Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Okay. No problema. The answer to your question is "no".

So your position would be:

It is not possible for one thing, say a particle, to be in two different places at the same time?

Now consider Young's Double Slit Experiment. A point source of monochromatic light (i.e., only one wave length) is directed at an opaque surface in which there are two parallel transparent slits. Some distance from these two slits is a plate of photographic film.

The light travels from its source and through the slits creating two light sources of the same wave length and in phase with one another, i.e., the two lights wave in unison. The light falls on the photographic plate and when it is developed we find a pattern of light and dark lines on the film.

To explain this Young hypothesized that light is a wave. In the middle of the plate the distances the light travels from each slit are equal so the two waves reinforce one another, i.e., they add, producing a dark line. But as we move away from the center the two lights travel different distances. At some point the difference is one half a wavelength and the two waves interfere with each other, i.e., they cancel each other, and we find a bright line. At an even greater distance the difference is a whole wavelength and once again they add. Thus we get a pattern of alternating dark and bright lines on the film.

Young interpreted these results as evidence that light is a wave and not a stream of particles, but a small refinement to the experiment gives results that the wave theory cannot explain.

Assume that light is a stream of particles (photons) instead of a wave. Now reduce the intensity of the light source to such an extent that only one photon is inside the apparatus at any time. We still get the pattern of light and dark lines which means that, since there was only one photon in the apparatus, that photon must have reinforced or cancelled itself and it must have passed through both slits, meaning a particle can be in two different places at the same time. Retreating to the wave theory does not help since other experiments (e.g., Planck's black body) demand that even the wave be quantized.

Another post to follow.

Your turn.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

So your position would be:

It is not possible for one thing, say a particle, to be in two different places at the same time?

Now consider Young's Double Slit Experiment. A point source of monochromatic light (i.e., only one wave length) is directed at an opaque surface in which there are two parallel transparent slits. Some distance from these two slits is a plate of photographic film.

The light travels from its source and through the slits creating two light sources of the same wave length and in phase with one another, i.e., the two lights wave in unison. The light falls on the photographic plate and when it is developed we find a pattern of light and dark lines on the film.

To explain this Young hypothesized that light is a wave. In the middle of the plate the distances the light travels from each slit are equal so the two waves reinforce one another, i.e., they add, producing a dark line. But as we move away from the center the two lights travel different distances. At some point the difference is one half a wavelength and the two waves interfere with each other, i.e., they cancel each other, and we find a bright line. At an even greater distance the difference is a whole wavelength and once again they add. Thus we get a pattern of alternating dark and bright lines on the film.

Young interpreted these results as evidence that light is a wave and not a stream of particles, but a small refinement to the experiment gives results that the wave theory cannot explain.

Assume that light is a stream of particles (photons) instead of a wave. Now reduce the intensity of the light source to such an extent that only one photon is inside the apparatus at any time. We still get the pattern of light and dark lines which means that, since there was only one photon in the apparatus, that photon must have reinforced or cancelled itself and it must have passed through both slits, meaning a particle can be in two different places at the same time. Retreating to the wave theory does not help since other experiments (e.g., Planck's black body) demand that even the wave be quantized.

Another post to follow.

Thanks for the warning.

Your turn.

For what? Far be it from me to interfere with a fool's performance, most especially when he thinks he's on a roll. Just don't forget to tell us what the point to your QM question to me was. Don't leave us hangin'.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I used the term "hypothesize" because if you're really a scientist you must have engaged in the hypothesizing process a few times in your life. You should know (but apparently don't) that to make an hypothesis is to admit to nothing.

I'll make a note of that.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And I personally have made this claim on previous occasions on the old Religious thread and supported it with scripture.

Fine.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The entire book of Genesis could be divided into 10 sections, each section introduced with the superscription formula "these are the generations of..." (cf. 2:4; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2. The fact that the entire Book of Genesis is in this genealogical framework unmistakenly indicates that the author intended for his readers to understand that he was presenting them with a genuine history of real people -- this one begat that one, at that one begat someone else, etc.

These histories (genealogies) were probably recorded on clay tablets (the preferred material of ancient civilizations upon which to transcribe cuneiform writings), were inspired by God to his various prophets who predated Moses (2 Pet 1:21) and these tablets were eventually handed down to Moses so that he could do the work of compiling those records.

