New Burial Method: ‘Liquefaction’

[heartstrings]

For many, if there is not a 'Thu shalt not .........................., its not in the Bible.

I think the there is a very good reason that God did not included within the Bible every 'Thou shalt not,' for every thing that we should do & or should not do.

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

That being He wanted each of us to have a thrist for the 'Word,' & study the Bible, search the Scriptures, being a worker that is not ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth, thus following Jesus, on our own, without a bunch of 'Thou shalt nots..............!'

Yet many are to lazy to 'search the Scriptures' in order to be able to follow the 'Lamb of God' {Jesus} in every aspect of life so if something comes along that disagrees with their belief, they say its not in the Bible, there is not a 'Thou shalt not ...........' for that.

And I am not saying this to any one in particular, but this is fast becoming common among many professing Christians. And thus many are accusing some that has a hunger for the Word, that studies the Word, that search the Scriptures so they can rightly divide the word of the truth, of teaching false doctrine.

Some keep saying that cremation is a pagan practice.....Like I said, so was burial and so was embalming. I invite you to do a little research into what processes that involved...

Genesis 50:1 And Joseph fell upon his father's face, and wept upon him, and kissed him. 2And Joseph commanded his servants the physicians to embalm his father: and the physicians embalmed Israel. 3And forty days were fulfilled for him; for so are fulfilled the days of those which are embalmed: and the Egyptians mourned for him threescore and ten days.

[OLD fashioned preacher]

When God had a "method of choice" in disposing Moses' body he could have burned it to ensure that no one who find his body (Deut 34:6) but chose to bury it. In baptism and the Lord's supper we find a death , BURIAL, and resurrection.

Other means do not hinder resurrection, but fast forward 4 generations of no burial (perhaps due to government mandate for public safety, land management, environmental concerns and economics). As you discuss the Lord's supper or baptism the honest question arises, "What's burial?", followed by, "Why would so many Christians knowingly mar, defile, or mangle such a vibrant picture of the Lord's provision for us [died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:] in eliminating or bypassing an opportunity for burial?"

[JerryNumbers]

Its already been proven that cremation is a heather practice, & why, & it has been shown that burial is the proper thing for the child of God. So i will not make anymore suggestions

[swathdiver]

For many, if there is not a 'Thu shalt not .........................., its not in the Bible.

I think the there is a very good reason that God did not included within the Bible every 'Thou shalt not,' for every thing that we should do & or should not do.

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

That being He wanted each of us to have a thrist for the 'Word,' & study the Bible, search the Scriptures, being a worker that is not ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth, thus following Jesus, on our own, without a bunch of 'Thou shalt nots..............!'

Yet many are to lazy to 'search the Scriptures' in order to be able to follow the 'Lamb of God' {Jesus} in every aspect of life so if something comes along that disagrees with their belief, they say its not in the Bible, there is not a 'Thou shalt not ...........' for that.

And I am not saying this to any one in particular, but this is fast becoming common among many professing Christians. And thus many are accusing some that has a hunger for the Word, that studies the Word, that search the Scriptures so they can rightly divide the word of the truth, of teaching false doctrine.

A hearty Amen Brother Jerry! I can see why the Lord called you into His service!

[rancher824]

I am not trying to justify cremation, but it has been said that the only proper means given in scripture is burial. It was also stated that no scripture was given to the contrary. I was wondering if any one had considered Saul?

1Sa 31:11 And when the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead heard of that which the Philistines had done to Saul;
1Sa 31:12 All the valiant men arose, and went all night, and took the body of Saul and the bodies of his sons from the wall of Bethshan, and came to Jabesh, and burnt them there.
1Sa 31:13 And they took their bones, and buried them under a tree at Jabesh, and fasted seven days.

