[Tiresias]

I'm reading "You're Too Kind: A Brief History of Flattery" by Richard Stengel.

He writes:

God commands the prophet Ezekiel not only to eat a scroll with God's words on it but to eat excrement as well.

I'm trying to find the passage in question.

Anybody better versed in the Good Book know where this might be?

(Kids, don't eat your caca).

[Tiresias]

Never mind.

And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.

Ezekiel 4:12

[lpkmckenna]

[BlueSky]

Holy ****

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by BlueSky 

Holy ahem.

Seconded.

[RAILhead]

It doesn't take a Biblical scholar to understand that God didn't say anything about eating the crap -- Ezekiel was to use it as "fuel."

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

It doesn't take a Biblical scholar to understand that God didn't say anything about eating the crap -- Ezekiel was to use it as "fuel."

Yeah. Instead of smoke chips for that nice, smokey flavor when you BBQ, he used human faeces. It's, uh, it's sort of the same thing. Kinda.

Hey, some people juggle geese!

[RAILhead]

Wrong again. If one steps out of the need to mock a Faith, one could easily learn that God ended up telling Ezekiel to use cow dung. So, we have...

1. Thread title: WRONG.
2. OP article/book: WRONG.
3. No one seeming to read the verses before posting like idiots: CORRECT.

[sek929]

Actually, the title was a question so instead of being WRONG you could have simply just said NO.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

It doesn't take a Biblical scholar to understand that God didn't say anything about eating the crap -- Ezekiel was to use it as "fuel."

You could read it both ways. "Bake it with dung" is ambiguous.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You could read it both ways. "Bake it with dung" is ambiguous.

Are you being serious? Do I really need to quote all the translations of this verse?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Are you being serious? Do I really need to quote all the translations of this verse?

Yes and yes.

Frankly, I don't care one way or the other.

But it's pretty easy to believe that a god who would order Joshua to slay every man, woman, and child during an invasion would also order his prophets to eat dung.

[BRussell]

Hey I think I just found Ezekiel's lost tomb under my house.

[RAILhead]

Crosswalk - Devotionals, Christian Music, Family, Christian News, Forums & more

There's a popup menu that lets you choose which translation you'd like to read.

[goMac]

Oh jees, the old testament. There is one document that has been through so many translations it's a wonder it even makes sense. Just the mis-translations we know about are bad enough.

Don't even get me started on the "parting of the red sea"...

[Mithras]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Hey I think I just found Ezekiel's lost tomb under my house.

Anybody named Ringo in there?

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Wrong again. If one steps out of the need to mock a Faith, one could easily learn that God ended up telling Ezekiel to use cow dung. So, we have...

1. Thread title: WRONG.
2. OP article/book: WRONG.
3. No one seeming to read the verses before posting like idiots: CORRECT.

Question is...what was this guy smoking when he heard these voices telling him how to cook? They didn't have the Food Channel.

And did god tell women to swallow?

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

It doesn't take a Biblical scholar to understand that God didn't say anything about eating the crap -- Ezekiel was to use it as "fuel."

Is that possible? Really? Think about it--Or better still, try it. There's no way you can make a "human turd fire". Or did Ezekiel go about drying the turds in the sun first? Have you ever seen a dried human turd? It is not like a cow patt. It pulverizes.

Sure, a turd fire is a great idea in theory.

[Big Mac]

Dung has been a traditional source of fuel for fires. I imagine the properties are generally the same no matter what kind of dung it is. Give it a rest.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Dung has been a traditional source of fuel for fires. I imagine the properties are generally the same no matter what kind of dung it is. Give it a rest.

Give what a rest?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Give what a rest?

Your pointless line of questions.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Your pointless line of questions.

My question was simply: Where in the Bible does Ezekiel eat caca?

And I found the answer myself.

It is explicit from the wording of my question that I take for granted the fact that Ezekiel did, in fact, eat caca; therefore, it should not surprise any reasonable mind that I dispute the "baking bread over a caca fire" interpretation.

But it does surprise you.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Your pointless line of questions.

Originally Posted by tiresias

There was no line of questions. There was one: Where in the Bible does Ezekiel eat caca?

Incorrect. You started the thread with the title "Did G-d make Ezekial..."

