A number of philosophers argue that consciousness cannot in principle be explained by materialist/physicalist methods. They believe that subjectivity is not amenable to a physicalist explanation.
I self-identify as a Christian materialist, which means that while I believe spirits exist (God, angels, and resurrected spirit beings), I do not believe in immortal souls nor do I think the human sphere contains a "mental" or spiritual component. In other words, I reject the existence of an immortal soul or a res cogitans as Rene Descartes famously expressed matters. It seems that humans are purely physical: we do not have non-material souls or spirits.
Scientific work is just beginning (in earnest) on questions pertaining to consciousness and subjectivity. The neuroscientist Antonio Damasio has written books that possibly attempt to integrate free will and a physicalist account of the self. He and Hanna Damasio (along with many others) have extensively studied the case of Phineas Gage, and what it might tell us about mentality. See Descartes' Error by Antonio Damasio. There's also a book that I'll start reading soon entitled The Neuroscience of Freedom and Creativity: Our Predictive Brain written by Joaquin M. Fuster (Cambridge Press). Joel B. Green has also published works that partly analyze the role of brain activity in our mental life. Admittedly though, much work needs to be done in this area. But I would not agree that science lacks the resources in principle to explain memory (for instance) or pain in physicalist terms, since joint pain could be explained by the overabundance of uric acid or the wearing away of cartilage.
Long-term memory can be explained by the hippocampus or the fight/flight response could be explained by the amygdala. As for free will, Nancey Murphy addresses that question. She demonstrates the possibility that free will could exist even though we might be purely material beings. Physicalists have worked on qualia too, with no definitive result. It's still an open question just what qualia are. Almost every writer that I've read in the philosophy of mind accepts the existence of qualia. However, there's no unanimous consensus respecting how we experience "raw feels" or subjective sensations. Does dualism fully address this question? Not to my knowledge. Dualism offers suggestions for how mentality works, just like Christian physicalism does. Neither approach definitively explains consciousness.
47 comments:
Free will is very subjective and dictated by environment conditions. We are fully integrated into our surrounding environment. Food is one of the most significant parts of that environment along with nurture in general. Humanity requires sensory input to build experience on which to weight decision.
My views of free will have changed over the years, but I'm still convinced that we objectively have it. Free will is just hard to explain if we're purely material, without souls. But not even an immaterial soul guarantees free will. Furthermore, like you say, it's hard to deny that environment, diet, sensory stimuli, and other factors shape or condition our choices.
On the other hand, if we do not have free choice, then it's hard to explain moral accountability. If I don't freely make my own choices somehow, then it doesn't seem fair to judge me for my decisions. If I'm simply a product of my environment, then my future is completely shaped/conditioned/determined by the enviroment that surrounds me. Yet the Bible seems to presuppose free will, and the early church fathers consistently advocate free will or free choice. I also like how Aquinas later finesses human freedom.
See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2006/03/justin-martyr-and-free-will.html for Justin Martyr's comments on free will.
Romans 7:15 sums up the predicament of "free will".
Agreed, but see also Romans 7:20, 24-25. If we're not making free choices, then how can we be held accountable for our conduct? But see Romans 14:12.
Paul's words there in chapter 7 nicely some up the problem we face. No one is exempt from sin, as he says he is captive to sins law. But he shows that all of us have the ability to not practice sin, the sin we are not free to control is Adamic sin. So we can choose not to practice sin. And indeed many choose not to, conversely many choose to. Being led astray by their hearts in doing so. We are free to worship God or not.
The scriptures do mention that we have a spirit, which it seems, even if not a mental substance, or something that contains the mind, is real. For God blew into Adam's nostrils the breath of life, and when we die our spirit returns to God. What exactly is your view on that?
Also, if all we are is a physical object, would we be the same person in the reusrrection, or would it be a copy of us, not us. (If God were to create another me right now, then there would only be one me and another person very like me, but I would only be the original.) So, If I cease to exist, can I be recreated, or does part of me have to endure inorder to be resurrected?
