User talk:Flex/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bahnsen

Hi Flex. I'm still not sure I understand why Greg Bahsen wouldn't deserve his own page. We aren't conserving print space here. I don't recall wikipedia having any sort of threshold in terms of how many original contributions one must make to have a wikipedia page. He is quite famous (within Reformed camps)--he has produced many books, articles, and debates--and whether or not you like it--when you say "Van Til" many people immediately think of Bahnsen. Another reason why I can't understand why he wouldn't deserve an entry is the fact that his contributions are not just limited to apologetics, but also other topics such as theonomy, reconstructionism, theology etc. His apologetics are based on Van Til, so naturally they are not "original contributions". Even if he weren't an author, the well-known debate with Gordon Stien would almost be enough to validate having an entry on here. As far as I am concerned, if a name is significant enough to be named in an article, in most cases it is significant enough to have an article. Those are my thoughts.

Let's move this to Talk:Cornelius Van Til.

Hi

Great picture of Van Til -- I'm pleased we have one for Presuppositional apologetics. Just one note -- it needs to have an image tag -- is it public domain, fair use, or what? See Wikipedia:Image use policy or just drop me a line if you need help. Also, congrats and thanks: congrats on your article on PA being featured (I think it's really well done) and thanks for working with me to do the final polishing to get it to featured status. I think it's definitely work to be proud of. Best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 23:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pic of Norbert Wiener

Where did you find the picture of Norbert Wiener? The NY Times has what looks like a larger version in a recent article, and that image is attributed to MIT, which has a number of other images of him on its website. Presumably MIT owns the copyright. --Flex 15:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I stated in the edit summary, I got it from his MacTutor biography. MacTutor says their pictures are all in the public domain. Michael Hardy 23:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Calvin and witch-craft trials

Hi, Flex, I made these remarks. Sorry it did not meet your formating standards. I'm quite content if you rewrite it or format this particular contribution. As far as I know this is a part of Calvin's life which people have rather neglected - or they don't like to talk about it. I have never found any literature about it in English and the books in German have never been reprinted lately. What you wrote about vandalism that's not correct. I'd be obliged to you if you delete this remark. Best regards Ben

Moved to Talk:John Calvin --Flex 20:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ten Commandments

Hi Flex; Reading through the Minnosota Public Radio article linked, it looks to me like some indeterminate number of monuments were placed at least partly to promote the movie. Do you know that this is the case for most of the monuments? I do have some concerns about the point of view expressed in this section. Would it be useful to consider moving the material about the current political controversy to a seperate page, and linking to that page? Regards, Tom Harrison

Hi, Tom. This article indicates that there were "scores" of monuments, and this article from the NY Times indicates that the number is "several thousand." On the other hand, this article indicates that the number was in the hundreds. On second reading of these articles, I don't know that "most" is justified over "many." Note, however, that DeMille's cohorts in the stunt were the fraternal order of Eagles, which is "a nationwide association of civic-minded clubs founded by theater owners," not simply an ordinary service group. As for the POV of that one sentence, I'm a conservative Christian, and I don't have a problem with it. I'm fine with moving the topic to a separate article. --Flex 21:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Flex; Thanks, I'll read up on the issue and check out the links. Sometime next week I'll see about moving public monuments to its own page, unless someone else beats me to it. Interesting about the Eagles club. --Tom harrison 11:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Christianity Template

Though you could call the Reformation a "movement" at the time, it is established enough by now that I think the existing link to 'Protestantism' on the template is quite sufficient. Of course there have been all sorts of historical Christian "movements", I think it's best if we list only a few of the most prominent modern ones on the template to keep it within reasonable size.--Pharos 17:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Solus Christus

Dear Flex: I've not done much research on the form that this sola appears in, but have seen it enough as sola Christus for it to look funny to me to see it any other way. We can go to Solus Christus for now... If I get a moment I'll look around... and all I thought was this would be a quickie 8-) --CTSWyneken 16:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) [relocated from User:Flex]

