The Bible's Buried Secrets

[Azrael]

You may not but it exists. Its called Mannitol its a form of sugar alcohol its low in sucrose so the body does not digest it as well and burns it up. Its often put in gum and even laxiatives thats the reason a big spoon full of the stuff will have you pooping through a screen door and you won't hit the screen either! There are other forms of them as well, Isomalt which is the sugar used to create sugar creations like you see on food network...

The Truth Be Known you have provided supporting evidence for me. According to Wikipedia's entry for mannitol, "called manna after their resemblance to the Biblical food."

Wikipedia does not qualify it as the 'supposed Biblical food', or 'the substance reported in the Bible Book of Exodus'. The author of the Wikipedia article reports the resemblance to manna as a factual statement which indicates that manna is presented as a real substance. Thanks for the information and support.

Exactly. Thats where the mannitol comes from manna! Just as table sugar also known as sucrose comes from the sugar cane leaves. There is also beet sugar that is taken from the root of the plant though its not near as pure as cane sugar it serves the same purpose.....regular cane sugar will caramelize at about 290 F where as Isomalt I spoke of can be taken to as high as 335F with no ill effects....theres a book by Harold McGee called "On Food and Cooking" its a great food science book and as a history of sugar in it..

[stahrwe]

Why is Squelch no longer posting? It was pretty obious that he was an intelligent person.

What does this have to do with arrogance?

Figure this one out for yourself.

Would you like to frame this in the form of another challenge?

I already did, stop being redundant.

You're playing schoolmaster again.
I missed what you promised to do if I successfuuly completed the challenge. Then again, I don't guess it matters does it.

How about this one as a new challenge?

Absolutely. Structure Frank's arguments then point to where it lacks "artfulness".

Now you are being both redundent and unobservant. I aleady did that.

neither is it possible by any process that has been witnessed and recorded (this is not true. It was recorded Frank013 just chooses to dismiss it), nor is its single recording (here Frank013 contradicts the preceeding statement)

Frank doesn't contradict himself. Reread what he wrote.

This is just amusing, sorry.

Here is what Frank013 wrote in response to my comment about contradicting himself:

actually your right… my bad…

The author of the Wikipedia article reports the resemblance to manna as a factual statement which indicates that manna is presented as a real substance.

Of course it was real. It fell from the sky and fed millions. Der, it isn't entirely impossible, which means it definitely happened!!!

Glad that is settled.

PS, I watched more of TBBS. Can only stomach a bit at a time and boy are there some major mess ups which will be posted shortly. They really should have at least read the Bible.

[Interbane]

This is just amusing, sorry.

Here is what Frank013 wrote in response to my comment about contradicting himself:

neither is it possible by any process that has been witnessed and recorded (this is not true. It was recorded Frank013 just chooses to dismiss it), nor is its single recording (here Frank013 contradicts the preceeding statement) considered a reliable text by any intellectual standard (again, by Frank013's bias)

Show me the contradiction please. Here is a summary of what Frank said, to make it easy for you: "No process is known to result in manna falling from the sky. The lone testimony of the event is not reliable."

It seems to me that Frank didn't quite read your criticism carefully enough.

Figure this one out for yourself.

I already have. It's not the answer you have. We have different answers. What's yours? I asked first. (wow that felt childish, but that's what it takes with you!)

Glad that is settled.

As settled as the story of aqua imps sieging atlantis. Pure fantasy, but believed by some.

[Frank 013]

Interbane
Show me the contradiction please. Here is a summary of what Frank said, to make it easy for you: "No process is known to result in manna falling from the sky. The lone testimony of the event is not reliable."

Actually what happened is that I did (at first) post my statement which had a contradiction within it… it was only a technical “wording” issue that popped up because I was distracted… and I don’t think that it made my point less understandable… but it was (technically) a wording mistake… which I did notice and fix… before stahrwe posted what he did.

This is what I changed it to…

Frank
Considering that manna has never been seen falling from the sky by anyone alive today and neither is it possible by any process that has been witnessed and recorded, nor is its single recording considered a reliable text by any intellectual standard, the likelihood of this event having actually happened is improbable … at best.

The error was addressed very quickly but stahrwe got hold of the pre-edited version… and (of course) attacked my wording… because he has no credible way to attack my point.

Later

[stahrwe]

Frank
Considering that manna has never been seen falling from the sky by anyone alive today and neither is it possible by any process that has been witnessed and recorded, nor is its single recording considered a reliable text by any intellectual standard, the likelihood of this event having actually happened is improbable … at best.

The error was addressed very quickly but stahrwe got hold of the pre-edited version… and (of course) attacked my wording… because he has no credible way to attack my point.