It is something that weighs heavily on my mind.
Sin and how to gauge it. (Rev 11:18 Pro 23:20)
Watching documentaries like "Cowspiracy", I am no longer ignorant of things that I have been doing that go against good ethics and the principle of the ten commandments (number 3 - you shall not misrepresent the character of Jehovah, number 8 - you shall not steal). (James 4:17 1 Tim 6:7,8). So I do what I can to remedy this. There is much that is sin that goes ignored but we need to go looking for the understanding of it - to recognize it (things auctioned through a third party & therefore outside our conscious understanding), for what it is. I was amazed that once I really started looking how many answers are in the collective memory (not just from the past but new findings in this high energy era) that go ignored.
Take the example of the telomere which I was always told was the immovable genetic clock that counted down aging and death. The evidence is now considerable that it can be lengthened again through correct diet & other lifestyle factors.
Just an example of what plant elements can do (I still do not recommend large amounts of coffee though):-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27281805
My point is that there are many more choices to make, but we can only make them if our mind is in a fit state to recognize that a decision needs to be taken. We can only work with our sensory input. Even when one within a collective recognizes and transmits an appropriate solution it takes a group from the collective to validate and endorse the message (a critical mass) before it is accepted by those who do not yes have the required awareness.
So I suppose the question is - What do the hard facts really show us, what sin we can remedy & what can we not? Can we to some extent remedy another's sin by transmitting an appropriate solution.
There is a point where science is left behind as demonstrated by 1 Corinthians 3:6.
But if God makes it grow it is out of our hands - is this something then apart from free will?
Philip: that is why I say, though the Bible never uses the exact words "free will," it evidently presupposes freedom. The Israelites were told to choose life and death; or we read in Joshua, "choose for yourselves today whom you will serve . . ." (24:15-NIV)
So we decided whether to serve Jehovah or not. Augustine of Hippo said: posse non peccare ("able not to sin"). Yes, we have the power to avoid the practice of sin. See Heb. 10:26-27; 1 John 3:6-9.
Sean, Eccl. 12:7 (the spirit returns to God) has to be read within the context of Eccl. 3:19-22. Man and beast have the same spirit (ruah), and the same eventuality; as the one dies, so does the other. Eccl. 9:5, 10 also teaches that the dead are conscious of nothing at all--in Sheol, no activity occurs. I believe Psalm 104:30 also has some bearing on this issue. The "spirit" in this context refers to our life force or vital life principle. We are dependent on that spirit for life. Compare Psalm 146:3-4.
As for your second question, all I can say is that we don't fully understand identity. However, why can't our bodies somehow play a significant role in who we are? If God raises you from the dead, and a DNA test is conducted along with a check on your fingerprints and it comes back positive, wouldn't the resurrected person still be you? Furthermore, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jehovah preserves dead ones in his memory. So those who will be raised from the dead are always alive to God. He can bring us back to life in exacting detail. I've also used the example of a computer file transferred from one drive to another to illustrate how the resurrection as Witnesses understand it, does not mean only replicas will be raised in the new system.
Duncan, I want to avoid a drawn out discussion about telomere lengthening, but the jury seems to be out on that one. Besides, there seems to be plenty of latitude for what constitutes a "correct diet." Maybe most of us (I speak form the USA) could watch our caloric intake, carbohydrates and so forth. Nevertheless, the Bible provides latitude for what we eat. My personal approach is balance, moderation, and self-restraint. I'm fighting the battle of the bulge now, but I would humbly submit that Jehovah knows we are made of dust, and he knows when we willingly sin and when we are weak. On the other hand, it's a sin if one knows what's right and he/she doesn't do the right thing (James 4:17).
For the most part, I agree with you about sensory input, but Jehovah's communication with us may not be limited to sensory input. I don't know how divine communication fully works, but we're told that Jehovah teaches us, guides us, and discloses the "profound things" by means of his spirit. Some concepts that we have might also be a priori by means of neural hardwiring. In any event, we're talking about free choice and why we must have some ability to choose A or to refrain from choosing A.