Now I tried to consider who these men were, and if they burnt the bodies because of a pagan practice. But I notice they were valiant men. Seems like a strange way to describe them if they were pagans doing a pagan ritual on these men. I then read farther into 2 Samuel

2Sa 2:4 And the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah. And they told David, saying, That the men of Jabeshgilead were they that buried Saul.
2Sa 2:5 And David sent messengers unto the men of Jabeshgilead, and said unto them, Blessed be ye of the LORD, that ye have shewed this kindness unto your lord, even unto Saul, and have buried him.
2Sa 2:6 And now the LORD shew kindness and truth unto you: and I also will requite you this kindness, because ye have done this thing.
2Sa 2:7 Therefore now let your hands be strengthened, and be ye valiant: for your master Saul is dead, and also the house of Judah have anointed me king over them.

Here David calls them blessed of the Lord for doing this kindness!! Now both passages do mention the fact that they buried him (his or actually their bones) but they first burnt the bodies. Now the thought went through my head that maybe it was because of the decomposing of the bodies had began already. But they carried them a long distance before they burnt them. How do you put this with the no burn only bury idea????

[John81]

I am not trying to justify cremation, but it has been said that the only proper means given in scripture is burial. It was also stated that no scripture was given to the contrary. I was wondering if any one had considered Saul?


Now I tried to consider who these men were, and if they burnt the bodies because of a pagan practice. But I notice they were valiant men. Seems like a strange way to describe them if they were pagans doing a pagan ritual on these men. I then read farther into 2 Samuel
Here David calls them blessed of the Lord for doing this kindness!! Now both passages do mention the fact that they buried him (his or actually their bones) but they first burnt the bodies. Now the thought went through my head that maybe it was because of the decomposing of the bodies had began already. But they carried them a long distance before they burnt them. How do you put this with the no burn only bury idea????

Sauls body had been mutilated and hung out on display. The body was corrupted, decaying, stinking, polluted. They burned the body for this reason, but notice they didn't burn the body to cremate the body. After burning away the decaying, corrupted flesh, notice Scripture tells us they buried the bones.

[rancher824]

Sauls body had been mutilated and hung out on display. The body was corrupted, decaying, stinking, polluted. They burned the body for this reason, but notice they didn't burn the body to cremate the body. After burning away the decaying, corrupted flesh, notice Scripture tells us they buried the bones.

I had thought of the "decaying,stinking" idea, but it does not fit. They carried the bodies back to Jabesh. It took them all night to get from Jabesh to where Saul was hung. It it was the "stinking" they were concerned about would they not have wanted to do that before carrying the body back that far? If they carried it that far stinking, would it be that much of a thing to tolerate it long enough to bury it whole? And as for the Scripture telling us that they buried the bones, does that not at least point toward that if the remains are buried the cremation is not that bad? Just trying to get some thoughts together!!!

[John81]

I had thought of the "decaying,stinking" idea, but it does not fit. They carried the bodies back to Jabesh. It took them all night to get from Jabesh to where Saul was hung. It it was the "stinking" they were concerned about would they not have wanted to do that before carrying the body back that far? If they carried it that far stinking, would it be that much of a thing to tolerate it long enough to bury it whole? And as for the Scripture telling us that they buried the bones, does that not at least point toward that if the remains are buried the cremation is not that bad? Just trying to get some thoughts together!!!

Don't forget they needed to get far away before stopping to do anything. We also have to remember that Saul had been mutilated too. Likely as not, along with the need to be rid of the putrid flesh and internal organs and such, as well as to do away with the evidence of mutilation, they were concerned with the possibility of someone coming behind them and digging the body back up (for either potential good or bad reasons) which could spread disease and once again put on display the mutilation done by the enemy to Saul's body.

The men were commended by David for their bravery and loyalty in going into the enemy town to retrieve the body, at great personal risk, and bringing the body back home for burial.

Nowhere in this story, or any other in Scripture, is cremation held up as a proper means of disposing of the body. We must also remember that these men didn't cremate Saul, they made sure his bones were intact for burial. Whatever their actual reason for burning, it wasn't an attempt at cremation.

[rancher824]

So are you saying it would be fine to burn the body of a loved one as long as the bones were kept in tact?

