Medicine in the Old Testament

Message 295Ok, we all know that IaJ has some unsupported views based on the Old Testament, but this one caught my attention (mostly because it was waaaaaay off topic - surprise, surprise).Is there any evidence that the OT (and Genesis in particular) imparted any real medical knowledge (besides pain in childbirth) and/or was the first to do so?Leprosy would be specifically on topic, but any medical knowledge in the OT (or the NT for that matter) would be appreciatedEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Replaced "OT" with "Old Testament" in the topic title and at the first appearance in the message. I presume the author was no meaning to refer to Outer Tasmania.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

In Leviticus (14:1-7) you learn how to cure leprosy. Something like this:You take your leper, two birds, some spices and a bowl. You kill the first bird and catch the blood in the bowl, mix the blood and the spices over running water.Now you take the second bird and, not unlike a paint brush, you dip it in the blood/spice mix and proceed to paint the leper. When the leper is nice and coated, release the paint brush bird, and voila...the leper is clean again!Seems very medically sound to me. We still do this today, right?

---

I mean, this is America. Everybody loves seeing lesbians go at it, as long as they are both hot and not in a monogamous, legally sanctioned relationship.

yeah. i had a run-in with an armadillo in 5th grade. they trussed me up and scrubbed me with all kinds of birds.

In Leviticus 15:2-13, a man with running sores makes everything he touches unclean. Anybody who touches anything touched by the patient should bathe and wash his clothes. Seems like pretty sound practice.In the same chapter, Leviticus 15:19-28, a woman with an "issue of blood" is similarly unclean and everything she touches is similarly unclean.Oddly enough, it's safe to lie with her (sorry, men only ) but bathing him won't do the trick. He's still unclean seven days.

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

quote:

---

In Leviticus 15:2-13, a man with running sores makes everything he touches unclean. Anybody who touches anything touched by the patient should bathe and wash his clothes. Seems like pretty sound practice.

---

I'm surprised at the posts in this thread. The details in Leviticus is awesome, and spreads many pages of deliberation of minutae details - it is akin to a doctor today talking. It contains details of identifying a malignancy by symptoms, and its differential from non-malignancy; the first decriptions of infectcious [air-borne viral transmissions] and contagiousness [physical contact] deseases are described with examples [eg> when the hair turns white, falls, and the boil is flesh deep as opposed skin deep; etc], how to treat them - including when it is incurable [refuge cities], recommends the burning of all possessions of an infected house - correctly nominating which elements need not be discarded; etc. These may appear in biblespeak, but it is deceptively simple, and alligns with the foremost, state of art science today - any scientific or medicinal terminology can be made to fit in its verses, or as footnotes.Washing of the hands is also a mandated law - same as not to murder. This factor may be the most potent one in prevention of desease, and was adopted in the medicinal faculty as mandatory some 250 years ago.I cannot understand the ridicule mode taken. Of course, medicine was first separated from the occult here. This is also where science emerged from. The OT made us ask the right questions and think the correct thoughts.

Yes, your lack of understanding is legendary. Where do you see a "ridicule mode"? Not really. As I pointed out in Message 5, a man made unclean by sleeping with an unclean woman doesn't become clean by washing. It takes an occult seven days. Isn't it strange then that people read the Old Testament for centuries, yet didn't figure out until quite recently that hand-washing prevents the spread of disease? That suggests to me that the Old Testament had little to do with modern ideas about cleanliness. It suggests to me that people have always read the Old Testament in an occult way.

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

quote:

---

Not really. As I pointed out in Message 5, a man made unclean by sleeping with an unclean woman doesn't become clean by washing. It takes an occult seven days.

---

The term unclean here refers to a cycle, and marks the same period as for a woman with issue. It says there is a greater propensity to attract health problems via blood issue - for both parties.
The OT made us ask the right questions and think the correct thoughts.

quote:

---

Isn't it strange then that people read the Old Testament for centuries, yet didn't figure out until quite recently that hand-washing prevents the spread of disease? That suggests to me that the Old Testament had little to do with modern ideas about cleanliness. It suggests to me that people have always read the Old Testament in an occult way.

---

Its not strange, and a law 'mandating' washing of hands is not obvious - definitely not so and this is its first recording here. It is also a very modern idea of cleanliness: 90% of all germs and bacteria are transmitted via the hands, particularly from under the finger nails. Its so modern that the medical faculty only acknowledged this some 200 years ago, after surveys were conducted and its benefits understood. It is now illegal for a medical attendent not to wash hands at certain specified times. It warrants merit.

prove it. quote it and then find the current aligning medical knowledge.

Yes, the term "unclean" in the Old Testament refers to a superstition rather than the proper (bacterial) reason for antisepsis.Come on. I tried to show that the Old Testament was at least on the right track, if for the wrong reason. You're just making it worse. That's what I'm saying: People read the Old Testament for thousands of years, believing in the superstition of ritual "cleansing". Clearly, the Old Testament was not the source of modern antisepsis. Science was.

