salmon and other farm raised fish are loaded with poisons
and PCBs.
You would think farm raised fish would be clean and healthy but it is
not.
It is really a tough life 'just finding' some decent food to eat
nowadays unless you happen to live in a town with a good natural
grocer and have lots of $$.
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2
Archie Leach
>GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to prove.
Well, if that's the case, then why do you put "PROOF OF LORD GOD
ALMIGHTY...." in every subject header?????
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > "... one omer for each person in your tent." -- Moses instructing the
> > 12 tribes of Israel on the amount of food they are to eat on a daily
> > basis as per the prescription from LORD Almighty GOD (Exodus 16:16).
> >
> > It is written that after eating this optimal daily amount (one omer)
> > of food for 40 years, their feet did not swell (no cardiovascular
> > disease) and there clothes did not wear out (they stayed lean and
> > trim). Moreover, they came out of the desert physically able to
> > defeat all their enemies in combat.
> >
> > Only our Creator could possibly have known that an omer is the optimal
> > daily amount of food per HIS design of our bodies... that there is one
> > optimal daily amount for all.
> >
> > Meanwhile, satan is very upset about this revelation.
> >
> > Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement at how he struggles with all
> > the lies he could possible muster to continue to deceive folks:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/73da7f2259cd74f8?
>
> expensive. Even if you can afford the fruits and vegetable much of it
> is out of sight when it comes to affordability.
Actually, what is healthy for each person is different.
That which does not reduce appetite so that hunger is greater after
eating the food than before eating is healthy.
Such foods would be numbered among a person's favorites, which are
foods that can be eaten daily with becoming "sick of it."
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
Don Kirkman
>What you have written is meaningless.
>They knew it simply as food.
>What you have written remains meaningless.
>Sarcasm noted.
>GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to prove.
>Those with hearts made discerning by the Holy Spirit rely only on HIS
>Word for understanding.
>Sola Scriptura cum Spiritus Sancti.
>Wiser to do GOD's will than the will of others.
>It was GOD's command to name the fruits and all other things from the
>very beginning :-)
>It can be directly eaten because it is a fruit.
>You are full of tricks for it is a trickster that guides you.
>It was GOD Who allows deception though HE does not deceive.
>Did not conjecture.
>Glad you agree :-)
>It should be obvious to the most casual observer :-)
>Those who wish to believe that we need more than an omer of manna
>daily to survive.
>There a intrabiblical commentaries.
>See above.
>Meaningless.
>The Holy Spirit is extrabiblical, HE is GOD, and HE continues to guide
>me in everything I say, do, and write.
>The 2PD-OMER Approach has allowed more that 625,550 people achieve
>sustained weight loss for a period of more than 5 years.
>This evidence has allowed the offering of an unprecedented million-
>dollar guarantee whose details have been freely given and discussed
>here in sci.med.cardiology as archived by Google:
>http://TruthRUS.org/Guarantee
>The existence of a hypothesis presupposes observations.
>It is evidence that tests a hypothesis.
>A hypothesis that survives testing becomes a theory that would then
>endure more rigorous testing by others to remain a viable theory.
>You still remind me of the blind man who would feign vision by
>pretending to evaluate the vision of the seeing :-)
>It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.
>The truth does not retire :-)
>I prefer the truth.
A little light on facts, relevance, and logic, but an entertaining read
nevertheless. But apparently I could have saved a bit of time by not
bothering to write my part of the dialog.
No, really!
--
Don Kirkman
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
>
> A little light on facts, relevance, and logic
Without the LORD, your opinion is meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
> , but an entertaining read
> nevertheless. But apparently I could have saved a bit of time by not
> bothering to write my part of the dialog.
And yet, here we are with your contribution.
Matthew 7:1-2 comes to mind here.
> No, really!
Yes, really :-)
You continue to remind me of our dearly departed Bob (No, seriously)
Pastorio:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Bob
Mark T
GIVE JESUS A DEMOTION!
######################################################
ROBERT FUNK'S 21 THESIS
From Robert W. Funk "Honest To Jesus: Jesus for a New Millenium" (Hodder &
Stoughton: 1996) pp 300 - 314
....
6. Jesus himself is not the proper object of faith.
... Jesus called on his followers to trust the Father, to believe in God's
domain or reign. the poroper object of faith inspired nby Jesus is to trust
what Jesus trusted. For that reasonm, I am not primarily intyerested in
affirmations about Jesus but in the truths that inspired and informed Jesus.
