Bubba

A Co-worker suggested a unique "evidence for God" that I haven't heard before. She suggested that since Jewish males were circumcised on the eighth day, and that the 8th day was the day an infant male would bleed the least upon circumsision, then that would be divine evidence that somehow God knew best. In other words, science in the bible through direct revelation.

I need a little help. Does anybody know if 8th day circumcised males bleed less?? Is this an urban legend or does it have some truth to it?

Bubba

Dr Rick

Just when I thought it might be safe to go back to the MDF...

Rick

Corwin

I don't know if there's any truth to it or not, but if there is.... one might suggest that early on, whoever was performing circumcisions noticed that babies who were mutilated when they were 8 days old bled less and that's where the custom started....

Toto

Even if that were true, it is something that could have been discovered through trial and error. It's hardly proof of divine revelation.

Its the same thing with shellfish or pork. Are they not kosher because God knew that they might have disease organisms (which He created in His infinite wisdom)? Or was that just experience that someone decided to attribute to YHWH?

(And do I have to point out that infant males bleed even less if someone doesn't take a knife to them to start out with?)

Corwin

Apparently you do for some reason.... tho why it isn't blatantly obvious to more people is beyond me.

Bubba

I've often thought much of what people say is "divine revelation" in the form of Kosher laws was merely the jews being observant about what worked.

Besides, I like eating shellfish. Not to mention the fact that I always eat pork for lunch during Ramadan.

Thanks, I was just trying to see if anyone knew if there was some interesting scientific thing about 8th day circumcision.

Bubba

Toto

This idea has been touted by apologists.

<a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/crcumcsn.pdf" target="_blank">www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/crcumcsn.pdf</a>

It has to do with the production of Vitamin K, which is necessary for coagulation. The infant does not start to produce Vitamin K immediately after birth (actually, Vit K is produced by bacteria in the gut, so it takes them until day 5 to start to work). The infant is particularly susceptible to profuse bleeding before the 5th day. On the 8th day, the infant has a higher concentration of Vitamin K than he will ever have.

But it is still a leap of faith to assume that this came from god, and not from some messy human experimentation.

tronvillain

Toto:
Even if it wasn't discovered through trial and error it would hardly be proof of divine revelation - it could simply be coincidence or an example of memetic evolution (people didn't actually notice survival rates, but the having the meme increased survival and so it spread).

I will point out that the original Jewish circumcision involved only severing the tip of the foreskin, and so would have caused far less trauma.

Bubba

Thanks, Toto!

Bubba

One of the last sane

If God is all-knowing, and made Man in his (God's)image, why did he put the foreskin on, only to order that it has to be cut off?

Is God himself circumcised, or not?