1 Cor. 3:6 must be read in context, like other verses. Does God's causative potency respecting the seeds we plant mean that free will is eviscerated? Jesus taught that certain seeds produce fruit, but others do not. Why is that the case? In the case of the seed that produces fruit, God makes it grow; others, he does not cause to grow. Again, the question is why don't certain seeds yield produce?
"plenty of latitude for what constitutes a correct diet."
You might think that with the way that nutritional evidence is presented to the public. Inserting the element of doubt into that which rocks the comertial status quo.
But take for example the study banded about in the UK media two days ago
http://m.bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010401.full
This was used in the media as a signal implying that it is OK to go back to eating animal fat and butter but the study was more about lowering "bad" cholesterol with statin's. Showing that the outcomes were the same as those who did not lower LDL thus "proving" that it does not matter whether you eat butter or olive oil. This whole
Study and argument was to cover over what is already established fact. They are all just as bad as each other and none should be eaten.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b_o4YBQPKtQ
Lev 3:9.
It is no coincidence that India has the highest occurrence of type 2 diabetes as they also eat the highest amount of dairy fat. It is also no coincidence that Nepalese have the highest occurrence of chateracts which was once thought to be due to high altitude sun exposure but is now known to be caused by endothelial damage in the eye by the large ingestion of yaks milk and butter.
I could go on for pages but let me suggest that you start by reading:-
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Whole-Colin-T-Campbell/dp/1939529840/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1465934823&sr=8-1&keywords=Whole
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/everything-in-moderation-even-heart-disease/
I do appreciate that food is a very emotive subject so I have no expectation of being able to convince you of anything but this is where the digging deeper comes in.
Many answers are out there.
Low carb diets are dangerous. If you mean low refined carbohydrates then we can agree.
I used to fight the bulge as you put it but then moved to WFPB. I now never feel hungry. I eat as much as I want and still dropped over 40lbs. Been a steady weight for over 3 years.
https://share.kaiserpermanente.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/The-Plant-Based-Diet-booklet.pdf
This has reversed many chronic health problems including a couple the doctors thought would be a permanent fixture of my life.
IMO Jehovah concessions as to what we can eat are just that, concessions not recommendations.
The example of Daniel with his vegetables has been vindicated as fact. This kind of diet can visibly reverse many chronic illnesses in less than 10 days.
As for telomeres.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/telomeres-cap-it-all-off-with-diet/
Comes back to the fat issue.
As for 1 Cor 3:6 aren't you mixing illustrations of independent context?
I am not against free will but I recognise so many external parameters that may affect it. How many times do we here that someone changes there mind due to changing circumstance not knowledge.
https://youtu.be/U2VXVRzoIvU
Duncan,
Yes, food is an emotive issue, and I also believe it's a very personal issue--with some exceptions. Paul often talks about the role of conscience and food; I just try to follow scriptural admonitions, listen to what my doctor and sience have to say, then exercise common sense.
Frankly, I eat butter sparingly, my cholesterol is fine (not bad at all), and I know how to improve my HDL/LDLs without using statins. (I currently refuse to take statins, but this is not a criticism of those who do take them.) Now I don't expect to convince anyone either, but read 1 Timothy 4:1-5.
Am I encouraging you or anyone else to eat animal fat? No I'm not. However, I believe diet--whether plant-based or not--is up to one's conscience. It's not a sin to eat a cheeseburger or ham sandwich or chitterlings. My recommendation, for what it's worth, is that one should eat/drink moderately and exercise common sense where food is concerned. A little activity/exercise also does not hurt.
I've studied different plans: some are quite good, but I'm not into recommendations. Let me make that clear. But I like the DASH Diet, the South Beach Diet, and the Meditteranean Diet. There are many ways to have reasonably good health, and make the most of this life. What we really await, however, is the real life.