... Jesus pointed to God's domain, something he did not create, something he
did not control. ... ionstead of looking to see what he saw, his devoted
disciples tended to stare at the pointing finger. Jesus himself should not
be, must not be, the object of faith. That would be to repeat the idolatry
of the first believers.
7. In articulating the vision of Jesus, we should take care to express our
interpretations in the same register as he employed in his parables and
aphorisms.
.... Jesus quite deliberately articulated an open-ended, nonexplicit vision
in his parables and aphorisms. He did not prescribe behaviour or endorse
specific religious practices. ... OPur interpretations of parables should be
more parables - polyvalent, enigmatic, homorous, and nonprtescriptive. Yet
we are invited by his example to be equally bold and innovatiove. ...We need
not and should not place blind faith in what Jesus trusted. ... nothing is
protected, nothing is off limits.
....
8. Give Jesus a demotion.
... He asked for it, he deserves it, we owe him no less. As divine Son of
God, coeternal with the Father, pending cosmic judge seated at God's right
hand, his is insulated and isolated from his persona as the humble gallilean
sage. ... With his new status, her will no longer be merely its mythical
icon, embedded in the myth of the descending / ascending, dying / rising
lord of the pagan mystery cults, but one substance with us all. We might
begin by turning the icon back into an iconoclast. ...
9. We need to cast Jesus in a new drama, assign him a role in a story with a
different plot.
The creedal plot in which Jesus has been cast is the myth of the external
redeemer. In that story, the protagonist leaves a heavenly abode, enters
human space, performs a redemptive function, and returns to the heavens.
The movement is from and to an alien space. This plot is the essence of the
Christ hymn in the second chapter of Phillippians, the prologue to the
Gospel of John ... It is also the plot of ... Superman ... The Lone Ranger
... Star Trek ... Wonder Woman ... Myths in this category tend toi
tranquilize, to function as escapist fare. ... There is another type of hero
who belongs to a different story. The hero with a thousand faces, according
to Joseph Campbell, begins by leaving home. he or she undergoes trials and
tribulations in an alien space but mnanages a victory over evil powers,
usually assited by helpers. the hero then returns home and reintegrated
into society, now able to bestow boons on others. We might dub this kind of
story the myth of the internal redeemer. ... If [Jesus] arrived via a
miraculous birth, knew himself to be the messiah and son of God, and had
foreknowledge that his death would be reversed in a few days, he is not
qualified to function as my redeemer. I prefer a saviour who understands my
predicament - my double fettering that anchors mortals in both heaven and
earth, as Franz Kafka put it - and is prepared to assist me in grappling
with my insatiable longing for heaven while chained to earth and mortality.
... There is the plot of the prodigal. in that story one can come home only
by leaving home. The prodigal reflects Israel's founding myth - the exodus
and quest for the promised land. It also echoes Israel's exile and return.
Departure and arrival, leave-taking and homecoming, are linked in
inseparable tandem. ... enlist the arts ... in the search for new and
revised myths ... Prometheus and Homer's Illiad and Odyssey ... King Arthur
and the knights of the round table .. "Hansel and Gretal" ... J R R Tolkien
... Lord of the Rings .. The Return of The Jedi ...
10. We need to reconceive the vocation of Jesus as the Christ.
.... Jesus told his parables as though he were hearing them. ... To what
divine manifesto did he succumb? By what vision was he both captivated and
liberated? That is the interesting question. That is the determinig issue.
As external redeemer, in contrast to an internal savioour, Jesus supplies
our every need, fulfils all our fantasies. A steady diet of conception
without sex, a salvific blood donour, and perpetual resuscitation goes
together with fast food, soft ice cream, and the lottery. It's like a trip
to macDonald's, where the menu is fixed, everything is cheap, and patience
is not required. Such a diet has made the pious American fawning, flabby,
and flatulent. Americans often don't want religion unless it is handed to
them on a platter, effort free, sacrifice-free, but not fat free. The
sanctimonious need above all to go on a theological diet to shed the
cumulative biliousness that accompanies self-satrisfaction. The historic
Jesus is a reality anchor in a sea of unrealistic and potentially demonic
dreams. ...
....
14. Jesus advocated an unbrokered relationship to God.
Jesus insisted that everyone has immediate and particular access to God.
... The inauguration of a priesthood and clergy therefore appears to be
inimical to Jesus' wishes. ... the canonical gospels endeavour to
authenticate the leadership of the church then in power. The authentic
words of Jesus reject the notion of priveleged position among his followers:
the first will be last and the last first; those who aspire to be leaders
should become slaves of all.
