Right. My bad. But it is still a disgusting thing that the bible said God had people do.
I didn't address this part before because I thought it was refuted enough.
But God did not have people do that. God asked one prophet (who objected and was then told to use cow dung) do that as a warning to the rest of the people that when they were sieged they would have no choice for any other fuel. I hope they heeded to warning so they could avoid what was foretold. Warnings are of course meant to help people avoid things and should not be confused with punishments.
Is it disgusting to eat food cooked over a fire of dried human dung? I think so but the practice is actually still widespread in the ME and those people are not even under siege. In fact, I always imagined that the prophet made an oven with the fire in one part and the food in another. But apparently the people who still do that today just lay their food on the coals. Those coals would of course be perfectly sterile but it still does not sit well with me. Now imagine how a people who had elaborate systems of ceremonial cleanliness such as avoiding pork and dogs and blood and semen would feel about it. Unlike their neighbors for whom this was just everyday they would not like and and hopefully avoided it.
Now you have me wondering, did the siege of Jerusalem ever take place or did he people heed the warning?
This is what I found:
* Chapters 1-24 take place before the final siege of Jerusalem (597 – 591 BC).
* Chapters 25-31 take place during the two-year long siege of Jerusalem (587 BC).
* Chapters 32-48 take place after the destruction of Jerusalem (585 – 573 BC).
One also has to ask what part of the warning is literal and what part is figurative. From a intro to the book:
"To the modern reader, Ezekiel seems a weird book. His prophecies are often in the context of visions which include unusual and strange. He sees strange creatures and contraptions (chapter 1). He is teleported thousand of miles to Jerusalem where, like the invisible man, he is able to creep around the temple to see the odd activities taking place there (chapter 8). He sees a valley of dry bones come to life and get joined together (chapter 37). He is transported in time to a new temple which he measures with great detail (chapter 40). "
And we know that the dry bones are symbolic. We also know that the NIV titles chapter 4 (where this verse comes from) as the "Siege of Jerusalem Symbolized"
When people go to such great lengths as to take a bible passage out of context, read it incorrectly, fail to provide the actual verse, fail to make the distinction between symbolic and literal, and misread a variety of other aspects of sections can you trust their synopses to give you any sort of accurate portrayal? In fact if they must go to these lengths then doesn't that mean that they could not find anything of real substance?
