on a lowcarb note..
 

Gary and SpecialK
On another note, I see that You both have been successful lowcarbers. did you add exercise?
also did you pick lower fat meats and stick to only 3 meals a day? also how long did it take?

Hi gary, welcome back. I know the passages you were referring to as being the third set of 10 commandments. Exodus 34:1 "Prepare two stone tablets like the first ones and I will write upon them the same commands that were on the tablets you broke." (Found in Exodus 20). Chapter 34 of Exodus goes into a detailed dialogue of what He wants us to glean from His commandments.

Deuteronomy is pretty much a repeat of the first four books of the Scriptures often going into the deeper meanings. It too was written by Moses (scholars believe :) ).

Nice try on the line 'you need more knowledge', but I don't get ruffled that easily. Blessings, Karen

Exercis is our friend
 

I exercise fairly often. I did aerobics for about 8 months during my weightlosing days and hated every minute of it. What I really love is weight training. I happpen to be naturally very muscular and really enjoy lifting so that is the route I go. That also explains why at 5'11" I am comfortable at 177#'s. This is the high end of 'normal' for a female but it's where I belong being so muscular.

I personnaly did not pick low fat meats. I like the juicey portions. I eat dark meat only in chicken and turkey. I did try to keep my calorie count down to about 1200 daily during my losing period. Today I do not count calaries. My carbs I kept between 20 and 25, still can't eat much more than that. Usually around 35 a day. Any more and I start to gain. :cry:

I would have 4-6 small meals a day. Blessings, Karen

Careful froggy your getting into the deep end of the pool. ;)

thanks for responding specialk
i will keep at my aerobic regimen (just about hatin it the same as you)

b-ready, I play softball during the course of the summer.(SMILING) I try to keep stretched out and flexible for this because next the my love of the Lord, softball is a great passion. Double-header tonight. (SMILING again). Blessiings, Karen

More Trivia for SpecialK
 

To Special K: There are certainly scholars and many religious people that believe that the first 5 books are written by Moses. But there are many scholars who I believe have better arguments and can show there were 5 writers involved - 4 actual writers and 1 redactor. If you study the text closely you can see competing texts intertwined like the two flood stories and two creation stories. Some of these things are so different in the style of writing that it could not be the same person who wrote all 5 books unless of course one says there is a supernatural cause. Who Wrote The Bible is a good read on this. Plus there is no evidence archeological or other that a person named Moses existed - plus no archeological evidence that Exodus ever happened. This is very current research and has just been reported in the last year. Deut was inserted by a competing King and priesthood to assert there authority - hence the deeper meanings. The third set as I indicated are considered by every scholar I have read to be a completely separate set not just an explanation of the other two. How does boil a kid relate at all to any commandment in the other sets? Plus it is clear to me the third looks more primitive - this is backed by scholars. - These are all just curiosity subjects - nothing challenging to anyones faith.

When you say Scholars believe - just keep in mind there are Christian apologetist scholars and many other scholars. I try to read them all. Once again you do need at least more diverse knowledge to understand that the first 5 books could not possibly be written by one person except by supernatural cause that made it appear as though more than one person wrote them but somehow it was the same person. Not in the least trying to ruffle your feathers. I converse with people who actually know the Hebrew. The English OT s we have are badly translated - I don't know if you knew that. There are better sources than the English OT. If you don't know that than debating anything in the OT is useless. :roll:

specialK,
I have always wanted to play softball. My church is going to a Ranger game on aug6. Maybe we should think about starting a softball team at our church.. hmmm.. sounds fun!

No Increase in Excersize
 

To b ready:

First don't worry about any so called judgements - I don't hold it against you. It is so hard for you to understand but not others. I have seen this before in born again Christians - because it is new for them they have a lot of exhuberance and just can't undestand if someone else does not see it.

For LC diet - I did not change my excersize program from before dieting. Actually worked out less. I started cold turkey and did induction for 3.5 months with very little cheating. I used to run a mile once a week and work about 12 nautiless machines one set of reps each machine - very imaptient in the Gym. After 3.5 months lost 36 lbs and then tried to go to OWL. Instead found that adding more fruit - low carb breafast cereals and some beer put me in maintenance. The good side is that I found it very easy to do maintenance. Since then I upped my excersize program - Still once a week - Now run 3 miles in about 24-25 minutes, work the same 12 Nautiless machines - work other therapy excersizes for back and shoulder. Good luck on your softball games! :roll:

Thanks Gary!
I have been a christian for say.....14 years.. but im only 26 yrs old.. so im still a baby.. but I wouldnt say im still on "milk" as the bible states..I accept more of the bible than the average. I try not to twist it to mean what i want it to mean..

