Viruses are manufactured

[Right Divider]

I think you missed the point. The issue was a question about death prior to the Fall. According to JR's post 17 all death does not equal death in the Biblical sense---plant death does not equal death. Do you agree with that? What death counts as death? Insect death? invertebrate death?

Lev 17:11 (AKJV/PCE)​

(17:11) For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.​

This seems to support the idea that plants are not "alive" in the same sense as animals.

 

[Avajs]

Lev 17:11 (AKJV/PCE)​

(17:11) For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.​

This seems to support the idea that plants are not "alive" in the same sense as animals.

define blood.

 

[7djengo7]

define blood.

It's always amusing to see people (such as yourself) who do not even know what defining is saying things like "define [X]." @Right Divider did, already, define blood, by his quotation of Leviticus 17:11, wherein we learn the fact that blood is something the life of the flesh is in. Do you not like that fact?

 

[Right Divider]

define blood.

Define define.

 

[Avajs]

It's always amusing to see people (such as yourself) who do not even know what defining is saying things like "define [X]." @Right Divider did, already, define blood, by his quotation of Leviticus 17:11, wherein we learn the fact that blood is something the life of the flesh is in. Do you not like that fact?

then you

It's always amusing to see people (such as yourself) who do not even know what defining is saying things like "define [X]." @Right Divider did, already, define blood, by his quotation of Leviticus 17:11, wherein we learn the fact that blood is something the life of the flesh is in. Do you not like that fact?

Sorry about that double quote. You have not provided a definition. It was a simple question

 

[Avajs]

Define define.

It was a serious question. "Life of the flesh is in the blood" does that mean without blood there is no life? Or do you need both flesh and blood. Or does it only refer to vertebrates? Or is is a particular reference to humans? Or only connected with humans because other animals do not have souls?

 

[Right Divider]

It was a serious question. "Life of the flesh is in the blood" does that mean without blood there is no life? Or do you need both flesh and blood. Or does it only refer to vertebrates? Or is is a particular reference to humans? Or only connected with humans because other animals do not have souls?

You know very well what blood is, so no... it was not a serious question.

 

[7djengo7]

You have not provided a definition.

By saying that, you again show that you do not even know what defining is. And, were I to ask you to try to explain your thinking that motivates your denial of the fact that the definition presented to you is a definition, the best you can hope to do is to mindlessly repeat your assertion by saying something like "Because it's not a definition!" You don't even know what defining is, parrot.

"Life of the flesh is in the blood" does that mean without blood there is no life?

To where are you referring by your word "there"? Are you referring to in the flesh? Clearly, according to the definition of blood given by God in Leviticus 17:11, no life is IN THE FLESH if no blood is IN THE FLESH since the life of the flesh is IN THE BLOOD.

 

[Avajs]

You know very well what blood is, so no... it was not a serious question.

Generally blood refers to the circulatory fluid in vertebrates. Haemolymph is the equivalent in invertebrates and plants I guess would be---sap?
So using the Biblical language, only vertebrates are alive therefore the "death" of anything else preFall is not considered death.

 

[7djengo7]

Generally blood refers to the circulatory fluid in vertebrates.

Blood doesn't refer. To anything. But someone saying the word "blood" might refer to something by their saying the word "blood". To what are you referring by your phrase "the circulatory fluid in vertebrates"?

Haemolymph is the equivalent in invertebrates and plants I guess would be---sap?

"The equivalent" of what? "Equivalent" how?

So using the Biblical language,

What exactly do you mean by your phrase "using the Biblical language"?

only vertebrates are alive

What do you mean by "alive"?

therefore the "death" of anything else preFall is not considered death.

No death occurred before the Fall, so why would you even want to call anything that occurred before the Fall, "death"?

 

[Avajs]

Blood doesn't refer. To anything. But someone saying the word "blood" might refer to something by their saying the word "blood". To what are you referring by your phrase "the circulatory fluid in vertebrates"?


"The equivalent" of what? "Equivalent" how?


What exactly do you mean by your phrase "using the Biblical language"?


What do you mean by "alive"?


No death occurred before the Fall, so why would you even want to call anything that occurred before the Fall, "death"?