So the small "a" author chose the literary form of genealogy which was known to the Babylonians (e.g., ten names (kings) before the flood- the last being the hero of the flood). He is asserting the linear (vs. "cyclic" understanding of events by Israel's neighbors) connection between the 1st man and the flood, resumed in ch. 10-11 to link the flood to Abraham.

Relating incidents for racially related peoples, for religious purposes (ultimately establishing the line of David) is far from using the same literary form as other ancient near eastern cultures (creation myth), as a polemic (e.g., no cosmic struggle between gods, but only the effortless "word" of YHWH, no origins of the gods) . He is not asserting science, but rather the unique conception of God.

OK, company's here. Give it a rest tomorrow.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

For what?

We've both answered each other's questions. I've responded to your answer. I assumed you wished to respond to my answer. Was I wrong?

Originally Posted by boxcar

Far be it from me to interfere with a fool's performance, most especially when he thinks he's on a roll. Just don't forget to tell us what the point to your QM question to me was.

Later. Too tired right now.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

So the small "a" author chose the literary form of genealogy which was known to the Babylonians (e.g., ten names (kings) before the flood- the last being the hero of the flood). He is asserting the linear (vs. "cyclic" understanding of events by Israel's neighbors) connection between the 1st man and the flood, resumed in ch. 10-11 to link the flood to Abraham.

Relating incidents for racially related peoples, for religious purposes (ultimately establishing the line of David) is far from using the same literary form as other ancient near eastern cultures (creation myth), as a polemic (e.g., no cosmic struggle between gods, but only the effortless "word" of YHWH, no origins of the gods) . He is not asserting science, but rather the unique conception of God.

OK, company's here. Give it a rest tomorrow.

Actually, the small aS authors were the products of their times and culture. This is to be expected. Nothing unnatural or unusual. All Moses (the small "a") did was compile their [divinely inspired] work under the guidance, of course, of the Holy Spirit also.

Have a Joyous Christmas!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

We've both answered each other's questions. I've responded to your answer. I assumed you wished to respond to my answer. Was I wrong?
Later. Too tired right now.

I will hold my peace until you get around to telling us what the point was to your QM-type question to me was in the first place -- and, of course, I'm waiting with bated breath for part 2. I might as well kill all the birds with one stone.

Have a Merry Christmas, Mr. Actor.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Merry Christmas Everyone whether you are a believer or not!

And Merry Christmas to you, Mr. Fox. And be safe!

[boxcar]

I'm on the mailing list of Gotquestions.org and they sent this informative piece that contains a few very elementary principles of hermeneutics (i.e. the art and science of bible interpretation). However, I felt they omitted a couple of very important ones, so I'm going to take the liberty of adding those two on my own. Also, I want to expand/clarify on their rule that each passage has only one correct interpretation. Let's start with this latter point first and then I'll move on to briefly discuss the two additional ones.

I'm in agreement with the rule above, as long as it is understood that the first interpretation (or our first understanding of any given passage) should always be the grammatical-historical one -- or what I and others call the "plain sensible sense". In many cases this will mean the literal sense. And it's important to understand the meaning of a passage with this sense first, otherwise we will never understand deeper levels (or "senses") of interpretation. A passage can have but one meaning or one correct interpretation, while simultaneously having that one meaning apply to deeper levels or senses of understanding -- meanings that go beyond the physical-temporal realm of our existence. There's nothing wrong with taking a literal meaning of a passage and finding deeper spiritual meaning(s) to it. This isn't the same as unbridled, unfettered allegory. And the reason it isn't is because the grammatical-historical sense forms a solid, well-defined framework that will restrict fanciful, creative, imaginative and quite frankly off-the-rails interpretations.

I could cite numerous biblical narratives to illustrate this point. The Exodus account in the Book of Exodus is a fantastic example. Since virtually all unbelievers and many professing Christians, as well, do not believe the Exodus was actually an historical event, they will totally miss the deeper spiritual understanding of the passage that goes far beyond the redemption of a people from their physical chains of slavery and their deliverance from Pharaoh's dark kingdom to the Promised Land, and will be be entirely blinded to the deeper level of spiritual interpretation which ultimately points to God's redemption through Christ of enslaved sinners, and His deliverance of those sinners from Satan's kingdom of darkness to God's kingdom of light.