Later

My signature statement addresses the issue, as for attacking your words, the way things are said makes a difference. For example, on the Nova SHOW which inspired this discussion:

NARRATOR: Archaeology reveals that the Israelites were themselves originally Canaanites. So why does the Bible consistently cast the Israelites as outsiders in Canaan: Abraham's wanderings from Mesopotamia; Moses leading slaves out of Egypt and into the Promised Land; and Joshua conquering Canaan from outside? (page 11)

This statement contains a major error. Do you know what it is? Anyone familiar with the Bible should immediately recognize it and certainly, a serious program like Nova should not commit such errors. If I point it out, am I attacking the text or calling attention to a mistake?

[Frank 013]

Stahrwe
My signature statement addresses the issue,

Saying that I am wrong does not address the issue… that is an opinion (and an ill-informed one at that) you need to back up your claims with credible evidence (and that does rule out the bible)

Stahrwe
as for attacking your words, the way things are said makes a difference.

True… but the point was clear enough even before I fixed the problem… you however unnecessarily fixated on the wording… which I hope is straightened out now.

Later

[Interbane]

This statement contains a major error.

I consider something an "error" when it doesn't match up with what is true. Although misrepresenting a story can also be an error, I couldn't care less about who got what facts of what story wrong. It's not important enough to warrant use of neurons. What is important is the human element. Those people who are deluded(not necessarily yourself) into believing the story, and acting in a detrimental way to the future of humanity as a result. It's a nation-wide tug of war, with half the country trying with all their zeal to pull us into the distant past and inevitably degrade quality of life.

Now, if you instead quoted archaeological evidence of a few mass graves in the desert as evidence of a massive roaming population, I'd show more interest.

[stahrwe]

Wikipedia does not qualify it as the 'supposed Biblical food', or 'the substance reported in the Bible Book of Exodus'. The author of the Wikipedia article reports the resemblance to manna as a factual statement which indicates that manna is presented as a real substance. Thanks for the information and support.

Exactly. Thats where the mannitol comes from manna! Just as table sugar also known as sucrose comes from the sugar cane leaves. There is also beet sugar that is taken from the root of the plant though its not near as pure as cane sugar it serves the same purpose.....regular cane sugar will caramelize at about 290 F where as Isomalt I spoke of can be taken to as high as 335F with no ill effects....theres a book by Harold McGee called "On Food and Cooking" its a great food science book and as a history of sugar in it..[/quote]

I must point out that you are still wrong. Mannitrol is not manna and does not come from manna. It was given the name because it is said to resemble what manna is reported to have looked like.

[stahrwe]

This statement contains a major error.

I consider something an "error" when it doesn't match up with what is true. Although misrepresenting a story can also be an error, I couldn't care less about who got what facts of what story wrong. It's not important enough to warrant use of neurons. What is important is the human element. Those people who are deluded(not necessarily yourself) into believing the story, and acting in a detrimental way to the future of humanity as a result. It's a nation-wide tug of war, with half the country trying with all their zeal to pull us into the distant past and inevitably degrade quality of life.

Now, if you instead quoted archaeological evidence of a few mass graves in the desert as evidence of a massive roaming population, I'd show more interest.

This discussion is about a Nova SHOW supposedly identifying Hidden Bible Secrets.

Most of what I have seen of the show and read of the transcript is not so much revelations exposing previously hidden secrets, most of it is just opinion from various various cast members.

I say cast member because it seems the line up was designed with a particular viewpoint already established. One assumes that a Nova program would be unbiased but this one is not. How does one go about proving that? Remember TEoG by Robert Wright? He had opinions he was peddling too. He claimed to know about the Bible too and he too had major errors clear in his version of the Bible.

NARRATOR: Archaeology reveals that the Israelites were themselves originally Canaanites. So why does the Bible consistently cast the Israelites as outsiders in Canaan: Abraham's wanderings from Mesopotamia; Moses leading slaves out of Egypt and into the Promised Land; and Joshua conquering Canaan from outside?

The Bible very clearly states that Moses did NOT lead the Israelites into the promised land. This is not a trivial issue given Moses' position and for a SHOW, especially one about Bible history to get it wong calls the rigor of their research into question.

[Interbane]

The Bible very clearly states that Moses did NOT lead the Israelites into the promised land.

Who cares what the bible says? What makes you think it's an accurate depiction of history? I'm already aware it's not accurate, so I couldn't care less. What I'm concerned with is why you believe this rubbish.

My tone would be completely different if you were analyzing the bible through the context that it's part truth, part fantasy, and loaded front to back with culture, rather than explanation. It's a story, that's all.