SpecialK compare each commandment one at a time - the two sets Exodus 20 and 34 - there are several completely different commandments. Again the 34 set appears older and is addressing their ancient nature religion.

gary, As I said, Moses wrote the 1st five books of the OT as scholars believe :) . I spent my initial bible reading planning to prove it was all wrong. It proved itself to me. I do not find any reasons in it to doubt it. Yes God is supernatural and it did take His divine supernatural power to write the whole thing. I agree with that. No offence but other peoples opinions don't hold a candle to My God's Light. Until the age of 35 I had intensely studied the other belief systems (interesting how we all are looking for that something that seems to be missing) and have had just the opposite conversion than you. The Bible has proven itself true to me, other people have not. Apolegetics are not God inspired, only His Word the Bible is. BTW, I've got my Interliner Bible right next to me. I use it ALLL the time when I'm studying. It has the Hebrew, Greek ad English in it as well as direct translations of the Hebrew and/or Greek words. The only thing missing is the Aramaic that was use in some of the writtings.

No archeological evidence that Moses existed? Why is the only Bible the only reference that needs to prove itself. Other writtings from the same time periods are accepted as truth???? Curious. Until just recently the wall story of Jericho couldn't be proven either. Eureka, the whole story has been vindicated because of the way the walls are lying. Each year more and more archeological evidence continues to prove the validity of the Bible. A very good source of info would be www.icr.org
Blessings, Karen

b-ready, My softball team consists primarily of people from my church. It is co-ed and we have a tremendous time playing in the city league. We get called the 'praying team' because we pray before each game. Not to win but for safety for each person playing and for us to be good witness to all watching. We are pretty well received, most like us a lot and have expressed their pleasure in playing our team. Blessings, Karen

you are an inspiration K,
I love meeting people like you..

Sorry but the first five books were not written by one person try digging deeper. Try seraching archeological news on the web. There is no archeological evidence of Moses and the Exodus. None! Try presenting some. There is evidence that some places in the bible certainly exist. This does not validate the entire Bible. So are bats birds then?

gary, I agree with you that they are different. That is what I was trying to say. Exodus 20 is the actual 10 commandments that God gave to Moses. Exodus 34:1 sayys that he gave Moses the same ones again, THEN he expounds on the a little of the 10 he gave and gave a lot more direction. Exodus 34 is NOT a list of the 10 commandments. Forgive me for asking but how can something written appear older. Yes he is instructing against other religious practices, after all the Israelites just came out of 400 years of bondage in a foreign land full of religious practices that were unacceptable to Jehovah God. Now I've gotta go. Household chores abound. Blessings, Karen

Evidence of the Exodus, alll the chariot wheels found in the Red Sea. Gee, I really gotta go.

SpecialK - Quick web site reference:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora.htm

Ten commandments for SpecialK
 

You certainly are not comparing each commandment. How can you say 34 set is just explaining set 20 - they are completely different subjects. All scholars agree that there are three sets of commandments - you are trying to make the 34 set go away on your say so. The language appears older in the hebrew.

ICR is a pseudoscientific organization that puts out lies for God! Sorry but I am a scientist - you have to do better than that. :yay:

There are some good and easy-to-understand reasons why one ought to treat Biblical translations as suspect.

Let's start with the OT. Formal Hebrew is written without vowels - as was the OT. Mastering any written language is difficult - but imagine the problem without vowels:

Take a familiar language - English - and imagine the confusion if we wrote the word "can" without vowels = 'cn'. It now still means "can" - but it could also mean "cane", "cain", "con", "cone", "acne", "coin", etc. So, maybe the mythical Cain slew Abel, or maybe Abel choked on a "coin", got hit with a "cane", or just died from embarrassment over a really bad case of "acne".

Now, it is true that some of these problems can be resolved in context: for example, the "tear" in "I tear down" means "to destroy" - but some cannot - the "tear" in "I tear up" can mean either crying or ripping.

