It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
HSCs are found in the bone marrow of adults, specially in the pelvis, femur, and sternum. They are also found in umbilical cord blood and, in small numbers, in peripheral blood.
Stem and progenitor cells can be taken from the pelvis, at the iliac crest, using a needle and syringe. The cells can be removed as liquid (to perform a smear to look at the cell morphology) or they can be removed via a core biopsy (to maintain the architecture or relationship of the cells to each other and to the bone).
originally posted by: LenatasataneL
a reply to: Unity_99
Eikona sounds Greek, is this based off the Septuagint? I don't know if that would make a difference, they were pretty translatable languages to each other but the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls would be the best to use.
Definitely describing anesthetizing Adam, agree on that.
What do you make of my chromosome x/rib theory?
... Blood carries oxygen through your body, removes carbon dioxide, helps you adapt to temperature changes, and aids in your fight against disease.
The linkage of life to blood was made long before William Harvey mapped the circulatory system in 1628. The basic ethics of major religions focus on a Life-Giver, who expressed himself about life and about blood. A Judeo-Christian lawyer said of him: "He himself gives to all persons life and breath and all things. For by him we have life and move and exist." (Acts 17:25, 28)
...A Hebrew prophet described him as "the One teaching you to benefit yourself, the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk."
That assurance, at Isaiah 48:17, is part of the Bible, ...What does it say about human use of blood? Does it show how lives can be saved with blood? Actually, the Bible shows clearly that blood is more than a complex biologic fluid. It mentions blood over 400 times, and some of these references involve the saving of life.
In one early reference, the Creator declared: "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you… . But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." He added: "For your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting," and he then condemned murder. (Genesis 9:3-6, New International Version) He said that to Noah, a common ancestor highly esteemed by Jews, Muslims, and Christians. All humanity was thus notified that in the Creator's view, blood stands for life. This was more than a dietary regulation. Clearly a moral principle was involved. Human blood has great significance and should not be misused. The Creator later added details from which we can easily see the moral issues that he links to lifeblood.
"The precepts hereby set down in a precise and methodical manner [in Acts 15] are qualified as indispensable, giving the strongest proof that in the apostles' minds this was not a temporary arrangement, or a provisional measure."—Professor Édouard Reuss, University of Strasbourg.
He again referred to blood when he gave the Law code to ancient Israel. While many people respect the wisdom and ethics in that code, few are aware of its serious laws on blood. For instance: "If anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who reside among them partakes of any blood, I will set My face against the person who partakes of the blood, and I will cut him off from among his kin. For the life of the flesh is in the blood." (Leviticus 17:10, 11, Tanakh) ...
Scientists now know that the Jewish Law code promoted good health. ..., much more was involved. Blood had a symbolic meaning. It stood for life provided by the Creator. By treating blood as special, the people showed dependence on him for life. Yes, the chief reason why they were not to take in blood was, not that it was unhealthy, but that it had special meaning to God.
At a historic council, the Christian governing body confirmed that God's law on blood is still binding. [Acts chapter 15]
The Law repeatedly stated the Creator's ban on taking in blood to sustain life. "You must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water. Do not eat it, so that it may go well with you and your children after you, because you will be doing what is right."—Deuteronomy 12:23-25, NIV; 15:23; Leviticus 7:26, 27; Ezekiel 33:25.# (# = Similar prohibitions were later written in the Qur´an.)
Contrary to how some today reason, God's law on blood was not to be ignored just because an emergency arose. During a wartime crisis, some Israelite soldiers killed animals and "fell to eating along with the blood." In view of the emergency, was it permissible for them to sustain their lives with blood? No. Their commander pointed out that their course was still a grave wrong. (1 Samuel 14:31-35) Hence, precious as life is, our Life-Giver never said that his standards could be ignored in an emergency.
BLOOD AND TRUE CHRISTIANS
Where does Christianity stand on the question of saving human life with blood?
Martin Luther pointed to the implications of the apostolic decree: "Now if we want to have a church that conforms to this council, … we must teach and insist that henceforth no prince, lord, burgher, or peasant eat geese, doe, stag, or pork cooked in blood… And burghers and peasants must abstain especially from red sausage and blood sausage."
The apostolic decree was long understood as binding. Eusebius tells of a young woman near the end of the second century who, before dying under torture, made the point that Christians "are not allowed to eat the blood even of irrational animals." She was not exercising a right to die. She wanted to live, but she would not compromise her principles. Do you not respect those who put principle above personal gain?
Scientist Joseph Priestley concluded: "The prohibition to eat blood, given to Noah, seems to be obligatory on all his posterity… If we interpret [the] prohibition of the apostles by the practice of the primitive Christians, who can hardly be supposed not to have rightly understood the nature and extent of it, we cannot but conclude, that it was intended to be absolute and perpetual; for blood was not eaten by any Christians for many centuries."
Would the Biblical prohibition on blood cover medical uses, such as transfusions, which certainly were not known in the days of Noah, Moses, or the apostles?
While modern therapy employing blood did not exist back then, medicinal use of blood is not modern. For some 2,000 years, in Egypt and elsewhere, human "blood was regarded as the sovereign remedy for leprosy." ...
Was blood used as medicine in Roman times? The naturalist Pliny (a contemporary of the apostles) and the second-century physician Aretaeus report that human blood was a treatment for epilepsy. ...
"God and men view things in very different lights. What appears important in our eye is very often of no account in the estimation of infinite wisdom; and what appears trifling to us is often of very great importance with God. It was so from the beginning."—An Enquiry Into the Lawfulness of Eating Blood, Alexander Pirie, 1787.
What of transfusing blood? Experiments with this began near the start of the 16th century. Thomas Bartholin (1616-80), professor of anatomy at the University of Copenhagen, objected: 'Those who drag in the use of human blood for internal remedies of diseases appear to misuse it and to sin gravely. Cannibals are condemned. Why do we not abhor those who stain their gullet with human blood? Similar is the receiving of alien blood from a cut vein, either through the mouth or by instruments of transfusion. The authors of this operation are held in terror by the divine law, by which the eating of blood is prohibited.'
Hence, thinking people in past centuries realized that the Biblical law applied to taking blood into the veins just as it did to taking it into the mouth. Bartholin concluded: "Either manner of taking [blood] accords with one and the same purpose, that by this blood a sick body be nourished or restored."