Duncan,
Before I reply to your second comment about food, let me say that I don't want to sound unappreciative or close-minded. I'm willing to consider different alternatives, but my basic religious beliefs drive how I see the world even if I adjust some beliefs based on scientific evidence and reason.
When I referred to low carb diets, I was thinking of the Atkins Diet/DASH or South Beach Diets. The glycemic index is a useful guide for diabetics, and it appears in the SB Diet book. So I was primarily talking about refined carbs when I made the statement above.
I'm happy that your diet has worked for you. A number of my friends have benefited from eating the way you do. However, I have to wonder if 1 Timothy 4:1-5 is merely a concession. What about Genesis 9:3-4? Obviously, Paul wrote that some choose to eat meat, but others decide to eat vegetables. "Let each man be firmly convinced in his own mind."
I see diet as a matter of conscience. It's unnecessary to dispute food choices and there's hardly any profit gained from dictating how others should eat. I don't think you're issuing prescriptions, but neither do I feel it's sinful to eat meat. That is just my direct feeling about the matter.
It's possible to understand the Danielic account a little differently than you suggest. What was the point of the narrative? Is it truly about which diet is the best?
Please see the article here, which pretty much expresses my view: http://www.consumerreports.org/diet-plans/plant-based-diet/
On 1 Cor 3:6, I believe the account harmonizes with Jesus' illustration about the sower. Paul says he and Apollos are ministers (1 Cor 3:5). Paul sowed by means of preaching, Apollos watered the seeds, but God made the seeds grow.
Vincent's Word Studies:
Planted - watered - gave the increase (ἐφύτευσα - ἐπότισεν - ηὔξανεν)
The first two verbs are in the aorist tense, marking definite acts; the third is in the imperfect, marking the continued gracious agency of God, and possibly the simultaneousness of His work with that of the two preachers. God was giving the increase while we planted and watered. There is a parallel in the simultaneous work of Satan with that of the preachers of the word as indicated by the continuous presents in Matthew 13:19. See note there.
See https://bible.org/seriespage/1-corinthians-3
Use the search term "seed" for this link.
Again, I concur that free choice is a complex issue. No disagreement there.
I am not going attempt to argue diet other than to reiterate "glutenous eaters of flesh" . Which demonstrates there is a limit we should not go beyond and current science places that well bellow 10% of calories. The benefits for site you linked regarding flexitarian are still on a sliding scale so the less meat the more benefit.
Genesis 9:3,4 uses ἑρπετόν in the lxx & it is my suspicion that this is referring to insects. ( Locust and honey? )
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-safety-of-heme-vs-non-heme-iron/
If you can demonstrate how 1 Tim 4 is referring to meat and it's over consumption as opposed to unleaven bread or wine against the Passover lamb then I am interested to know? I need some key of its context since it appears to be included in things that hinder worship.
Romans 14, within its context is not dealing with the understanding of whether someone should or should not eat meat. Eating meat at this time was a given. Contextually it is dealing with animals sacrificed to idols & whether there conscience would allow them to eat this meat or just the vegetables.
Genesis 9:3-4 - the reason I think insects is the interpretation given in the LXX is referring those animals perceived to be without blood (no red liquid) as opposed to animals with blood.
Thinking back many years ago I can remember being told by someone that as Christians we should not use cochineal food dye as this is insect blood (presumably because it has a red color). Halal food still prohibits its use. But if it were blood we would need to bleed all insects before consumption!
I am wondering if the Passover lamb was just that originally. Lamb only eaten on Passover. What heard capacity could be sustained through the 40 year sojourn? Look at the account of manna vs quail.
Dan 10:3 Dainty bread I did not eat, and no flesh or wine entered into my mouth, and in no way did I grease myself until the completing of the three full weeks.
Implying that later Daniel did eat meat and wine.
I think that Nebukadnezzar served different gods to Cyrus. Agricultural god - I think it no coincidence that the term used in Daniel for worship is serve. All the agriculture being for, and dedicated to the god.