...
NICEA REVISTED
... It is probably time to substitute right behaviour - orthopraxis - for
right doctrine - orthodoxy. The mark of a Christian ought to be not what
one believes but how one acts.
17. We will have to abandon the doctrine of the blood atonement.
... Jesus never expressed the view that God was holding humanity hostage
until someone paid the bill. ...
...
21. Declare the New Testament a highly uneven and biased record of various
early attempts to invent Christianity.
Reopen the question of what documents belong among the founding witnesses.
In a new New Testament, including dissenting points of view. Eliminate less
deserving parts. In any case, the authority of an iconic Bible is gone
forever. It cannot be restored. ....
##########################################################
The Apostles' Creed ...
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
**********************************************
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.
It scarcely requires notice that this creed calls on the believer to affirm
nothing about the historical Jesus other than his virgin birth at the
beginning of his life abnd his suffering, execution, and resurrection at the
end. It is a creed without a centre. (The dotted line represents the
missing centre.)
Further, Jesus plays a passive role in the events mentioned: thgings happen
or are done to him, buty nbothing he does depends on his own initiative or
resolution. In grammatical terms, Jesus is the recipient of the action; he
is never the agent. As a savior, he is only a pawn in the divine plan. ...
believers only have to believe; they are not required to modify their
behavior in any other repsect. Like Jesus, they too are passive. ... The
Christ of this Christian confession of faith has all but eliminated the
Jesus of history. ... For hellenized Christians, Jesus the iconoclast became
Christ the icon.
from Robert W. Funk "Honest To Jesus" (Hodder & Stoughton: 1996) p. 43- 44
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
My Blog - MARK T - my thoughts on Christianity/ song covers & pics & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
FUNDY FUNHOUSE -
http://fundamentalistfunhouse.blogspot.com/
- a resource on the current Fundamentalist Dark Age and Christian
fundamentalism.
My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
>
> ... whatever .....
Simply the truth, Who is LORD Jesus Christ...
... KING of kings and LORD of lords.
> GIVE JESUS A DEMOTION!
The brethren of LORD Jesus Christ work for HIM and not the other way
around.
This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict
you:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
The brethren of LORD Jesus Christ are neither perfect nor more
special...
... we are simply forgiven by GOD:
http://www.interviewwithgod.com/forgiven/
May you wisely choose to be forgiven too by publicly declaring with
your mouth that "Jesus is LORD:"
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/TheWay
Ferd Farkel
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
>
> The brethren of LORD Jesus Christ work for HIM and not the other way
> around.
Nepotism.
Art Deco
Oops. Isn't St. Chung overdue for another dooooooooooooom prediction?
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth
COOSN-266-06-39716
John "C"
"Art Deco" <er...@caballista.org> wrote in message
news:280920072207522161%er...@caballista.org...
> Archie Leach <arc...@antispam.ham> wrote:
>
> >"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heart...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> >
> >>GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to prove.
> >
> >Well, if that's the case, then why do you put "PROOF OF LORD GOD
> >ALMIGHTY...." in every subject header?????
>
> Oops. Isn't St. Chung overdue for another dooooooooooooom prediction?
Oops. Isn't Pedo Deco overdue for another Pederast conviction?
Number One
Father Haskell
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> 32 ounces is 2 pounds.
What TYPE of 32 ounces?
International avoirdupois, international troy, apothecary's,
Maria Theresa's, Roman uncias, metric, or fluid ounces?
And furthermore, how many scruples?
Archie Leach
>Archie Leach <arc...@antispam.ham> wrote:
>
>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heart...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
>>
>>>GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to prove.
>>
>>Well, if that's the case, then why do you put "PROOF OF LORD GOD
>>ALMIGHTY...." in every subject header?????
>
>Oops. Isn't St. Chung overdue for another dooooooooooooom prediction?
Well, maybe, or maybe not, but in any case, you are not understanding
Chung's message.
Don't you see? His job is neither to prophesize nor predict nor
prove, even if 88% of his postings to sci.med.cardiology contain in
the subject header "PROOF...:.
Chung's purpose is merely to -INFORM-.
*SNARF*
Art Deco
By brow-beating people with repetitive canned lines, by running away
from relevant questions, and by labeling people who dare to call him
out "demons". He also obsessively keeps a list of his "enemies" on one
of his kookshites. How informative.
>
>
>
>
>*SNARF*
St. Chung still has no clue what the word means.