What one reads in the bible was not what was originally written, but rather a committee decision based on traditions handed down and tinkered with over thousands of years during hand-copying and cross-translations. The bible survived, ironically, because this tinkering allowed the meanings in the bible to evolve with the times - adapt to changing traditions, obfuscate problems, and support whatever male tyrant happened to be in power position to potentially threaten it.

It has only been comparatively recently that the widespread publication of the bible, and a few missteps by religionists, has "frozen" this process of redefining the meaning of the bible into a static situation. In particular, the infallibility of the Pope - a "traditional doctrine" less that 150 years old - has locked Catholics into the untenable position of changelessness in the face of ever-accelerating change. Already the side effects on Catholicism are breathtaking - the falling number of priests forced the church to protect a growing number of pedophiles who found the priesthood a protected place to act out their feelings.

From Darwin, we know that, in a dynamic environment, a species must adapt, or perish. Adaptation comes from natural variation, led by changes in the DNA. But the Bible is the DNA of Christianity, and its malleability has faltered. The end result is inevitable - extinction.

Some of us may well live long enough to see it happen. Sit back, and enjoy the fireworks.

sadly gotbeer, i agree with you on the extinction of the bible one day.. right around the time the "abonimation that makes desolate" appears.

Here's an article from a Messianic Jew regarding a translation problem that also touches on low - carb issues:

link to article


When the issue of dietary law comes up, another common rebuttal that Christians use comes from the gospel of Mark where early on in Yeshua's ministry he supposedly pronounced all foods clean. I have yet to hear any Christian theologian even try to explain how it works that Yeshua could simply make a declaration nullifying even a part of the law of Moses at this point in his life, when according to Pauline doctrine and the book of Hebrews, the law of Moses wasn't abolished until Yeshua was crucified! But having noted that, I'll humor the notion and address the passage anyway. This passage from Mark is always quoted from accommodating translations. And for this article, when I quote a Bible passage, I will print Yeshua's words in red as they would be found in a red letter edition Bible of that particular translation. This will help to demonstrate some of the differences in the translations. Here are two popular translations of that passage.

"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this. Jesus declared all foods "clean.") Mark 7:18-20 NIV

He said to them, "Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) Mark 7:18-20 NRSV

According to these passages, it appears that Yeshua has indeed pronounced all foods clean! But occasionally these translations aren't quite good enough and someone will pull out the big gun and quote the Amplified Bible.

And He said to them, "Then are you also unintelligent and dull and without understanding? Do you not discern and see that whatever goes into a man from the outside cannot make him unhallowed or unclean, since it does not reach and enter his heart but [only his] digestive tract, and so passes on [into the place designed to receive waste]?" Thus He was making and declaring all foods [ceremonially] clean [that is, abolishing the ceremonial distinctions of the Levitical Law]. Mark 7:18-20 Amplified

Wow! This one not only does away with dietary law, it appears Yeshua did away with all the Levitical law too!

In all of these and many similar translations, it is rendered that the author of the book makes the personal observation and commentary that Yeshua had declared all foods clean. Now if these were accurate translations, one might expect me to brush off the commentary part as not being the inerrant words of Yeshua but the erroneous personal commentary of Mark. As I have shown before, Gospel authors are known to make the occasionally error in their own personal observations. But this is not the problem here. Christian Bible translators make the error in translation which is the mistake in assuming these words are the words of Mark. They are not. They are Yeshua's words and they are not even close to what is found in the Greek text. They have been significantly embellished by many translators, especially by the Amplified Bible translators. There is no word in the Greek text that can be translated "declared". This is not a problem of mistranslating a single word. The word simply doesn't exist! It was added, along with other words that can not be found in the Greek manuscripts. And there is nothing even remotely close to the Amplified Bible's rendering found in the Greek. The practice of adding words to what is actually found in the ancient manuscripts for the purpose of clarifying things for English speaking people is not a bad thing in itself. Sometimes it's necessary, but it should be clearly understood that when it is done, it is subject to error and the interpretation and doctrinal presuppositions of the translator. I will also be adding a few necessary qualifying words to this same somewhat difficult text to help us understand what Yeshua was really saying. I will be adding less than other translators have added, (far less than the Amplified!) and I will show that my interpretation fits far better in context with what Yeshua did say in the immediate scene as well as in other places. It will become apparent that the translators responsible for these type of renderings were desperately attempting to find in Yeshua's words some morsel of support for Pauline based Christian doctrine.