So Daniel was eating outside this scheme.
Daniel 1:15 LXX interprets the difference as being quite physical.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/25/treating-soil-like-dirt-fatal-mistake-human-life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1su4uz1b1A0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvrww8iMl-A
I am not sure that the GI is that useful:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFIEUjh0jpI
1 Cor 3:6.
Various estimates have placed the date of Matthew's composition anywhere from AD 50 - to AD 100.
1 Corinthians AD 53-54
Paul did not experience this illustration directly - why do you think that this is one embedded in his consciousness?
If god is helping from the outset - how, if an independent free will decision must be made? I do not think that this is cut and dried. Are we looking at a relative level of free will?
It does relate to our discussion of 2 Cor 4:4.
Regarding food sacrificed to idles:-
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/04/06/e2809cMeat-Offered-to-Idolse2809d-in-Pergamum-and-Thyatira.aspx#Article
I agree that the less meat the better. One nephrologist and several medical doctors have gven me that advice, way back when. However, the findings of science are provisional as we know, and I'm not comfortable telling others how much meat should figure into their diet. That seems to be a conscience matter per Corinthians.
The Hebrew for Genesis 9:3-4 seems fairly clear to me.
"And every reptile which is living shall be to you for meat, I have given all things to you as the green herbs" (Gen 9:3, Ellopos LXX).
"And every creeping thing that is alive you shall have for
food; like the pasture land herbs, I have given you all things" (NETS).
I don't believe that 1 Timothy 4:1-5 is referring to the overconsumption of meat, but merely its use or balanced consumption. However, why limit the text to the Passover? Some scholars posit the verses are addressing incipient Gnosticism in the Primitive ecclesia. The text is also foretelling the coming apostasia.
Romans 14 makes general statements about diet, even though Paul was not specifically writing about food and nutrition. For instance, "One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them" (NIV).
It still makes the point that one's diet is a matter of conscience unless the diet goes beyond divinely-set parameters. There's a wealth of research on Romans 14, and I don't have time to sift through such things this morning, but here is what Meyer's NT states on Rom 14:2:
λάχανα] excludes, according to the connection, all use of flesh, not merely that of Levitically unclean animals, or of flesh sacrificed to idols, or on feast and fast days,—limitations of which nature are introduced by most interpreters (including Reiche, Köllner, Neander, Tholuck, Philippi). The weak in faith eats no flesh, but vegetables are his food. Comp. Wieseler in Herzog’s Encyklop. XX. p. 595.
I find the story you told entertaining, in a good way, but I don't see how you're getting that reading from Gen 9:3-4 LXX. Seems like it's straightforwardly referring to animals. One brother recently said that we don't have to get every last drop of blood out of meat. Jehovah is reasoanble.
You make some interesting points about Daniel that I will consider.
My mention of the GI was only meant to be how it has benefited me personally. I've found it possible to control type 2 diabetes largely by following the glycemic index, although when I don 't, I require more insulin. I emphasize that nothing I say here should be taken as a recommendation for any diet/treatment.
I'm not sure that I can answer why the illustration of the sower might be embedded in his consciousness, but I think it's just one example of many where the Lord's teaching--even those things that Paul did not hear personally--are found throughout his writings.
On free will, your comment reflects why my thoughts on free will have changed over the years. There are many conceptions of free will. I would submit that free will can't mean (or it likely does not mean) that our choices are made completely outside of the universe's causal nexus. Moreover, see John 16:12-13; 1 Cor. 2:9-10; Phil. 2:13.
Rivulets of waters [is] the heart of a king in the hand of Jehovah, Wherever He pleaseth He inclineth it (Proverbs 21:1 YLT). Compare Rev 17:16-17.
Regarding the GI, I don't believe that South Beach is a paleo diet, is it? Secondly, I believe so many of these discussions about diets are motivated by competing agendas.