Atonement (Governmental view)

Flex: See the talk page on Atonement (Governmental view). Thanks! KHM03 19:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Patrology

I wouldn't know. You should consult Catholic Encyclopedia or something similar (use google). I know only what I wrote as I study medicine not theology I. Sorry. I was writing an article about a professor of patrology - that's why I added it. --Eleassar777 20:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neo-orthodox doctrine

Can I ask why you feel references to Karl Barth, a primary figure in Neo-orthodoxy, should not be included in this section? --Randolph 01:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would you prefer them at the end of the paragraph? --Randolph 01:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't object in principle. It just seemed to break the flow of the paragraph as written. --Flex 01:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
On reflection, I agree. :) It was misplaced. I think it would be best at the end of the paragraph. I'm going to place it there if you have no objection. --Randolph 02:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Calvinism

Flex: Good recent edit. I was confused by the most recent edit by the anonymous user, who stated that "Calvinist" was used as a negative term by the Church of England. My understanding is that the Anglican Articles of Religion actually represent at least a mild Calvinism (which John Wesley subsequently edited for use by American Methodists). Not sure what the anonymous user meant or what support the user's assertion had; I had thought of editing it myself, but thought I'd leave it to someone a little more versed in Calvinism. At any rate, I appreciate your clarification. KHM03 13:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, KHM. Thanks. I saw the links you added to limited atonement, and I wonder about their direct relevance (except perhaps for the hymn by C.W.). I don't object to having contrary opinions listed there (though perhaps we should break it into "pro" and "con" sections in that case), but, based on my superficial scan, the articles/sermons listed seem to deal with predestination in general rather than the limited atonement in particular. Certainly the topics are inter-related, but I imagine you could supply some links to Arminian/Wesleyan sources that concentrate on the generality vs. the particularity of the atonement (cf. Hodge's treatment of the question "For whom did Christ die?"). --Flex 14:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I will certainly look into that, and modify accordingly. I would have no problem with a "Pro" and "Con" section under links, though I confess that I know more "Con" than "Pro" on that particular subject! I also noticed a page which could use the attention of someone with a greater knowledge of Calvinism than myself...Perseverance of the saints. I went through it and made a few corrections, but it could really use some work, if you think you could help. Thanks. KHM03 22:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Nice job on the Hyper-Calvinism section. Much clearer and NPOV. --Cberlet 20:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Divide et Impera

Hi Flex, thanks for your great contributions to my favourite list. Two questions about divide et impera: Why Julius Caesar in particular? And did you really mean Louis XI or rather (my guess) Louis XVI? Greetings T.a.k. 20:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, T.a.k. You're very welcome! According to the article Vercingetorix, Julius Caesar describes using the "divide and rule" strategy in his Gallic Wars. It was a general principle of Rome, to be sure, but it seems that he was perhaps its greatest exponent. Also I believe Louis XI is correct, and some other names could be added to the list (see this article, but note that I do not endorse the website). --Flex 00:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Hyper-Calvinism

I've noticed & appreciated your edits on Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. It seems to me, however, that this "subgenre" of Calvinism still exists (on the WWW, in many congregations, even to some degree in some more conservative Reformed denominations); could you mention it on the wikipages? While I know Hyper-Calvinism is still with us, I certainly defer to the expertise of folks like yourself and Jim Ellis in "things Calvinist". Thanks for considering! KHM03 13:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, KHM. The subsection under Calvinism seems to communicate an on-going use of the term (IMHO). Are you speaking primarily of the full article (Hyper-Calvinism)? --Flex 13:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's really clear on either page. You might mention a contemporary example of hyper-Calvinism...just a thought. Thanks. Also, I noticed (re:Calvinism) that Irresistible grace needs some attention by someone more astute than I, when you have an opportunity. KHM03 13:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Covenant Theology

Flex, Thanks for the message. I appreciate your changes. I agree with 95%.

I am adding some info in the Covenant Theology discussion page. Please provide feedback.