First I would like to quote a translation that is as close to word for word as can be rendered. It is the King James II Version, and it comes from the side column of my Greek interlinear Bible were every word can be verified.

And he said to them, "Are you also so undiscerning? Do you not perceive that everything that enters from the outside into the man is not able to defile him? This is because it does not enter into his heart but into the belly, and goes out into the waste-bowl, purging all the foods." Mark 7:18-20

And here is the same passage from the old KJV and the NKJV. Notice how much closer they are to the above translation.

And he saith unto them, "Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?" Mark 7:18-20 KJV

So he said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" Mark 7:18-20 NKJV

The first thing that everyone should notice is that in these translations, Mark makes no commentary, and the words, "purging all the foods" are part of Yeshua's ongoing sentence. Notice also that there are no more than four words in what has been translated by others as Mark's significantly longer commentary! These four words, "purging all the foods" are the literal word for word translation of the four Greek words used. It is astounding to think that Christian translators have managed to turn these four simple words into Mark's commentary that Yeshua had made some kind of new declaration.

If there are any qualifying words that should be added to Yeshua's words to help better understand what he meant, the following should be self-evident in the fuller context of the passage in question. (Additions are in blue)

And he said to them, "Are you also so undiscerning? Do you not perceive that everything that enters from the outside into a man is not able to defile him permanently, or to the degree that sin defiles a man ? This is because it does not enter his heart but his belly, and goes out into the waste-bowl thus purging all the clean and unclean foods from the body ." And he said, "What comes out of a man, that is what seriously defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornication, murder, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, and evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and seriously defile a man." Mark 7:18-23

The main point Yeshua is making is of the more serious degree of defiling that sin causes compared to eating unclean food. He had been lecturing the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and straining at a gnat while inhaling a camel again. They were getting bent out of shape over Yeshua's disciples not washing their hands before they ate. It should be noted that in the entire context of this discourse between Yeshua and the Pharisees, the subject matter was food being defiled by unwashed hands. Nowhere in this context is there the mention of unclean animal meat like pig flesh! Please read the entire story from Mark 7:1-23 and see for yourself.

In no way did Yeshua imply that it is alright to eat any kind of meat, even though it might appear it was included in his words in verse 15 where he said, "There is nothing that enters a man from the outside that can defile him." This statement should also be qualified at the end with, "the way sin defiles a man." On other occasions Yeshua clearly stated that some foods can defile a man and they are to be avoided. I will get to that in a moment. But the type of extreme statement in saying "nothing" is not uncommon for Yeshua to make. It should be seen for the hyperbole that it is. It is a relative comparison. There are other examples of this extreme relative comparison in the Gospels. Notice what Yeshua says in the following passages.

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26

But notice how in another place, Yeshua states the same in a sense of degrees with the words "more than".

"He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. And he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:37

Though these passages may sound different in that one appears to call for outright hate, while the other allows for some love, the picture in Yeshua's mind is the same. The first passage should then be qualified as follows;

"If anyone comes to me and does not appear to hate compared to his much greater love for me , his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26

Virtually every Bible translator and commentator knows this to be true. It's so simple! In no way did Yeshua call for his followers to outright "hate" their relatives. [Note from Gotbeer - Jesus tells us directly in over two dozen places to HATE our relatives, but never even once is it recorded that he said something as family-friendly as "I love you, Mom".] But these same translators and commentators want us to believe there is absolutely "nothing" that a person can eat that can defile a man! Yeshua should be understood to be saying;

"Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him to the far greater degree that sin defiles him ?" Mark 7:18

Unclean food, and especially meat from unclean animals, continues to pollute or defile a man even though it is to a lesser degree than what sin defiles. Dealing with sin is far more important. But cleanliness in ones diet is not to be ignored even though it is a smaller issue. Yeshua taught that even the smaller matter of the law are not to be left undone after the "weightier" matters of the law are accomplished. See Matthew 23:23

The fact that even after Yeshua's sacrifice it is possible for a person to pollute themselves with unclean food is evident in his words to the church in Thyatira in the book of Revelation.

"But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate." Revelation 2:14-15

"Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and beguile my servants to commit sexual immorality and to eat things sacrificed to idols." Revelation 2:20

If there is "nothing" a person can eat that will defile him, how could Yeshua say these things? This also flies directly in the face of what Paul taught in 1Corinthians 8:1-13, and 10:23-33 where in his world, the sin of eating what one should not eat is only in one's head and the effect it has on others.