Or another narrative that immediately comes to mind is 2Samuel 9 which is the record of Mephibosheth's encounter with King David. If we fail to understand this chapter in its plain sensible sense, thereby missing David's acts of kindnesses (graciousness) toward Mephibosheth, and also simultaneously missing what a poor, undeserving, dependent, crippled, purposeless wretch Mephibosheth himself was, then we must also inevitably miss the deeper level of spiritual understanding that ultimately points to God's sovereign grace dispensed through Christ to poor, undeserving, unworthy, blind...indeed dead sinners in this world.

In both the above examples there are numerous parallels that can be and rightfully should be drawn between the physical-temporal realities recorded in those narratives and the ultimate and corresponding spiritual-eternal realities. The physical-temporal realities not only help to keep us on the rails but are absolutely necessary in order for us to see the ultimate spiritual truths behind them. It is these parallels that take us to deeper levels of spiritual understanding.

In the article there is a good example given of how many creative interpreters, in their vain attempt to concoct their own clever spiritual meanings, very often wind up making what amounts to spiritual succotash out of scripture. The writer of the article cites the David and Goliath narrative. But he rightfully asks rhetorically, "Is this how the original hearers or readers of the historical account would have understood this encounter?"

Now to move on to two other fundamentally important hermeneutical principles not mentioned in the article:

1. Always interpret difficult or obscure passages in light of the plain, easily understood ones.

2. Always interpret the few in light of the many.

These are just two common sense rules, yet very often ignored, most especially when it comes to prophetic passages. Perhaps the greatest, classical example of this is the "1,000-year" kingdom in Rev 20:4-7. A large segment of the Church interprets the "thousand years" literally, completely ignoring how numbers, generally, are often used in scripture and even more specifically what the significance is of the number ten itself and when it's cubed, as is the case here. They also overlook how the number "1,000" itself is often used in scripture. In overlooking all this, they violate the second rule above.

Then they violate the first rule with their literal interpretation because if Christ establishes a literal 1,000-year reign here on earth, this would present numerous other theological problems. To cite just a few: What kingdom exactly would Christ be establishing since it cannot be the kingdom of God/Heaven, since the plain, easy-to-understand, didactic portion of scripture tells us that normal human beings cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor 15:50), yet this same group of literalists insist that the 1,000-year earthly kingdom will be comprised of resurrected saints and the surviving believers who came through the "great 7-year tribulation".

Another problem is that Peter in Acts 3:21 tells us that Christ will remain in heaven "until the period of restoration of ALL THINGS about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time." Later on, Peter reveals to us what he meant by "alll things" in 2 Peter 3 wherein the apostle very clearly connects the Second Coming of Christ with the total destruction of this present order of things, after which He will recreate everything anew. Very obviously, this is when all things" will be restored.

But how can the Second Coming, under a Premillennial or Dispensational scheme of eschatology, possibly be connected with the New Heavens and New Earth, since Christ would have returned 1,000 years prior to that to establish his 1,000-year earthly kingdom, etc. etc., etc.? Just how many Second Comings are there? In other words, there are a great number of problems with a 1,000-year literal interpretation of Rev 20:4-7 -- all because people refuse to understand this passage in light of plain, easy-to-understand, didactic portions of scripture.

Below is the link to the article.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-apply-today.html

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

...Now to move on to two other fundamentally important hermeneutical principles not mentioned in the article:

1. Always interpret difficult or obscure passages in light of the plain, easily understood ones.

2. Always interpret the few in light of the many.

These are just two common sense rules, yet very often ignored, most especially when it comes to prophetic passages....

A dozen more pages of the ongoing urination contest, and to nobody's surprise, the "debate" is simply driving the 'undecided' to something other (anything else, please GOD!) than the version of Christianity defined by Boxie. Even though I'm an agnostic, my sympathy lies with the real Christians on the forum.

And our distinguished host and starter of the thread starts off afresh from the Christmas break (a Pagan holiday of the winter solstice, mind you), to underscore the flaw in his views, irony complete.

"It's open to interpretation."

