If science ...?

Tiassa

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...
Valued Senior Member
If scientists, for whatever reason—and I'm sure we could think of a few if we tried—successfully bred pigs without cloven hooves, would ham become Kosher?

Or am I missing a few scriptural reasons?
 
ham will never become Kosher...no pig eating because of mentioning of Trichinoses in scriptures
 
There's probably something about not using animals that are deformed in any way.
 
Draqon said:

Trichinoses in scriptures
Click to expand...

Nifty. Never heard about that. Do you have a citation?

• • •​

Spidergoat said:

There's probably something about not using animals that are deformed in any way.
Click to expand...

Ah, I had not thought of that. But you've raised a pretty mystery. Several centuries ago, the discussion of evil among creation included considerations of a blind horse. I'd have to dig it up, but it seems to me that if there was a scriptural precedent about deformed animals (other than humans), that would have settled the argument right then and there.

Of course, it was, as I recall, the Catholics, so who knows what arguments were disqualified at the time ....
 
SnakeLord said:

They don't chew the cud either.. I thought that was a requirement?
Click to expand...

I think it's an either/or.

(See response to M*W) below.
 
Last edited:
SnakeLord said:
They don't chew the cud either.. I thought that was a requirement?
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't sheep and goats have cloven hooves? They ate them, didn't they? I'm too tired to look it up right now.
 
Medicine Woman said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't sheep and goats have cloven hooves? They ate them, didn't they? I'm too tired to look it up right now.
Click to expand...

If an animal meets both criteria—is a ruminant and has a cloven hoof—all is cool. I believe sheep and goats qualify as such. I'm looking at Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Scripture is specific about pigs:

... you will regard the pig as unclean, though it has a cloven hoof, divided into two parts, it is not a ruminant.

(Lv. 11.7, JB)

• • •​

The pig, because it divides the hoof but does not chew the cud, it is unclean for you. You shall not eat any of their flesh nor touch their carcasses

(Dt. 14.8, NASB)
Click to expand...
 
what does it mean does not chew? Sure it chews - it's got teach ain't it?

:)

PS: Pork is YUMMY :)
 
Michael said:
what does it mean does not chew? Sure it chews - it's got teach ain't it?

:)

PS: Pork is YUMMY :)
Click to expand...
You do not know what chew the cud means.

Chewing the cud is when a herbivore regurgitates its food and chews it a second time.

So a cow will chew grass and then later it will vomit/regurgitated the partly digested grass into its mouth and then chew it again before finally swallowing it again and finishing the digestion.
 
So a cow will chew grass and then later it will vomit/regurgitated the partly digested grass into its mouth and then chew it again before finally swallowing it again and finishing the digestion
Click to expand...

Aye, because in his infinite wisdom god made a grass eating animal with the inability to digest grass..

Guy's sure got a sense of humour, I'll give him that.
 
SnakeLord said:
Aye, because in his infinite wisdom god made a grass eating animal with the inability to digest grass..

Guy's sure got a sense of humour, I'll give him that


He made pigs knowing his only begotten son would be born a Jew
Click to expand...
 
[QUOTE=Photizo;1662514

Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil.

There's enough trouble in Ethopia . Please don't add to it

Your skirts have been uncovered.

I bet Ruth looked stunning in a miniskirt


Because you have forgotten Me And trusted in falsehood.

Do you pray for amnesiacs ?
 
The old guy can sometimes be nasty. How about incitement to murder......one's own son ?
 
Re: Draqon, #2, 9

Draqon said:

laws of Kashrut ... but your references look much more detailed
Click to expand...

The Jewish Virtual Library (A Division of The American-Israel Cooperative Enterprise) entry, "Kashrut: Jewish Dietary Laws" makes no reference to trichinosis, and is largely based on passages from Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and also the Oral Torah.

The Wikipedia entry on Kashrut—with, of course, the standard disclaimers about Wiki's accuracy—notes:

It was believed by some people that kosher animals were healthier to eat than non-kosher animals. It was also noted that the laws of purity (Leviticus 11–15) not only describe the difference between clean and unclean animals, but also describe other phenomena that appear to be related to health. For instance, glatt, the requirement that lungs be checked to be free of adhesions, would prevent consumption of animals who had been infected with tuberculosis; similarly, the ban on slaughtering of an unconscious animal would eliminate many sick and possibly infectious animals from being consumed. Such a rationale seems reasonable when considering the laws prohibiting the consumption of carrion birds or birds of prey (which are advantageous scavengers), as they may carry disease from the carrion they consume; shellfish, which as filter feeders can accumulate harmful parasites or toxins; or pork, which can harbor trichinosis if not properly cooked. Thus, it was natural for many to assume that all the laws of kashrut were merely hygienic in intent and origin. One of the rabbinical authorities that mention the hygiene hypothesis is Maimonides in his Guide for the Perplexed.

(Wikipedia)
Click to expand...

Maimonides° was a Rabbi of the twelfth century, a scholastic who sought—as scholastics did—to reconcile theology and knowledge (e.g. science). The Wiki discussion of Kashrut suggests:

For a number of reasons, however, this idea has fallen out of favor among Biblical scholars. Fruits and vegetables may be eaten without prohibition even though there are many poisonous herbs, seeds, berries, and fruits. Additionally, this hypothesis does not explain other parts of the Jewish dietary laws; for instance forbidding the consumption of fish without true scales, such as sharks and swordfish (though see kosher foods for discussion on kashrut of swordfish), fruit from trees which are less than four years old, or residual blood in meat

In 1953, Dr. David I. Macht, a Johns Hopkins University researcher, performed experiments on many different kinds of animals and fish, and concluded that the concentration of zoological toxins of the "unclean" animals was higher than that of the "clean" animals, and that the correlation with the description in Leviticus was 100%. In addition, Dr. Macht's research indicated harmful physiological effects of mixtures of meat and milk, and ritually slaughtered meat appeared to be lower in toxins than meat from other sources. The conclusions of the paper published in Johns Hopkins Bulletin of the History of Medicine were challenged in a paper by biologists written at the request of a Seventh-day Adventist Church publication ....

.... Anthropologist Marvin Harris has proposed that the Jewish prohibition of pork results from the fact that in arid countries such as Israel, it is possible to raise pork only by feeding it grains that are also eaten by people, since the pigs cannot forage in nonexistent forests. In bad harvest years, there would be a social conflict between those who could afford to raise and eat pork and those who would be at risk of starvation due to the scarcity of edible grains. Thus, in the interest of social survival, the prohibition entered the Jewish religion. Harris in Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches cites worldwide examples of similar ecologically determined religious practices, including other prohibitions of pork for similar reasons. According to Harris, pork requires too much salt to guarantee the elimination of the carcass liquids due to high fat content. The reverse process of washing out the preserving salt when it came to eating the meat also made it difficult to justify. This same reason would apply to many other forbidden foods either because salting preservation was impossible or because the salting process was not reversible.

(Wikipedia)
Click to expand...
____________________

Notes:

° Maimonides — Many theologians consider Maimonedes' strongest contribution his assertion of "negative theology"; that it is more appropriate to state what God is not than what God is. Theologically, this does make a certain amount of sense, as the concept can prevent certain conflicts of attributes that seem mutually exclusive. Eight hundred years later, though, we might wonder how the notion contributes to anti-identification, that is, labeling oneself according to what one is not. (Political candidates often specialize in anti-identification.)

Works Cited:

"Kashrut: Jewish Dietary Laws". Jewish Virtual Library. 2007. See http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/kashrut.html

"Kashrut". Wikipedia. 7 December, 2007. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashrut

"Maimonides". Wikipedia. 27 November, 2007. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top