It is explicit from the wording of my question that I take for granted the fact that Ezekiel did, in fact, eat caca;

No, the wording of the question in the title suggests you're open to the possibility that G-d does not do this. Now you're saying that your mind was made up from the very beginning.

I think it's reasonable to be surprised when you misled the whole discussion by opening it as if you were willing to consider and accept the possibility that this did not take place.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

There was no line of questions. There was one: Where in the Bible does Ezekiel eat caca?

Incorrect. You started the thread with the title "Did G-d make Ezekial..."


No, the wording of the question in the title suggests you're open to the possibility that G-d does not do this. Now you're saying that your mind was made up from the very beginning.

I think it's reasonable to be surprised when you misled the whole discussion by opening it as if you were willing to consider and accept the possibility that this did not take place.

What are you talking about?

I'm trying to find the passage in question.

Anybody better versed in the Good Book know where this might be?

Please to prove how this question proves I am open to the possibility Ezekial did not eat caca.

You cannot.

[vmarks]

Look at the title of the thread. You wrote that title when you posted.

It begins with the words "Did G-d make Ezekial..."

Those words which you wrote mean that you're open to the possibility that G-d did NOT.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Look at the title of the thread. You wrote that title when you posted.

It begins with the words "Did G-d make Ezekial..."

Those words which you wrote mean that you're open to the possibility that G-d did NOT.

True.

You are entirely correct. It did look like I was open to the possiblity that there was no caca eating in the Bible.

I stand corrected.

But as this thread has developed--that is, now that the passage in question has been posted--my position has changed.

I mean, a baking bread over a human caca fire? Absurd!

[olePigeon]

Gives a whole new meaning to the word "cow patty."

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Gives a whole new meaning to the word "cow patty."

It's just pathetic. What's with these people logging on to say "Um actually, God didn't command Ezekiel to eat crap. He said to make a little fire of human crap and cook some bread over it." I mean, what's that? It's almost as strange anyway, isn't it? What kind of riposte is that!?

[Railroader]

Tiresias, your ability to understand a cultural difference from yours is blocking you from removing your ignorance.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

It's just pathetic. What's with these people logging on to say "Um actually, God didn't command Ezekiel to eat crap. He said to make a little fire of human crap and cook some bread over it." I mean, what's that? It's almost as strange anyway, isn't it? What kind of riposte is that!?

Well, that's the meaning of the verse, whether you wish to accept it or not. God was making a symbolic display through Ezekiel's actions about the defilement Israel had brought upon itself. The Hebrew Scriptures does not deal with only earthly things. The book teaches about such things as God, the Divine Plan, angels, souls, rituals of atonement, divine reward and punishment, prophets, divine laws and other subjects of that extra-natural sort. You, as a non-believer, will fail utterly to comprehend much of the Hebrew Scriptures. For example, you probably find the fact that Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac as a fulfillment of God's command to be disgusting and absurd. That means you've missed the point entirely. You're just not going to get it. You formed a pre-conceived notion to which you'll cling no matter what anyone says, so that's why I told you to give it a rest. It's fine if you don't like the Hebrew Scriptures. It wasn't meant for you.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

It's just pathetic. What's with these people logging on to say "Um actually, God didn't command Ezekiel to eat crap. He said to make a little fire of human crap and cook some bread over it." I mean, what's that? It's almost as strange anyway, isn't it? What kind of riposte is that!?

God moves in mysterious ways indeed. Anyway, shouldn't God in His Infinite Knowledge know that human poop is pretty useless as fuel? Or was this one of those "I'll change the laws of physics just for you" miracle-times?

[- - e r i k - -]

I can't believe I actually looked this up:

Another problem common to all animal (and human) waste is its unsuitability as a fuel. Manure generally has a high moisture content when first produced, and this moisture must be removed by either drying in the environment or industrial drying. Drying in the environment involves noxious emissions and a lot of time, while industrial drying requires energy, which can reduce the efficiency of the system below the break-even point. Even after the waste is dried, its heat output is typically poorer than the worst coal commercially available.

In case you were wondering, the heat content of human waste is highly variable due mostly to its moisture content, which can be 90% or more in situ and is often still 50-75% after pressing and vacuuming. When totally dry, sewage sludge has about 4000-7000 Btu/lb, which is equivalent in heat to lignite coal--also, appropriately, called "brown coal." On a wet basis, it can have less than 1000 Btu/lb, which is too little to sustain its own combustion.