Which is to say, the Bible could be:

a. The Word of God
b. The Word of Man
c. The Word of six smart Jews trying to fool the rest of us
d. A semi-accurate historical document
e. A figment of Boxcar's imagination
f. A figment of the Matrixs' imagination
g. A collection of plagiarized documents
h. other?

In court, they call this heresay. It wouldn't prove anything. That is, unless Boxcar is 6,000 years old and can testify from the actual experiences as recorded. Either that, or God told him so.

"Basic Hermeneutical Principles" - for those in which their lack of faith requires more human defined mis-direction to fit the narrative.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yes, the world hates Christ people, as the bible predicted. Look at yourself, Mr. Worldly Wise Man, as a prime example. But I do drink a lot of coffee; "rumor" has it that it's quite a healthy habit.

martyr complex. get over yourself. please.

Originally Posted by boxcar

What "text" is written by man? And man hasn't defined logic; man discovered logic. Logic is not man's invention. If men invented logic, there would be no rational dialogue or discourse on this planet; for no one would be able to agree on anything.

The Bible. All logic is "defined" by man, not discovered. Reference your erratice responses to the Heisenberg principle for a prime example, in which no one agreed on anything.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And why do you feel controlled by the laws of logic? Or me? I'm not controlling anything. I'm only pointing out your self-contradictory worldview, which you seem to be very comfortable with. You have no problem in living with a contradiction. Must be really neat to be so indifferent and oblivious to rational thought, eh? I bet in your world, it beats having sex?

I'm simply pointing out that your feeble attempt to project your twisted "laws" of logic (defined by man) are falling on deaf ears. I'm not sure what contradiction you're referring to, since you incessant babbling is like that of a stuttering and stoned seventh-grader - juvenile and un-Christ-like insults included.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Your above question presupposes a finite God. But God is eternal, therefore, your premise is not valid. God simply IS. Therefore, no circular reasoning. You see, God didn't create himself. Nor did he cause himself to come into existence. Those would be self-defeating assertions or propositions.

How is God any more "eternal" than the universe? How do you tell the difference? In spite of what you say about circular reasoning, the egg and the chicken dilemma still exists.

Originally Posted by boxcar

You keep harping on our limitations, as though we're all equally as limited in true spiritual knowledge. If you want to celebrate your ignorance and limitations, I'm okay with that -- but don't think that all true born again Christians wallow in the depths of the muck and mire of those limitations of which you are so fond. This is a key benefit to being "born again" -- Christians have been miraculously raised from their dark tombs of ignorance by becoming sons of the light. God has shone in our hearts the true knowledge of Christ -- the Logos -- The Living Word of God (2Cor 4:6).

1 Cor 1:26-31
26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, 29 that no man should boast before God. 30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 that, just as it is written, "Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord."
NASB

So, tossing out the Bible, you got NUTHIN'. My interpretation of the verses above is that you don't speak or boast for God, yet there are probably 2000+ posts in this thread that contradict that. As opposed to being humble and Christ-like and aware of your limitations, you purposely chose to be obnoxious, inconsistent, irrelevant and irreverent. I was unaware being "born-again" gave you license to be so despicable.

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, no...the normal Christian experience is growth in the knowledge and grace of God -- hardly a boring endeavor, as you have suggested. Just as lost, dying sinners grow physically from infancy, to childhood, to adulthood, so, too, do Christians grow spiritually from babes to maturity. In fact, living the Christian life is quite challenging in more ways than one.

Gotta run. Time for a java refill.

If it's about growth, I'd say you're a toddler. But just keep tossing that word "grace" around, since that sounds so, oh so, you know, holy and all. The squirrel I tossed a peanut to earlier today is more up-to-speed on grace than yourself.

Your Christian experience, from my heathen point of view, is anything but "normal". You're in a (fortunately) small subset of Believers which put themselves first, even over their beloved God, and do far more damage to the faith than good. I may get my just desserts some day, but I'm mighty sure you're in the same line with me.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

martyr complex. get over yourself. please.





The Bible. All logic is "defined" by man, not discovered. Reference your erratice responses to the Heisenberg principle for a prime example, in which no one agreed on anything.









I'm simply pointing out that your feeble attempt to project your twisted "laws" of logic (defined by man) are falling on deaf ears. I'm not sure what contradiction you're referring to, since you incessant babbling is like that of a stuttering and stoned seventh-grader - juvenile and un-Christ-like insults included.