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

quote:

---

prove it. quote it and then find the current aligning medical knowledge.

---

Sure. I trust you've read up on the source you question? There are three consecutive chapters on it [13, 14 & 15], each containing upto 60 paragraphs, and these are easily alligned with a modern medical equivalence, with any reasonable consideration of its simple verses. These are made to be understood by all generations, and the texts is 1000s of years old. I will highlight extracted quotes.With regard identification of a malignant condition. This refers to symptoms examples:

quote:

---

Lev 13/.

​

2 When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it become in the skin of his flesh the plague of leprosy,..

​

3 And the priest shall look upon the plague in the skin of the flesh; and if the hair in the plague be turned white, and the appearance of the plague be deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is the plague of leprosy; and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean.

​

4 And if the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin, and the hair thereof be not turned white, then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days.

​

5 And the priest shall look on him the seventh day; and, behold, if the plague stay in its appearance, and the plague be not spread in the skin, then the priest shall shut him up seven days more.

​

6 And the priest shall look on him again the seventh day; and, behold, if the plague be dim, and the plague be not spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean: it is a scab; and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean.

​

7 But if the scab spread abroad in the skin, after that he hath shown himself to the priest for his cleansing, he shall show himself to the priest again.

​

8 And the priest shall look, and, behold, if the scab be spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is leprosy. {P}

​

10 And the priest shall look, and, behold, if there be a white rising in the skin, and it have turned the hair white, and there be quick raw flesh in the rising,

​

11 it is an old leprosy in the skin of his flesh, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean; he shall not shut him up; for he is unclean.

​

12 And if the leprosy break out abroad in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of him that hath the plague from his head even to his feet, as far as appeareth to the priest;

​

13 then the priest shall look; and, behold, if the leprosy have covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague; it is all turned white: he is clean.

​

14 But whensoever raw flesh appeareth in him, he shall be unclean.

​

Etc.

---

Quarantining, to determine if it is contagious or infectious kind. These are step by step proceedures of examination, similar to various tests performed by a medical team to determine a prognosis:

quote:

---

32 And in the seventh day the priest shall look on the plague; and, behold, if the scall be not spread, and there be in it no yellow hair, and the appearance of the scall be not deeper than the skin,

​

33 then he shall be shaven, but the scall shall he not shave; and the priest shall shut up him that hath the scall seven days more.

​

34 And in the seventh day the priest shall look on the scall; and, behold, if the scall be not spread in the skin, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean; and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean.

​

35 But if the scall spread abroad in the skin after his cleansing,

​

36 then the priest shall look on him; and, behold, if the scall be spread in the skin, the priest shall not seek for the yellow hair: he is unclean.

​

Etc.

---

Terminating the quarantine after the test results:

quote:

---

Gen 15.

​

8 And he that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair, and bathe himself in water, and he shall be clean; and after that he may come into the camp, but shall dwell outside his tent seven days.

​

9 And it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off; and he shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and he shall be clean.

​

Etc.

---

we tend to do a lot more than just quarantine patients, you know. also, we diagnose by more than appearance. and, we sterilize by more than just "washing".

Yes, we do this today because it came from somewhere.The current medical terms of today are descriptions of the Leviticus passages, using more advanced knowledge as per today. But relatively, the advance levels of Leviticus to its spacetime is far superior, and ground breaking. The display of forthcoming medicine, and the separation from occultism, spells and whichraft is evident here, and alligns with the prohibition of those previous practices.

i really doubt that leviticus was "groundbreaking". in orer to make this claim, you'll have to demonstrate that it's the first time quarantining was used. there is nothing forthcoming about said medicine, since you yourself said that these techniques have only been in use in modernity for 250 years. since people didn't magically find the bible 250 years ago, the bible can't be the source.also, what part of "unclean for seven days" doesn't sound occult to you? do you think a week is inherently medically important? it's a spiritual, occult number.

quote:

---

i really doubt that leviticus was "groundbreaking". in orer to make this claim, you'll have to demonstrate that it's the first time quarantining was used.

---

That it is the first recording of such, is a secondary factor, and not a negation of its merits. It does happen to be the first such treatise.

quote:

---

there is nothing forthcoming about said medicine, since you yourself said that these techniques have only been in use in modernity for 250 years. since people didn't magically find the bible 250 years ago, the bible can't be the source.

---

I meant, the medical faculty affirmed its medicinal value only recently, showing the advance nature of the OT.

quote:

---

also, what part of "unclean for seven days" doesn't sound occult to you? do you think a week is inherently medically important? it's a spiritual, occult number.

---

You cannot disregard that items such as thermometers, microscopes, etc were not yet at hand, and the way to describe these medical terms were not yet invented. Terms such as unclean, had to be used to conform with mankind's understanding in that spacetime; it means 'infected' in today's terms, and clearly the first inclinings of medicine.Other laws say, food left open overnight should not be consumed: obvious today, but not so 3500 years ago, where deseases were incurable and its toll very high. The OT cast a damaging impact on sorcery and spell casters.