Thanks, Jim Ellis 14:56, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Quinquarticular Controversy

Flex,

There wasn't an article on the "Quinquarticular Controversy" even though it shows up as a Wiki-link in two or three related articles. Therefore, I made a feeble attempt at making one. Please add any improvements or clarifications you feel necessary. Regards, Jim Ellis 18:39, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Justification (theology)

I've been working with a few other users to perfect this troubled page...any input is appreciated! God bless...KHM03 22:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but that subject is complicated and sticky. There's the old controversy over sola fide, imputed and infused righteousness, etc., which had the Reformed and Lutheran churched united against the Roman Catholics and which may or may not have been a big misunderstanding. In Reformed circles now, there's a lot of debate over the "New Perspective" on Paul and justification. I don't know much about that. Not sure how helpful I can be. --Flex 19:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning up after me

Thanks for cleaning up after me in some of my edits. I've noticed you have a knack for clarification and often more succinct or appropriate wording. Keep up the good work.  :-) Jim Ellis 16:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Prevenient Grace

Hi...I have no problem with changing the name of the article to "Prevenient grace"...there's no one proper way to state the term. I will try and get to it at some point but have been very busy lately. Feel free to do it if you have an opportunity. I'll get to it eventually. KHM03 12:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Prevenient grace opposition section looks OK to me...I'll do a more thorough look later. Thanks for doing the move...KHM03 13:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I put basically the same content in total depravity, but fellow Calvinist User:Mkmcconn didn't agree with my revisions. (That article now requires cleanup and POV adjustment, IMHO.) Maybe at your convenience, you could throw in your two cents on Talk:Total depravity to get some discussion rolling. Grazie! --Flex 13:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Prevenient grace edits look fine to me. I put some questions/comments on the talk page for Total depravity for you or someone else. It looked OK, just a mite confusing...I think we can be a bit more clear (which I'm happy to help with, at some point, after discussion). Thanks. KHM03 28 June 2005 20:44 (UTC)

it is not vandalism just because you don't agree with it

I don't appreciate you going to page after page removing all the contribs I added. If you have no knowledge on the subject, do NOT "correct" what others put.--uber

Not sure which piece(s) of vandalism you are talking about. When you add serious material (as you did in the second round for Alligator snapping turtle), it can stay. When you insert the word "moron," unilaterally blank pages that you don't agree with (Intelligent Design, Scientific Creationism), and enscribe your value judgements in various articles, you are vandalizing. --Flex 20:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
arbitrarily removing anything a user posts would be vandalism, too buddy.
At least you've admitted you have a problem, but where did I "arbitrarily" remove your contributions? Those that I reverted were non-conformant to the Wikipedia policy for NPOV or unnecessary (e.g., the change to the present tense in PETA; cf. Commandment IX). --Flex 21:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Owen Editing

Hi -- looks like we were editing John Owen (as it were) simultaneously. The length of the article seemed to justify the headings, though the article blends elements in a fluid way. Feel free to fine tune (of course!)! --DjR 15:06, 24 Jun 2005 (BST)

Deletion of images

I have noticed that you have nominated Image:12zm1.jpg for deletion at VfD. I agree that it has not appropriate for Wikipedia, but I am afraid such images are to be listed at Wikipedia:Images for deletion.

Regards, Mike Rosoft 28 June 2005 18:52 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I'll do it right next time. :-) --Flex June 28, 2005 20:06 (UTC)

Talk:Total depravity quote attribution

Did I sort out who-said-what correctly? Unsigned paragraphs are sometimes hard to attribute. Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 15:18 (UTC)