Straight Dope Staff Report: Can animal (including human) manure be used as fuel?

[Big Mac]

Aargh. The dung wasn't selected as a fuel source because it made for good fuel. It was selected as a fuel source because of the symbolism of that act. The American patriots did not dump tea into the harbor because that's how you make tea, they did it for the symbolism of that act.

[- - e r i k - -]

Pretty crappy parable if you ask me. *da-da-dum*

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

God was making a symbolic display through Ezekiel's actions about the defilement Israel had brought upon itself.

Can you explain this more clearly please? 'Cos what I'm getting is:

The Israelities: Oh, look at that. Ezekiel's made us some bread. Hmmm... bread. Hey! Wait a second. Pah! This bread tastes like crap! Well, I've learnt my lesson. I'll never bow down to a false idol again! Thanks Ezekiel.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Tiresias, your ability to understand a cultural difference from yours is blocking you from removing your ignorance.

Yes. I lack the ability to understand how making someone eat human crap squares with divine intelligence—You lack the ability to reason it out.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

I'm reading "You're Too Kind: A Brief History of Flattery" by Richard Stengel.

He writes:



I'm trying to find the passage in question.

Anybody better versed in the Good Book know where this might be?

(Kids, don't eat your caca).

I'm pretty sure that that guy is pulling your leg.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Yes. I lack the ability to understand how making someone eat human crap squares with divine intelligence—You lack the ability to reason it out.

No, you lack the ability to understand that, along with your insistence of misunderstanding the quoted scriptures, some cultures are forced to use dung as a fuel source as other fuels are scarce. They use whatever they had.

I can understand your defensiveness. If I had made such an elementary error while trying to mock someone's faith I would feel pretty stupid and try to deflect attention from my simple error.

Err... wait, I wouldn't mock someone's faith to begin with, never mind.

[Tiresias]

Ezekiel? I hope so.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

No, you lack the ability to understand that, along with your insistence of misunderstanding the quoted scriptures, some cultures are forced to use dung as a fuel source as other fuels are scarce. They use whatever they had.

I can understand your defensiveness. If I had made such an elementary error while trying to mock someone's faith I would feel pretty stupid and try to deflect attention from my simple error.

Err... wait, I wouldn't mock someone's faith to begin with, never mind.

The jury is still out on what the Bible means. There are no hard and fast rules for interpreting it. You might be correct, so might Richard Stengel.

And here is your "elementary error" (what a snotty phrase!)—I am quoting a source, and it states explicitly that Ezekiel ate a scroll and then some crap. I came here believing that my source was correct.

Richard Stengel writes for The New Yorker, The New York Times, and the New Republic. But if you're correct, then Richard Stengel is stupid, as is his source (the biblical scholar Jack Miles) and so am I for believing both of them. And you, Railroader are very clever indeed.

Sorry, but I think I'm going with Stengel and Miles on this one.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

No, you lack the ability to understand that, along with your insistence of misunderstanding the quoted scriptures

KJV: And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.

ASV: And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it in their sight with dung that cometh out of man.

BBE: And let your food be barley cakes, cooking it before their eyes with the waste which comes out of a man.

DBY: And thou shalt eat it as barley-cake, and thou shalt bake it in their sight with dung that cometh out of man.

JPS: And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it in their sight with dung that cometh out of man.'

WBS: And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with human excrement in their sight.

WEB: You shall eat it as barley cakes, and you shall bake it in their sight with dung that comes out of man.

YLT: A barley-cake thou dost eat it, and it with dung -- the filth of man -- thou dost bake before their eyes.

I can't read the Hebrew Bible, but the translations seem pretty consistent. The question of whether we are cooking bread over a fire of dung or eating bread with dung seems to turn on the preposition with.

Consider:

A) Cook bread with raisins
B) Cook bread with firewood.

Which seems more natural? A.

If the preposition were over then there'd be no question. But with with—It's a different story.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Look at the title of the thread. You wrote that title when you posted.

It begins with the words "Did G-d make Ezekial..."

Those words which you wrote mean that you're open to the possibility that G-d did NOT.

This is off topic, but I have a question about your use of "G-d".