"blood" is the circulatory fluid in vertebrates. that is a definition--see how easy that is. You seemed to have trouble with a definition earlier

 

[JudgeRightly]

"blood" is the circulatory fluid in vertebrates. that is a definition--see how easy that is. You seemed to have trouble with a definition earlier

That is a MODERN definition of blood.

You need to put yourself in the shoes of the person who wrote the scripture. What was the context? How did they see things? Did they consider insects or plants to be "living beings" that could suffer death?

Blood to the ancients was what flowed through the bodies of animals and humans. Insects, bugs, plants, and many other creatures were not considered to have that.

 

[Avajs]

That is a MODERN definition of blood.

You need to put yourself in the shoes of the person who wrote the scripture. What was the context? How did they see things? Did they consider insects or plants to be "living beings" that could suffer death?

Blood to the ancients was what flowed through the bodies of animals and humans. Insects, bugs, plants, and many other creatures were not considered to have that.

Then the definition in ancient times is the same as now. "Blood" is found in vertebrates.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Then the definition in ancient times is the same as now. "Blood" is found in vertebrates.

You're committing a Historian's Fallacy.

 

[7djengo7]

"blood" is the circulatory fluid in vertebrates.

"Blood" is a word, not a fluid. I grant you, though, that "blood" circulates--in verbal discourse. I mean, "blood" is indeed one of the many words people say from time to time.

that is a definition

To what are you referring by your pronoun, "that"?

--see how easy that is.

How easy what is?

You seemed to have trouble with a definition earlier

What are you even talking about? What would you even mean by "have trouble with a definition"? Your saying that is nothing but cognitively-meaningless noisemaking, an emotional outburst. It's just you lashing out in your anger. You don't even know what defining is. And, since you don't know what defining is, how do you imagine you benefit by your continually throwing around the word "definition" mindlessly?

Come on, Professor Parrot: give us something you'd call "a definition", and then have fun tripping all over your clueless self in your inability to explain why you'd choose to call it "a definition". Above, I asked you to explain yourself, why you chose to deny the fact that the definition of blood given by God in Leviticus 17:11 is a definition; yet, so far, you've not even made a peep about that. And that's because even you know that you, in your ignorance, have no hope of rationally accounting for your choice to call one thing "a definition" nor for your choice to call another thing "no definition".

Here are a couple of questions to further highlight the fact that you don't even know what defining is:

• Is any definition true? Yes or No?
• Is any definition false? Yes or No?

 

[carolus magnus]

If the times we live in are "like the days of Noah"

@JudgeRightly They aren't.

How can you state that so definitively? Do you have some special knowledge?

 

[JudgeRightly]

How can you state that so definitively? Do you have some special knowledge?

Last I checked, marriage is (sadly) on the decline in today's society. Compare to what the scripture you quoted says.

 

[carolus magnus]

Last I checked, marriage is (sadly) on the decline in today's society. Compare to what the scripture you quoted says.

As in the days of Noah. What were the days of Noah like? Scripture tells us:

Gen 6:5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

Sounds a LOT like today's society. Which means we live in a time that is similar. But what else do we have? Science, technology, wonders. And lots, and lots of evil.

So putting these together it seems that it is not a stretch to say in Noah's day they had science, technology, wonders. Again, that doesn't mean they were walking around with iPhones, it likely expressed itself very different. Biology is the same today as it was then, so to say that they may have had a form of biological warfare is reasonable.

And, consistent with my prediction, they just found massive structures under the Pyramids. Blowing away the established history. Early Egyptians had more highly advanced technology and declined over time.

 

[JudgeRightly]

As in the days of Noah. What were the days of Noah like? Scripture tells us:



Sounds a LOT like today's society. Which means we live in a time that is similar. But what else do we have? Science, technology, wonders. And lots, and lots of evil.

So what?

So putting these together it seems that it is not a stretch to say in Noah's day they had science, technology, wonders.

Again, I have no problem with the ancients being geniuses.

The problem comes in when you try to assert because they were evil, just as today's society is evil... therefore they must have been capable of things that we today are capable of.

That's a non-sequitur. It does not logically follow.

Again, that doesn't mean they were walking around with iPhones, it likely expressed itself very different. Biology is the same today as it was then,

Because you say so?

Something changed as a result of the flood.

The atmosphere was different. No longer was there a mist that watered the earth. It was now rain, and rainbows. And wine-making was possible, or at the very least much easier. And God said men would only live to 120 years of age, instead of the usual 6-900+ years.

I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying there's no evidence for your position other than conjecture and assumptions.

so to say that they may have had a form of biological warfare is reasonable.

Where is your evidence for this?

And, consistent with my prediction, they just found massive structures under the Pyramids. Blowing away the established history. Early Egyptians had more highly advanced technology and declined over time.

I'm a bit skeptical about those massive structures, though I would argue, based on what I've seen from the YT channel "The Land of Chem," (who has a lot of content dealing with the Pyramids) they were probably mostly meant for large scale agricultural chemical use, for making stuff that would help with living in such an environment.

They did things on the macro-scale. Not the micro-scale.

Agricultural chemical production is a far cry from biological warfare.

 

[Clete]

As in the days of Noah. What were the days of Noah like? Scripture tells us:



Sounds a LOT like today's society. Which means we live in a time that is similar.

Well, that is more than just a little bit a matter of perspective.

Jesus intended to return within the life time of some of His disciples. This means that Jesus' day was as it was in the days of Noah.

Societal evil seems to ebb and flow. There have been several periods where evil has peaked...

• Canaanite and Phoenician Cultures (c. 1500–500 BC) – Widespread child sacrifice, ritual prostitution, and idolatry so abhorrent that God commanded Israel to destroy them.
• Roman Decadence and Persecutions (1st–4th centuries AD) – Gladiatorial games, rampant immorality, and brutal persecution of Christians, including Nero’s sadistic executions.
• The Mongol Conquests (13th century AD) – Genghis Khan and his successors slaughtered entire cities, sometimes killing millions in a single campaign.
• Transatlantic Slave Trade (16th–19th centuries AD) – The large-scale kidnapping, abuse, and forced labor of millions, often justified with twisted theology.
• Nazi Germany and the Holocaust (1933–1945) – Systematic genocide, industrialized murder, and horrifying medical experiments on innocent people.
• Communist Regimes (20th century AD) – Stalin’s purges, Mao’s Great Leap Forward, and the Khmer Rouge’s killing fields collectively led to over 100 million deaths.

Today we have the mass slaughter of the unborn, normalization of the worst kind of sexual perversion, human trafficking on an industrial scale, and growing hostility toward both Christians and Jews. This suggests that we may be approaching (or are already in) another peak of societal evil. There are, however, some recent developments that leads one to think that the pendulum may be starting to swing back the other way and so whether this peak in societal evil is the last or just the latest is yet to be seen.

But what else do we have? Science, technology, wonders. And lots, and lots of evil.

So putting these together it seems that it is not a stretch to say in Noah's day they had science, technology, wonders.

Umm, yeah - it's definitely a stretch, dude! I mean, there is precisely NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of a technologically advanced society in ancient times.

Again, that doesn't mean they were walking around with iPhones, it likely expressed itself very different. Biology is the same today as it was then, so to say that they may have had a form of biological warfare is reasonable.

Nonsense! This isn't how you do your theology, is it?

This is ancient aliens level stupidity.

And, consistent with my prediction, they just found massive structures under the Pyramids. Blowing away the established history. Early Egyptians had more highly advanced technology and declined over time.

This logic doesn't follow.

"We found something under ground. Therefore, whoever put it there had advanced technology such that they understood microbiology and could create viruses."

They find stuff underground all the time, Charles! The Egyptians were good at digging holes in the ground. Big deal! You don't think that they would have put even one single high tech instrument of any sort inside the tomb of even one Pharaoh? (Not to mention the tombs of other kings all over the ancient world.) Not one microscope (or even anything that could have served a similar purpose), not one computer of ANY SORT or description whatsoever, not even one precision tooled instrument, never mind the tools required to make such a precision instrument has ever been found nor has any such thing ever even been described in any ancient text. No ancient civilization had the ability to generate truly flat reference surfaces, which means that they couldn’t possibly have made the kind of high-precision tools necessary for microbiology, let alone virus engineering.

Ancient civilizations recorded religious, astronomical, and medical knowledge in great detail. Why is there no mention of microbiology or lab work?
We find pottery, tools, weapons, and even organic materials like scrolls and papyrus. Why not a single test tube, microscope, or anything remotely resembling a biological research facility?

The answer is because there weren't any such things!