It's better. I'd prefer this, I think: User:Flex/Talk TD. Wikipedia is not designed as a messaging board, so discussions are always a bit hard to follow and every technique has its drawbacks. Indenting seems like the most common way to do it, however. --Flex June 29, 2005 15:42 (UTC)
Hmm. I am surprised to discover that I actually have a strong opinion about this, after all. I do not like your example (sorry). It's too idiosyncratic. Following the threading conventions followed by IRC (which has the same problem as Talk pages), if comments are interspersed, creating sub-threads, the attribution should be explicit in the answering paragraph Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 15:53 (UTC)
mkmcconn, you mean like so?
User:harpothetical, yes, that's what I mean. Mkmcconn (Talk)
mkmcconn, that's a good suggestion.
mkmcconn and harpothetical, well, I don't think it's very readable! user:cantanchorus
harpothetical: Why, thank you. Please consider signing every paragraph. Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 15:53 (UTC)
mkmcconn, I think I like that. User:harpothetical
I like your way better except that (1) it's not standard practice among most users (and I don't want to go fixing everyone's posts) and (2) it breaks up the original posts, making it harder to read them as they were written. For those reasons, I favor the style I proposed above. A better alternative would be for Wikimedia to implement a better post/response system for talk pages. --Flex June 29, 2005 15:59 (UTC)
It is usually not a good idea to break up posts per paragraphs, but when posts cover several points, it's to be expected. Some people don't answer between paragraphs and others do. I usually don't, but this time I did - it's a pattern of typical preferences, not a standard. I am not of the temperament to decide things like this by creating standards artificially; and I actually like the chattiness of Wikipedia talk. It is confusing at first, that responses do not thread in a linear way. But, with care it is not hard to fall in with. FWIW, not meaning to be argumentative, I've been here since some time in 2002, and have never observed anyone using quite the same style that you recommend. Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 16:13 (UTC)
I'm not making my own guidelines either; my proposed style concurs with Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines, which says "Proceed vertically: The further down the contribution to talk, the later it was made." Posting after paragraphs violates this principle. --Flex June 29, 2005 19:00 (UTC)
That is a guideline, which if you will look around does not illustrate typical usage. You will find that people work differently. As a rule, it is best not to divide comments between paragraphs. As a rule, working vertically is correct. But your illustration presses this issue to an absurd and unintended extreme. The comments at the end of the illustrating page are in answer to a single unsigned paragraph at the very top of the page. You couldn't have made the point more clearly that, restricting comments to strictly vertical appending would discourage collaboration, and reduce the useability of Talk pages. But, I think this is about as far as I want to go with this bikeshed. Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 19:25 (UTC)
Sigh. We have a difference of opinion on what makes things readable (I think your method simply makes them less readable in a different way, forcing us to choose between evils, as it were). Back to my comment about getting an improved system for posting/responding. The guideline, BTW, "illustrates standards or behaviors which some or many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy." Though no one bothers to enforce it (they're just talk pages, after all), the editors in question believe it is a valuable guide for general use. That's my final thought on the subject. --Flex June 29, 2005 19:45 (UTC)

Flex - - I responded to "the latest" on the talk page. Thanks...KHM03 1 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)

Talk:History_of_Christianity#The_Zoroastrian_background

You may find this interesting and may want to chime in (if you wish). KHM03 2 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

Hi

Welcome back. KHM03 15:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) --Flex 13:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

The mop is mine!

Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my sacred mop with care. If you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again! -- Essjay · Talk 15:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio on Stanley Fish

Would you please point out on the Stanley Fish talk page where you're finding a copyvio? I have been looking and I'll be damned if I can find it. -- Mwanner 22:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I see why I wasn't spotting it-- it's quite a bit subtler than the average copyvio, and a pretty small percentage of the whole. I'm at a loss here-- it wouldn't take much to re-write these three sentences so that they were technically no longer copyviolations, but that sorta seems to leave behind the spirit of a copyviolation. What's your inclination? -- Mwanner 15:40, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it needs rewriting, but since I don't know much about him, I'll leave it to others who do. BTW, there may be other copyvios in there; I stopped at three. --Flex 15:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Strange. Your first two examples appeared in this [1] edit, but not the third. Mwanner 15:56, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Neonomianism

Flex, I understand your revert of my edit on Thomas Boston. I did not realize that whole entry was a quote from 1911 Encycl.