Also realize that if Yeshua had indeed pronounced all foods clean that day, Peter was there and would have heard it. Yet he acted like he had never heard of such a thing and the thought of eating unclean meat was repulsive to him when he was given a vision and told to kill and eat animals that he believed to be unclean. Apparently Peter hadn't gotten out of Yeshua's words what many teachers today would have us think Yeshua said! Peter's vision is dealt with in part 1 of, To eat, or not to eat

SpecialK: Exodus 20 was the first set of tablets that Moses destroyed. Exodus 34 is the second set of tablets when Moses went back up with supposedly the same ten commandments. You can not just wish this away! It is not a problem just an interesting look at how the ten commandments evolved to the set in Deut with all morality statements and no nature. Deut was written 600 years later. All pretty neat stuff!

10 Commandments
 

gary, I respectfully beg to differ about the 10 commandments. Exodus 34:1 CLEARLY states, "The Lord told Moses, 'Prepare two stone tablets like the first ones and I will write upon them the SAME COMMANDS that were on the tablets you broke."
In this passage He does not spell out exactly what was written on them because He tells us that they will contain the same commandments as the first set of tablets. THEN he goes on to explain some of the commandments of the ten as well as OTHER instructions. vs 14 No other gods... previous verses explain why no other gods. Vs. 17 No idols, previous verses explain why. Primarily chapter 34 deals with the sin of Idolatry. The 10 Commandments in Exodus 20 and the 10 in Deuteronomy are the same. Moses did not live to be 600 so therefore Deuteronomy could not have been written 600 years later.

The ICR scientists don't validate your bias so they are a bunch of liar?? Now are you wishing away these scholars? :nono: Nuff said there. Blessings, Karen

SpecialKs own version
 

To: SpecialK - obviously you want to believe what ever you make up. The bible clearly indicates the 34 set was the next set after the 20 set. If you look up any site on the internet for example you will see the three sets put up in comparison. Numerous scholars I have read all agree the 20 and 34 are distinct sets. Should have been the same but interesting they are not. Try reading this article for example:

http://home.inu.net/skeptic/tencom2.html

Maybe it will clear up you misunderstandings!

Yes ICR are pseudoscientists and documented liars - can you reference anything they have published in a mainstream peer reviewed scientific journal like Nature or Science Its not about biases - it has to do with real science vs pseudoscientific garbage! Check your sources carefully! :nono:

More Trivia for SpecialK
 

Special K: Update on adventures of ICR!

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html

Also take note that the ten commandments in Deut are not exactly like Exodus 20 set but close. They were written 600 years later because Moses did not write Deut. The writer of Deut simply copied Exodus 20 and added a couple twists. Ta Da! :yay:

The old testament took the entire flood story from the Babylonian marduk saga. so the old was actually book #2 and the "new testament" is # 3.

Or....you have two cultures telling of the same event. Not just two cultures. Native Americans, Polynesians and some other cultures as well have stories of a world wide flood where only a small family unit survives along with the animals that they saved to repopulate the world.

ahh so there are multiple epics about the flood and man/gods relationship to it. Yes man mimics others. But such is our species. we were made in gods image. yet when you walk from the garage to you car, do you stop to see if you're killing life under your feet? wow what a conciousness kick in the head. we kill gods creatures every day and dont stop to think about it. But when we're threatened by a healthy fear of say..sharks then we get real careful not to get in their sights. but ants/worms? are they really low creatures not deserving our respect? Arrogance carries a heavy price.

Local Flood Stories
 

Yes there are stories of local floods in many cultures around the world. Of course long ago these cultures thought their area was the whole world. The sumerians and jews look like they shared the same story from a flood in the sumerian plain. There has been a recent discovery of a local flood that may be the basis for these stories:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/

If you look at the OT flood story there is actually two flood stories intertwined that have differences. If you read every other verse it can be unraveled - described in detail in the book Who Wrote The Bible. Once you know about it you can see it for yourself. The two versions were written by two competing preisthood factions and then redacted later on.

Christian Scientists in the late 1800s went out to search for evidence for a world wide flood and they were surprised to find only evidence that there was no world wide flood. Scientists to this day have only found evidence that there was no global flood. There is major evidence from several fields of science that backs this.

There may be something to your numbering order xxovereasy! :roll: