 |
|
| General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
"I stand corrected not by you but by a kind soul who has informed me that
"omer" in Hebrew literally means "a certain unit of weight." So an "omer" probably was about 2 pounds (or almost 1 kilogram) because that is all that someone needs to reach and maintain "ideal" body weight," Oh Andrew, I really expected more from you this time, you take the word of someone out of the blue in place of the references given on the net. Even in the example you gave of it's use in the rabbi article it was clearly said to be a unit of volume for such things as grain. It matters not who corrects whom but that we get the straight on this, and even more important how you as an individual handles the whole matter as it might reflect on you. "Probably" is such a slippery term, does it suggest one wanting to slip slide away? The rabbi article you gave did not support your notion it was a liter, Andrew please please do consider that actions and behavior have consequences. Unless and until you can provide documented third party support in contridiction to that provided you we must reject your unsupported assertion and wonder why you are driven to continue this thin ice line. Thus far we have web references and the word of a rabbi you provided that contridict this curious line of action. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Omer = 3.5 liters WAS: French Women Don't Get Fat
GaryG wrote:
> > "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message > ... > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote: > > > Don Kirkman wrote: > > > >>It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in > >>article <1105945930.bb89f80c1864392c5581cf77cbe0ac6b@teran ews>: > >> > >> > wrote: > >> > >>>>"Oh, someone has. > >> > >>>>http://www.heartmdphd.com/losewtnd.pdf" > >> > >>>>I would wait until the fixed diet is done, 4 areas of major flaws have > >>>>been identified and there will soon resume a reformation project to > >>>>complete it and remove the flaws. We wait Andrew's return as he will > >>>>contribute his knowledge in one of the flaw areas, as he has already > >>>>started to do in previous work on the fix project. If you think you > might > >>>>have some contribution, here re the flaw areas not addressed well by the > >>>>"diet" as it now is stated: > >> > >>>>energetics > >>>>health > >>>>nutrition > >>>>exercise > >> > >>>See Exodus 16:16-17 > >> > >>>One Omer (2 pounds) of food (manna) is all a person needs independent of > >>>energetics, health, nutrition, or exercise. This is by God's design. > >>>He should know because He made us. > > He also made the manna of which we know virtually nothing. We don't > know if it conformed to any nutritional conditions that normal foods > are bound to. So we can't know the caloric density of it or the > balance of nutrients. In short, it can't be used as any sort of > standard since we know nothing of it's component criteria. > > And since an omer isn't a liter, it blows the whole nonsense out of > the water. But I expect we can count on Chung insisting that an omer > is a liter no matter what sources are offered because of his "truth > discernment ray" that doesn't need logic, facts or actual experience > to be absolutely correct in his pronouncements. > > >>The omer is a dry measure; one omer is 1/10 of an ephah and thus 1/100 > >>of an homer. The omer was about 3.36 quarts; how did you determine that > >>3.36 quarts of manna, which was described as like coriander seed*, > >>equaled two pounds? > > > One Omer is a volume measure of about one liter. > > No. It isn't. > > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z6E81224A > > This link Chung provides makes no reference to the actual volume of an > omer. As usual, he either didn't read it or thinks no one else will to > get the truth of the matter. > > Here are a few that do: > Webster's Unabridged > o'mer, n. [Heb. Omer] an ancient Hebrew dry measure equal to about > 3.7 quarts; one tenth of an ephah. > > <http://www.reference-guides.com/isbe/O/OMER/> > OMER > o'-mer (`omer): A dry measure, the tenth of an ephah, equal to about 7 > 1/2 pints. > > <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/omer> > o·mer - An ancient Hebrew unit of dry measure equal to 1/10 ephah, > about 3.5 liters (3.7 quarts). > > An omer of food cannot weigh 2 pounds unless you're talking about > marshmallows or cotton candy. > > > One liter of any kind of food will weigh about 2 pounds independent of > > water content. > > Besides being inaccurate, it's irrelevant and it's too vague to be > useful. "Independent of water content"? Freeze dried foods have had > the water removed. A liter of virtually anything freeze dried will > weigh a very few ounces and be wonderfully "independent of water > content." A liter of rice will weigh something over 2 pounds, a liter > of rice flour will weigh about 3 pounds. But so what. > > Not one rational medical authority has suggested using weight or > volume as the sole criterion for a reasonable dietary regimen. Not one > professional medical organization. Not one professional dietary > organization. Not one organization dedicated to a specific disease or > chronic condition. And most assuredly no one else would dream of > saying that 2 pounds would do for everyone as both weight loss program > *and* a maintenance program for the same everybodies no matter how > old, big, active or healthy. > > Same old, same old Chung silliness. Still trying to force that round > peg of the 2 pound diet (that suddenly isn't a diet any more; it's a > lifestyle change, he says - little late coming to the band wagon, > no...?) into the square hole of intelligent, factual analysis. > > Bob > > Well said, Bob. But, my "whack-job discernment ray" has alerted me to the > "truth" that logic and facts will have no effect on Chung's obsessions. > > GG I stand corrected not by you but by a kind soul who has informed me that "omer" in Hebrew literally means "a certain unit of weight." So an "omer" probably was about 2 pounds (or almost 1 kilogram) because that is all that someone needs to reach and maintain "ideal" body weight, ime: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp God is great :-) At His service, Andrew -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist ** Suggested Reading: (1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048 (2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2F325D1A (3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A (4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A (5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A (6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A (7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> GaryG wrote: >=20 >>"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message ... >>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote: >> >> >>>Don Kirkman wrote: >>> >>> >>>>It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote i= n >>>>article <1105945930.bb89f80c1864392c5581cf77cbe0ac6b@teran ews>: >>>> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>"Oh, someone has. >>>> >>>>>>http://www.heartmdphd.com/losewtnd.pdf" >>>> >>>>>>I would wait until the fixed diet is done, 4 areas of major flaws h= ave >>>>>>been identified and there will soon resume a reformation project to= >>>>>>complete it and remove the flaws. We wait Andrew's return as he wi= ll >>>>>>contribute his knowledge in one of the flaw areas, as he has alread= y >>>>>>started to do in previous work on the fix project. If you think yo= u >> >>might >> >>>>>>have some contribution, here re the flaw areas not addressed well b= y the >>>>>>"diet" as it now is stated: >>>> >>>>>>energetics >>>>>>health >>>>>>nutrition >>>>>>exercise >>>> >>>>>See Exodus 16:16-17 >>>> >>>>>One Omer (2 pounds) of food (manna) is all a person needs independen= t of >>>>>energetics, health, nutrition, or exercise. This is by God's design= =2E >>>>>He should know because He made us. >> >>He also made the manna of which we know virtually nothing. We don't >>know if it conformed to any nutritional conditions that normal foods >>are bound to. So we can't know the caloric density of it or the >>balance of nutrients. In short, it can't be used as any sort of >>standard since we know nothing of it's component criteria. >> >>And since an omer isn't a liter, it blows the whole nonsense out of >>the water. But I expect we can count on Chung insisting that an omer >>is a liter no matter what sources are offered because of his "truth >>discernment ray" that doesn't need logic, facts or actual experience >>to be absolutely correct in his pronouncements. >> >> >>>>The omer is a dry measure; one omer is 1/10 of an ephah and thus 1/10= 0 >>>>of an homer. The omer was about 3.36 quarts; how did you determine t= hat >>>>3.36 quarts of manna, which was described as like coriander seed*, >>>>equaled two pounds? >> >>>One Omer is a volume measure of about one liter. >> >>No. It isn't. >> >> >>>http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z6E81224A >> >>This link Chung provides makes no reference to the actual volume of an >>omer. As usual, he either didn't read it or thinks no one else will to >>get the truth of the matter. >> >>Here are a few that do: >>Webster's Unabridged >>o'mer, n. [Heb. Omer] an ancient Hebrew dry measure equal to about >>3.7 quarts; one tenth of an ephah. >> >><http://www.reference-guides.com/isbe/O/OMER/> >>OMER >>o'-mer (`omer): A dry measure, the tenth of an ephah, equal to about 7 >>1/2 pints. >> >><http://www.thefreedictionary.com/omer> >>o=B7mer - An ancient Hebrew unit of dry measure equal to 1/10 ephah, >>about 3.5 liters (3.7 quarts). >> >>An omer of food cannot weigh 2 pounds unless you're talking about >>marshmallows or cotton candy. >> >>>One liter of any kind of food will weigh about 2 pounds independent of= >>>water content. >> >>Besides being inaccurate, it's irrelevant and it's too vague to be >>useful. "Independent of water content"? Freeze dried foods have had >>the water removed. A liter of virtually anything freeze dried will >>weigh a very few ounces and be wonderfully "independent of water >>content." A liter of rice will weigh something over 2 pounds, a liter >>of rice flour will weigh about 3 pounds. But so what. >> >>Not one rational medical authority has suggested using weight or >>volume as the sole criterion for a reasonable dietary regimen. Not one >>professional medical organization. Not one professional dietary >>organization. Not one organization dedicated to a specific disease or >>chronic condition. And most assuredly no one else would dream of >>saying that 2 pounds would do for everyone as both weight loss program >>*and* a maintenance program for the same everybodies no matter how >>old, big, active or healthy. >> >>Same old, same old Chung silliness. Still trying to force that round >>peg of the 2 pound diet (that suddenly isn't a diet any more; it's a >>lifestyle change, he says - little late coming to the band wagon, >>no...?) into the square hole of intelligent, factual analysis. >> >>Bob >> >>Well said, Bob. But, my "whack-job discernment ray" has alerted me to = the >>"truth" that logic and facts will have no effect on Chung's obsessions.= >> >>GG >=20 > I stand corrected not by you but by a kind soul who has informed me tha= t > "omer" in Hebrew literally means "a certain unit of weight." So an > "omer" probably was about 2 pounds (or almost 1 kilogram) because that > is all that someone needs to reach and maintain "ideal" body weight, > ime: As predicted. Chung stands corrected, he says and then offers the same=20 error that he started with. But this time he offers utterly spurious=20 and unfounded logic to reach an arrogantly self-serving conclusion.=20 Same old, same old... The very simple fact of the matter is that an omer is a very=20 *specific* unit of weight and that unit is 3.5 liters. End of story.=20 It's like saying a pound is a certain unit of weight. It is,, of=20 course, but it has absolute standards, just like an omer. As for "all that someone needs" as a criterion to dismiss historical=20 records, it's the same shabby display of Chung's egocentricity that he=20 always does when his blunders are called to his attention. He's right=20 and knowledgeable and experienced authorities are wrong. As usual, he's wrong and as usual, he tries to ignore the elephant in=20 the room and spouts sound and fury to divert attention from it. How=20 stupid does he think everyone is? This is why he exemplifies charlatanry and quackery. This is why he's=20 seen as inherently dishonest. This is why he simply cannot be trusted=20 in his pronouncements. If he's willing to lie and be this deliberately=20 obtuse about these trifles, why should anyone believe he's any other=20 way the rest of the time? It's so predictable a pattern of behavior=20 that it should be a foregone conclusion he'll lie and dissemble to=20 avoid admitting a blunder. He *says* he does, but he seems to lie=20 about it. Let's see. He says he admits mistakes. Then he lies about the mistakes=20 so he doesn't have to admit it. I'd say that's certainly a picture of=20 mental health and outstanding integrity. Bob |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message com...
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote: > I stand corrected not by you but by a kind soul who has informed me that > "omer" in Hebrew literally means "a certain unit of weight." So an > "omer" probably was about 2 pounds (or almost 1 kilogram) because that > is all that someone needs to reach and maintain "ideal" body weight, > ime: As predicted. Chung stands corrected, he says and then offers the same error that he started with. But this time he offers utterly spurious and unfounded logic to reach an arrogantly self-serving conclusion. Same old, same old... The very simple fact of the matter is that an omer is a very *specific* unit of weight and that unit is 3.5 liters. End of story. It's like saying a pound is a certain unit of weight. It is,, of course, but it has absolute standards, just like an omer. As for "all that someone needs" as a criterion to dismiss historical records, it's the same shabby display of Chung's egocentricity that he always does when his blunders are called to his attention. He's right and knowledgeable and experienced authorities are wrong. As usual, he's wrong and as usual, he tries to ignore the elephant in the room and spouts sound and fury to divert attention from it. How stupid does he think everyone is? This is why he exemplifies charlatanry and quackery. This is why he's seen as inherently dishonest. This is why he simply cannot be trusted in his pronouncements. If he's willing to lie and be this deliberately obtuse about these trifles, why should anyone believe he's any other way the rest of the time? It's so predictable a pattern of behavior that it should be a foregone conclusion he'll lie and dissemble to avoid admitting a blunder. He *says* he does, but he seems to lie about it. Let's see. He says he admits mistakes. Then he lies about the mistakes so he doesn't have to admit it. I'd say that's certainly a picture of mental health and outstanding integrity. Bob leaves one wondering about his dismissal in Ocalla 'for just cause'......... just cause he can't admit he's wrong? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Counting the Omer | General Cooking | |||
| French Women Don't Get Fat | General Cooking | |||
| Why 1.5 liters cost more than .75 liters? | Wine | |||
Linear Mode