However, I have a related question. In looking at Amyraldism, Richard Baxter is a proponent who J. I. Packer charges with sowing the seeds of "neonomian Moderatism in Scotland." Baxter was a Low-Calvinist who taught universal atonement. I look up sources on "neonomianism" and find it sometimes called "Baxterism". Then I saw it being used in Thomas Boston to describe what the 1911 Encycl. calls "high Calvinism" and your new entry on the Marrow Controversy flatly calling Boston's opponents Neonomians (from Schaff-Herzog). To me that indirectly links Baxter with High Calvinism, which is not true. What am I missing? Regards, Jim Ellis 17:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert here. See this entry in the Dictionary of Evangelical Theology and chapter 6 of The History of the Free Offer by Prof. Herman C. Hanko. They might clear it up a bit. --Flex 17:52, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I had seen your first reference. However, I found Hanko's article particularly helpful -- in light of which I draw the following:

1. The Marrow Men were charged with being anti-nomian and implicitly endorsing a universal atonement, while the General Assembly was counter charged with being neo-nomian and implicitly endorsing a meritorious view of faith and repentance. Both charges were extreme and largely inaccurate (for neither was actually doing either). Therefore, I judge the Schaff-Herzog terminolgy as POV for using the term Antinomian as it does.

2. Baxter was both neo-nomian in certain respects and Amyraldian. Although they are theologically related, his neonomianism and Amyraldism do not necessarily show up together in subsequent historical contexts. It is somewhat humorous that each party in the Marrow controversy was apparently charging the other with an aspect of Baxterian error.

Jim Ellis 18:53, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Objections to Prevenient grace

Flex, I took a shot at some more meaningful objections to prevenient grace. Take a look and see if you can improve. Jim Ellis 01:44, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


Question

You sent me email. Here is something you can do for me. I looked at the NPOV help at Wikipedia. I did not see where it says how to file a NPOV complaint. Can you tell me how to do this. 17:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)User:kdbuffalo

I responded on your talk page so that you'd get "you have new messages" if you login. --Flex 18:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


GO BAHNSEN SUPORTER, ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIER!

Bahnsen so demolished Gordon Stein that Michael Martin pulled out of his debate in my estimation. Dr. Bahnsen was a bulldog for theism and I think a new category should be created.



FAVOR OF FLEX, Revised

Dear Flex,

I created a very balanced article in my estimation. It was NPOV flagged. Users could easily look up my references too.

Here is the article:

Bible prophecy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_prophecy

I am surprised this category was never created before since it is a common apologetic. I did add one link after the article was created but I did not add any non-Christian links as I could only find 3-4 good Christian links (most were trashy) and zero good non-Christian links.

Please provide any help you might want to give and tell others too. I am guessing someone might vote to delete it next which usually happens when Christian apologetic material is added in somewhat or big issues.

ken 21:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

to flex

I agree with you on the conditionality of prophecy. If memory serves, Jeremiah talks about this. That is why Ninevah was not destroyed. I am going to be away from the net for a long time, if you want to develop "Bible scientific foreknowledge" more I put a number of links in the discussion section. Also, here are my resources on prophecy and perhaps they may be helpful although perhaps not: Prophecy: the Bible has no equals at: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=184 . I may be back to www.wikipedia.com later but perhaps not. We will see what happens and what God has in store for me. I have made some contributions at CreationWiki in the past where my work is more highly praised! LOL

ken 22:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Christianity Article

Flex, I could use a little help getting a supporting opinion on Talk:Christianity issue versus GordonWattsDotCom, if in fact you were to agree.  :-) Jim Ellis 15:09, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

to: flex

I agree with you regarding the learning of Wiki formatting. Secondly, I do think many Christians suffer from a lack of theological knowledge and a lack of knowledge in respect to Church history (Wesley, Calvin, etc. etc. ). However, I think the greatest lack on Wikipedia right now is in the very basic apologetics like "Bible archaeology", "Bible prophecy", and "The Bible and history". I think the links connected to the conservative side of Bible inerrancy need to be strengthened.