How is God any more "eternal" than the universe? How do you tell the difference? In spite of what you say about circular reasoning, the egg and the chicken dilemma still exists.



So, tossing out the Bible, you got NUTHIN'. My interpretation of the verses above is that you don't speak or boast for God, yet there are probably 2000+ posts in this thread that contradict that. As opposed to being humble and Christ-like and aware of your limitations, you purposely chose to be obnoxious, inconsistent, irrelevant and irreverent. I was unaware being "born-again" gave you license to be so despicable.





If it's about growth, I'd say you're a toddler. But just keep tossing that word "grace" around, since that sounds so, oh so, you know, holy and all. The squirrel I tossed a peanut to earlier today is more up-to-speed on grace than yourself.

Your Christian experience, from my heathen point of view, is anything but "normal". You're in a (fortunately) small subset of Believers which put themselves first, even over their beloved God, and do far more damage to the faith than good. I may get my just desserts some day, but I'm mighty sure you're in the same line with me.

But what would you know about "Christian experience"? You are always on the outside looking into the fish bowl. Those who sit in darkness cannot see the light. After all, you just admitted that that furry squirrel you fed the other day is more savvy about grace than you are.

And, yes, I'm guilty as charged. Despicable as all get out! After all, I voted for Trump (I just can't recall right now how many times I did).

[boxcar]

By the way, Mr. Pirate, since you brought up "grace", I would strongly recommend you study 2 Samuel 9. The chapter isn't that long but it is literally packed with numerous valuable lessons on grace. For example, the Source of all grace, the Need for grace, the Benefits of grace, the Response to grace, etc. are all packed into that one chapter. If you seriously study this chapter, I promise you'll come away knowing a lot more than your furry peanut-eating friend does.

[Actor]

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” - Richard Dawkins – The God Delusion

jealous and proud of it

1 Kings 14:22 .. 23 Judah did what was evil in the sight of the Lord; they provoked him to jealousy with their sins that they committed, more than all that their ancestors had done. For they also built for themselves high places, pillars, and sacred poles on every high hill and under every green tree;

Deuteronomy 4:24 For the Lord your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God.

Deuteronomy 5:9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me,

Deuteronomy 6:15 because the Lord your God, who is present with you, is a jealous God. The anger of the Lord your God would be kindled against you and he would destroy you from the face of the earth.

Deuteronomy 29:20 The Lord will not spare him, but then the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven.

Deuteronomy 32:16 They made him jealous with strange gods, with abhorrent things they provoked him.

Deuteronomy 32:19 .. 21 The Lord saw it, and was jealous; he spurned his sons and daughters. He said: I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end will be; for they are a perverse generation, children in whom there is no faithfulness. They made me jealous with what is no god, provoked me with their idols. So I will make them jealous with what is no people, provoke them with a foolish nation.

Ezekiel 5:13 My anger shall spend itself, and I will vent my fury on them and satisfy myself; and they shall know that I, the Lord, have spoken in my jealousy, when I spend my fury on them.

Ezekiel 8:1 .. 4 In the sixth year, in the sixth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I sat in my house, with the elders of Judah sitting before me, the hand of the Lord God fell upon me there. I looked, and there was a figure that looked like a human being; below what appeared to be its loins it was fire, and above the loins it was like the appearance of brightness, like gleaming amber. It stretched out the form of a hand, and took me by a lock of my head; and the spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven, and brought me in visions of God to Jerusalem, to the entrance of the gateway of the inner court that faces north, to the seat of the image of jealousy, which provokes to jealousy. And the glory of the God of Israel was there, like the vision that I had seen in the valley.

Ezekiel 36:5 .. 7 therefore thus says the Lord God: I am speaking in my hot jealousy against the rest of the nations, and against all Edom, who, with wholehearted joy and utter contempt, took my land as their possession, because of its pasture, to plunder it. Therefore prophesy concerning the land of Israel, and say to the mountains and hills, to the watercourses and valleys, Thus says the Lord God: I am speaking in my jealous wrath, because you have suffered the insults of the nations; therefore thus says the Lord God: I swear that the nations that are all around you shall themselves suffer insults.