[John81]

So are you saying it would be fine to burn the body of a loved one as long as the bones were kept in tact?

No, not at all. The Bible records many historical facts but that doesn't mean it's something we are meant to follow. What David specifically commended the men for was their bravery and loyalty.

[rancher824]

Okay John, now you are arguing both sides!!!! Either it was a sin for the men of Jabesh to burn the bodies or it was not. You have said they had to "because" and yet they did not have to if it was a sin! Now you say it is just historical. Which is it?? Were they right or wrong? I can understand if you cannot answer, as I cannot give a good answer to fit and keep it in line with my feelings against cremation.

As for "What David specifically commended the men for was their bravery and loyalty", I do not see that either. The Bible says: 2Sa 2:5 "And David sent messengers unto the men of Jabeshgilead, and said unto them, Blessed be ye of the LORD, that ye have shewed this kindness unto your lord, even unto Saul, and have buried him." He specifically commended them for "this kindness" and "buried him". Now the loyalty I can see as being plain. But the bravery is not specific. You can say the kindness was the bravery, the kindness could also have been the taking care of the bodies to get them ready for burial (in this case by burning them).

[John81]

Okay John, now you are arguing both sides!!!! Either it was a sin for the men of Jabesh to burn the bodies or it was not. You have said they had to "because" and yet they did not have to if it was a sin! Now you say it is just historical. Which is it?? Were they right or wrong? I can understand if you cannot answer, as I cannot give a good answer to fit and keep it in line with my feelings against cremation.

As for "What David specifically commended the men for was their bravery and loyalty", I do not see that either. The Bible says: 2Sa 2:5 "And David sent messengers unto the men of Jabeshgilead, and said unto them, Blessed be ye of the LORD, that ye have shewed this kindness unto your lord, even unto Saul, and have buried him." He specifically commended them for "this kindness" and "buried him". Now the loyalty I can see as being plain. But the bravery is not specific. You can say the kindness was the bravery, the kindness could also have been the taking care of the bodies to get them ready for burial (in this case by burning them).

I never said they were right to burn the body, I gave the likely reason as to why. Neither God nor David commends them for burning the body and therefore such couldn't be used to argue for cremation (which the burning was not for the purpose of cremation to begin with). What they did was a part of the facts that Scripture records; not a recomendation.

As you point out, Scripture is clear as to what David commends the men for; burial being a part of that. This is consistent with the rest of Scripture which shows burial as the proper means of dealing with the dead.

[heartstrings]

When all of Saul's flesh began to sizzle ,then roast, then when all the moisture had dissipared, and the soft tissue got hot enough to completely consum would there be some charring? Do you reckon the marrow inside the bones heated up, boiled, expanded and cracked open the bone when it vaporized? There is some tiny paper- thin BONE in the marrow ya know? Reckon even the tiny hyoid bones in the neck, the :minuscule styrups of the ear canal,or the mastoid processes didn't begin to char at least a little bit? How about the thin bones of the nasal septum' would they have remained uncharred and intact? Do you reckon they were being careful not to burn even one those tiny bones? Because, even if those happened to burn....you got some cremated bone material. Not only that; when all of the flesh was consumed, do you reckon they sifted ythrought th ashes to find the tiny hyoid bones, and ear canal bones, because the hyoid bones would have fallen out into the ashes for sure and then they couldn't say they 'buried their bones'when some material had to be lost in the ashes for sure. I'm not trying to be disrespectful or 'graphic'; i'm just trying to see the reality of it.

I just read an article on the cremation process and it says that some bones are not consumed to "ashes" even after burning for 2 or 3 hours at around 1800 degress. What are the "ashes" anyway? they're the bones......powdery but still bones.

Edited October 11, 2011 by heartstrings

[Alimantado]

Am I reading this right? They dissolve this tissue in the liquid and then dump it into our water system? I don't care if tests show there is no DNA. That is disgusting.

One thing's for sure, I wouldn't drink the tap water at the funeral reception.

[John81]

As in all things, people are free to do as they wish, but the clear biblical model is burial.