Is "God" not itself a substitution for the name that is not to be spoken?

(not trying to offend ... genuinely curious)

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

This is off topic, but I have a question about your use of "G-d".

Is "God" not itself a substitution for the name that is not to be spoken?

(not trying to offend ... genuinely curious)

It has to do with the Jewish belief in the ineffability of the name of God. Normally, this applies only to the Tetragrammaton—the Hebrew name of God transliterated in four letters as YHWH or JHVH and articulated as Yahweh or Jehovah. But vmarks has extended the idea to include the English word for God.

It's also a measure of his religious devoutness that he has gone about deleting crude words in this thread where they appear next to the word Holy or God.

Question: Should mods be using their ability to edit other people's posts to make those posts conform to their religious views?

[vmarks]

The editing of the inappropriate language isn't about religious views. It's about cleaning up where people have gone around the word filter that applies to the whole forums.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Aargh. The dung wasn't selected as a fuel source because it made for good fuel. It was selected as a fuel source because of the symbolism of that act. The American patriots did not dump tea into the harbor because that's how you make tea, they did it for the symbolism of that act.

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Oh, look at that. Ezekiel's made us some bread. Hmmm... bread. Hey! Wait a second. Pah! This bread tastes like crap! Well, I've learnt my lesson. I'll never bow down to a false idol again! Thanks Ezekiel.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Is "God" not itself a substitution for the name that is not to be spoken?

Whatever his posted answer is, the real answer is pedanticism.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The editing of the inappropriate language isn't about religious views. It's about cleaning up where people have gone around the word filter that applies to the whole forums.

I'm not usually one to judge, but if true this is rather low.

greg

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

The jury is still out on what the Bible means. There are no hard and fast rules for interpreting it. You might be correct, so might Richard Stengel.

And here is your "elementary error" (what a snotty phrase!)—I am quoting a source, and it states explicitly that Ezekiel ate a scroll and then some crap. I came here believing that my source was correct.

Richard Stengel writes for The New Yorker, The New York Times, and the New Republic. But if you're correct, then Richard Stengel is stupid, as is his source (the biblical scholar Jack Miles) and so am I for believing both of them. And you, Railroader are very clever indeed.

Sorry, but I think I'm going with Stengel and Miles on this one.

Yeah, journalists never use what's most convenient to them in a way to get their point across. That's never happen. Never in a million years.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

KJV: And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.

ASV: And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it in their sight with dung that cometh out of man.

BBE: And let your food be barley cakes, cooking it before their eyes with the waste which comes out of a man.

DBY: And thou shalt eat it as barley-cake, and thou shalt bake it in their sight with dung that cometh out of man.

JPS: And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it in their sight with dung that cometh out of man.'

WBS: And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with human excrement in their sight.

WEB: You shall eat it as barley cakes, and you shall bake it in their sight with dung that comes out of man.

YLT: A barley-cake thou dost eat it, and it with dung -- the filth of man -- thou dost bake before their eyes.

I can't read the Hebrew Bible, but the translations seem pretty consistent. The question of whether we are cooking bread over a fire of dung or eating bread with dung seems to turn on the preposition with.

Consider:

A) Cook bread with raisins
B) Cook bread with firewood.

Which seems more natural? A.

If the preposition were over then there'd be no question. But with with—It's a different story.

So, you've now been educated that dung was a common fuel source in that time and with that group of people.

Do you still think cooking with dung means mixing dung into it and eating it?

And if you think the translations are consistent with mixing it with dung then you are being purposefully ignorant.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Whatever his posted answer is, the real answer is pedanticism.

As usual, you are drawn to a religious thread only to mock those believers. Why do you do that? Most of the time when someone does something like that it is due to their own insecurities in their own beliefs.

EDITED: because I received an infraction for what was here originally.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

So, you've now been educated that dung was a common fuel source in that time and with that group of people.

Do you still think cooking with dung means mixing dung into it and eating it?

And if you think the translations are consistent with mixing it with dung then you are being purposefully ignorant.

Let's look at the next two verses:

13 And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.

14 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.

The bread is defiled. To defile means to "sully, mar, or spoil". So whether the bread has pieces of human dung in it, or is steamed over a fiery pile of human dung, is really beside the point.

God is not giving Ezekiel a cooking lesson.