I tend to use the old adage - follow the money. Are you type one or type two? I have a couple of friends who are type one.
Duncan,
I'm type two, but mine has been controlled with decreasing amounts of insulin for about 6 years now.
Unfortunately the vast majority of biblical scholarship is biased in many ways by the western culture that pervades it. You reference Reiche, Köllner, Neander, Tholuck, Philippi, now I do not know the cultural origins of all of these individuals but I can make some generalizations.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/protein
Protein - "of prime importance" and at the time of the emergence of this usage it meant only one thing - meat. Meat is what made strong.
Even today, if someone does not eat meat, the question is - where do you get your protein?
The modern conception of being "weak" is quite well expressed in modern culture "you hit like a vegetarian".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOWSc8VvOl4
http://archive.archaeology.org/0811/abstracts/gladiator.html
http://www.pcrm.org/health/health-topics/calcium-and-strong-bones
Note figures for Barley vs the archaeology magazine conclusions - still cultural bias.
If one does not eat foods that encourage calcium loss (ie. Dairy affecting the bone matrix) then calcium replacement requirements are minimal. Also calcium as a bone strengthener is a myth. The bone matrix requires several mineral in concert to build strength. Bone loss is mostly due to a breakdown of the collagen structure.
So in terms of first century diet what would be associated with weak and strong.
I understand the interpretation of Romans 14:2 as a principle but period context must still be applied & therefor it is not talking about diet in the way most of your commentators assume. The question is - why would someone be considered strong because of eating things sacrificed to idols?
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/kempner-rice-diet-whipping-us-into-shape/
The LXX Genesis usage of ἑρπετόν seems to be a single category Gen 6:2 lxx.
Thayer gives a definition of "2) an animal of any sort" but this is based on NT Greek. Is there any OT LXX evidence?
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/30/why-do-mysterious-lizards-have-green-blood/
Color may still have had a relevance.
http://umich.edu/~ece/student_projects/food/foods.htm
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=meat
The shift toward animal flesh over time changing the meaning of meat.
In KJV 1611 'meat' is a general term for 'food'.
References to entomophagy continued throughout the region and the centuries
(Box 3.4). In the second century BCE, Diodorus of Sicily called people from Ethiopia
Acridophagi, or “eaters of locusts and grasshoppers” (Acrididae family, Orthoptera
order). In Ancient Rome, author, natural philosopher and naturalist Pliny the Elder –
author of the encyclopedia Historia Naturalis – spoke of cossus, a dish highly coveted
by Romans. According to Bodenheimer (1951), cossus is the larva of the longhorn beetle
Cerambyx cerdo, which lives on oak trees.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e.pdf
https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/TBv2i5_LipkowitzReview.pdf
I have not read this book but it sounds interesting.
The question is - why would someone be considered strong because of eating things sacrificed to idols?
I thought that Paul meant this sarcastically, using perhaps thier own terminology against them. Kind of like how he talks about the super fine apostles.
Duncan,
My quote on Rom. 14 was from Meyer's NT commentary. He mentioned the names of commentators, who took issue with his view of the text in Romans. Strong and weak in Romans also deals with a person's conscience: that point must also be considered. While I don't concur with your remarks about calcium, I do not want to debate nutrition or medicine.
Regarding ἑρπετόν, do you mean Gen. 6:7? Here are some quick referneces:
See Gen. 1:20-21, 24 where herpeta (or any variant) likely means "creeping things" (Karen Jobes). Jobes claims that the word is incorrectly rendered "reptiles."
See also Gen. 1:25-30. Bernard Alwyn Taylor defines ἑρπετόν as "creeping thing" or "reptile."
Thanks for the points on ancient entomagraphy and the link concerning the British diet. The Lipkowitz work does look interesting.
I found a dissertation about Rom. 15 & 15. See https://books.google.com/books?id=EG38TmN_v_cC&pg=PR12&dq=romans+14+commentary&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4mPTqha3NAhWCPCYKHbS3Cc0Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=romans%2014%20commentary&f=false
The dissertation is about Rom. 14 & 15.