Ezekiel 38:19 For in my jealousy and in my blazing wrath I declare: On that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel;

Ezekiel 39:25 Therefore thus says the Lord God: Now I will restore the fortunes of Jacob, and have mercy on the whole house of Israel; and I will be jealous for my holy name.

Isaiah 42:13 The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies. KJV

Joshua 24:19 But Joshua said to the people, “You cannot serve the Lord, for he is a holy God. He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions or your sins.”

Nahum 1:2 God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth; the Lord revengeth, and is furious; the Lord will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.

Numbers 25:10 .. 11 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: “Phinehas son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the Israelites by manifesting such zeal among them on my behalf that in my jealousy I did not consume the Israelites.

Psalm 78:58 For they provoked him to anger with their high places; they moved him to jealousy with their idols.

Psalm 79:5 .. 6 How long, O Lord? Will you be angry forever? Will your jealous wrath burn like fire? Pour out your anger on the nations that do not know you, and on the kingdoms that do not call on your name.

Zechariah 1:14 .. 15 So the angel who talked with me said to me, Proclaim this message: Thus says the Lord of hosts; I am very jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion. And I am extremely angry with the nations that are at ease; for while I was only a little angry, they made the disaster worse.

Zechariah 8:2 Thus says the Lord of hosts: I am jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I am jealous for her with great wrath.

[Actor]

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” - Richard Dawkins – The God Delusion

petty

2 Kings 2:23 .. 24 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. KJV

Deuteronomy 23:1 No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord. NRSV

Deuteronomy 23:10 .. 11 If one of your men is unclean because of a nocturnal emission, he is to go outside the camp and stay there. But as evening approaches he is to wash himself, and at sunset he may return to the camp. NIV

Ezekiel 13:18 .. 20 And say, Thus saith the Lord God; Woe to the women that sew pillows to all armholes, and make kerchiefs upon the head of every stature to hunt souls! Will ye hunt the souls of my people, and will ye save the souls alive that come unto you? And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies? Wherefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly. KJV

Exodus 23:18 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the fat of my sacrifice remain until the morning. KJV

Exodus 29:38 .. 41 Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even: And with the one lamb a tenth deal of flour mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil; and the fourth part of an hin of wine for a drink offering. And the other lamb thou shalt offer at even, and shalt do thereto according to the meat offering of the morning, and according to the drink offering thereof, for a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the Lord. KJV

Exodus 30:22 .. 38 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites this: ‘You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven: Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold. Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, your sheep and goats and your cattle. Wherever I cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and bless you. If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it. And do not go up to my altar on steps, or your private parts may be exposed.’” NIV

Exodus 34:26 Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk. NIV

Genesis 4:3 .. 5 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. KJV

Leviticus 10:3 .. 6 Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the Lord meant when he said, ‘Through those who are near me I will show myself holy, and before all the people I will be glorified.’” And Aaron was silent. Moses summoned Mishael and Elzaphan, sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said to them, “Come forward, and carry your kinsmen away from the front of the sanctuary to a place outside the camp.” They came forward and carried them by their tunics out of the camp, as Moses had ordered. And Moses said to Aaron and to his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, “Do not dishevel your hair, and do not tear your vestments, or you will die and wrath will strike all the congregation; but your kindred, the whole house of Israel, may mourn the burning that the Lord has sent.

Leviticus 11:13 .. 19 “And these you shall have in abomination among the birds, they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey, the kite, the falcon according to its kind, every raven according to its kind, the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk according to its kind, *the owl, the cormorant, the ibis, the water hen, the pelican, the carrion vulture, the stork, the heron according to its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat. RSV

Leviticus 11:20 .. 23 “All winged insects that go upon all fours are an abomination to you. Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those which have legs above their feet, with which to leap on the earth. Of them you may eat: the locust according to its kind, the bald locust according to its kind, the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind. But all other winged insects which have four feet are an abomination to you. RSV

Leviticus 19:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. KJV

Leviticus 19:27 .. 28 You shall not round off the hair on you temples or mar the edges of your beard. You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: RSV

Leviticus 21:16 .. 23 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them. KJV

Numbers 15:37 .. 39 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue: And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the Lord, and do them ; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring: KJV

Zephaniah 1:8 And on the day of the Lord’s sacrifice—“I will punish the officials and the king’s sons and all who array themselves in foreign attire. RSV