I am referring to this section and the links associated with it:

"Some Christians view 2 Timothy 3:16 (and other related passages) as evidence that the Bible claims to be inspired, rather than proof that it is. Rather, it shows that the Bible authors make this claim for scripture; it would be illogical to believe in inerrancy if the Bible itself disclaimed inerrancy. These believers rely on archaeology (see: Biblical archaeology or archaeology ), fulfilled prophecies (see: Bible prophecy or prophecies), etc., as evidence substantiating inerrancy and their beliefs regarding The Bible and history.

Lastly, I took on the atheist/evolutionist yesterday and because of it my links I added in other categories having to do with the Bible were arbitrarily removed via vandalism. I think someone is sending me a message and I think I know who that someone is. I believe I have a solution to this problem. Perhaps we can discuss it through private email of the Wikipedia system in the future.

TO:Flex, addendum

Please send me a private email to kendemyer777@hotmail.com

to:flex, a departing request

Since I am going to be leaving for a while could you do me a favor and make sure my new material is not vandalized in the "Biblical scientific foreknowledge area"  ?

Here is what I inputed and if you can check in the next two days on it I would appreciate it.

Antiseptic and antifungal hyssopp and the Mosaic code

Hyssop has known antiseptic and antifungal properties. According to Smith Bible Dictionary, hyssop was used for sprinkling in some of the sacrifices and purifications of the ancient Jews. This is why the psalmist declared, "Purge me with hyssop." (Psalm 51:7).

Wycliff Bible Dictionary states that Biblical leprosy covered a wide variety of diseases and even could describe mold.

In the Mosaic code, hysopp was used in the sprinkling for the cleansing of a man or a house affected with leprosy (Lev. 14: 4-7, 49-51) and used to cleanse a man who had touched a dead body (Number 14: 8) which given the antiseptic and antifungal nature of hyssop would be helpful especially after handling a dead body

Mosaic Code practices compared to other cultures

The ancient Egyptians and other ancient societies of that day had primitive medicine that could be dangerous (For example, 72% of medical 260 presciptions in the Hearst Papyrus had no curative elements according to medical experts.). In 18th century medicine, the bleeding of patients was occurring which was not helpful to patients but weakened them. Even today, harmful medicine is recalled.

The Mosaic code on the other hand does not proscribe harmful medical advice and in fact was more preventive in focus. Dr. D. T. Atkinson states regarding the Mosaic code: "In the Bible greater stress was placed upon prevention of disease than was given to the treatment of bodily ailments, and in this no race of people, before or since, has left us such a wealth of laws relative to sanitation and hygiene as the Hebrews."

In respect to the dangerousness of ancient medicine it is appropriate to look at Eygptian medicine since it is well documented and in addition Homer's Odyssey declared "the Egyptians were skilled in medicine more than any other art".

Medical historians have labeled ancient Egyptian medicine "sewage pharmacology" due to the high use of dung and other waste products. For example, donkey dung was put on wounds. While Louis Pasteur found that bacteria in the bodies of humans and animals release byproducts into dung and urine which are antibiotic they are not without risk. For example, it has been found that Pakastani caregivers who use topical antibiotics for their babies circumcision wounds instead of using dung, ghee, urine etc, prevent that babies from getting neo natal tetanus. It is thought that Egyptian medicine which used fly specks, fly dung, lizard blood, swine teeth, and other such remedies could be harmful (to stop a baby from crying a seed and fly dung paste mixed with water was given to to babies for four days). The Mosaic code borrows none of the "dung practices" or other dangerous practices of the Egyptians which were said to be skilled in regards to ancient medicine.

Pro-Biblical scientific references and other references

Pro Biblical scientific foreknowledge Links

Thank you

Dear Flex,

I just wanted to thank you for all your help.

Sincerely,

Ken

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flex/Archive_1&oldid=206574844"