On the eating of meat, compare Romans 14:21; 1 Cor. 8:13. Again, in reference to strong ones eating meat, see Rom. 14:1-2; 1 Cor. 8:9-13.
Calcium,
https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/feb/whenfriendsask.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26174589
http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4183
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19443863
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151112055720.htm
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/is-milk-good-for-our-bones/
http://m.joe.endocrinology-journals.org/content/201/3/309.long?view=long&pmid=19443863
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26287637
The gap on this one is as already stated - follow the money.
https://www.glutenfreesociety.org/is-dairy-sabotaging-your-gluten-free-healing/
This was a problem of mine.
Yes genesis 6:7
http://lexicon.katabiblon.com/index.php?lemma=ἑρπετόν
http://www.obohu.cz/bible/index.php?k=Gn&hs=G2062&styl=LXXC&kap=1
But as always it is not cut and dried:-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2jSUBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=ἑρπετόν+not+creeping&source=bl&ots=chGMnNYZw1&sig=H6cQvKKBq-TPbvDmw4LIdjpSjHU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdhsaswa3NAhVhDMAKHTDECDwQ6AEIHDAB#v=onepage&q=%CE%B5%CC%94%CF%81%CF%80%CE%B5%CF%84%CE%BF%CC%81%CE%BD%20not%20creeping&f=false
The assumption is that the Greek is a substitute translation of "the original Hebrew".
This is why I was asking specifically for lxx only examples & not assumption of equal meaning to the Hebrew.
I am not making that assumption.
The definitions I mentioned ("creeping thing" or "reptile") are from sources that deal with LXX lexicography only (Jobes and Taylor). Jobes seems to think the translation "reptile" is a mistake.
Duncan,
I'll consider your links, but this is the last thing I'm posting about diets or calcium for now. Many sites talk about the benefits of calcium too. Again, I'm not making recommendations, in harmony with the FDS' advice. But I just think it's common scientific "wisdom" for now) that calcium is good for the bones. Let each one decide for him/herself.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/supplement-guide-calcium
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/calcium-supplements/art-20047097
http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/content/5/Supplement_1/S23.full
Edgar,
No argument from me, calcium is good for the bones but many simplistic assumptions are made about how the body expects delivery of it. Just like the meat/protein (as demonstrated in the western culture) connection and the perception that we can never get enough of it.
Funnily enough "common scientific "wisdom"" is what my G.P. called it when I discussed the science with him. Just keep in mind that nowadays bone density scanners are quite often given to a practise by the company's who produce the supplements.
Follow the money.
Now this video from a highly respected researcher from a highly respected organisation (Nordic Cochrane centre) regarding mental health and the normal medications prescribed according to the common wisdom.
https://youtu.be/ZMhsPnoIdy4
This is one of the reason that I mentioned the "environmental" difficulties of free will.
Have you heard about this, the majority have not. This is not about telling people what to do, it's about being aware of the facts that usually stay hurried in this system. Isreal was several steps ahead of the world around them, why shouldn't, it be similar today.
Duncan,
I think you shared this video with me some months ago. I would like to vet it some more, but there's probably a lot of truth in what the video states.
Sience has achieved many things, but I was only making the point that scientific views have changed and do change. We can't accept any scientific theory uncritically, but some theories happen to coincide with common sense views of reality. I also believe that God's people might realize things about nature before secular empiricism does.
Here's another issue veted by this organisation.
Don't you think that the associated organisations would have put a gag order on him by now if they could? The certainly have enough money to do it.
https://youtu.be/paCAc9p_GsQ
I have links to other respected researchers telling the same stories but it certainly not general knowledge.
https://youtu.be/o26V7WB8Fh8
I've had my say on this issue, and have posted other comments. I feel we need to close this thread for now, and I'll consider what's been discussed. Thank you.
Post a Comment