Medicine in the Old Testament

see. you keep spouting this bullshit that has absolutely no foundation. cite papers by people who study religion or history or archaelogy or some similar thing that say that the bible is the first place which demonstrated these magical things you say it demonstrates.just because you don't know of such things doesn't mean they don't exist. furthermore, the bible is not a single book and has only been such since the canonization at... nicea? replacing fear with knowledge? the bible? you're kidding, right? but the command to kill "sorcerers" comes from the bible. are you going to tell me that old testament adherents were aware that it was wrong to kill people because of their faith or occupation?

quote:

---

you keep spouting this bullshit that has absolutely no foundation. cite papers by people who study religion or history or archaelogy or some similar thing that say that the bible is the first place which demonstrated these magical things you say it demonstrates.

​

just because you don't know of such things doesn't mean they don't exist. furthermore, the bible is not a single book and has only been such since the canonization at... nicea?

---

The NT is relatively new here, and contains no laws. I referred to the OT, which predates any other book. Feel free to enlighten me with any other such book. The hamurabi does contain laws, some of them also contained in the OT, but it is not a book, and its dating is post-OT.

quote:

---

replacing fear with knowledge? the bible? you're kidding, right?

---

Absolutely. Medicine is knowledge; sorcery is based on fear.

quote:

---

but the command to kill "sorcerers" comes from the bible. are you going to tell me that old testament adherents were aware that it was wrong to kill people because of their faith or occupation?

---

Firstly, sorcery is the killer - because it was not based on actionable and helpful knowledge. Secondly, I doubt you realise what real sorcery entails - these were very vile practices, including human sacrifice. Thirdly, it was a violation of numerous other laws, and gave humanity a wrong message which contradicted the Creator's position. The aspect of killing a sorcerer is balanced with the heavy punishments of the period, whereby stealing, even a misdemeanor, is given too severe punishments - these are subject to and reflective of its spacetime only, and will be seen throughout early humanity. The main factor which you disregard is that it is a good advocation against the belief in any force except the Creator. This is what Monotheism is. The burning of alledged witches in Europe, hardly occured in ancient Israel - because the criteria was different, and not based that a person is from another belief system: its the vile, murderous aspect of ancient sorcery which was negated. families woul sacrifice their most cherished child on the bidding of a sorcerer; a king would perpertrate great mass crimes on such advocation. Eg: The sorceror preists of the Pharoah, which resulted in the deaths of 1000s of male hebrew children.

As someone who works in a hospital microbiology lab, I find the descriptions in Leviticus to be completely inadequate in terms of diagnosis or treatment. The most obvious problem is that what it describes is not leprosy, with the symptoms being more suggestive of psoriasis. Apparently this confusion arose after the Hebrew word "ara'at" was translated to the Greek "Lepra" for the Septuagint (To confuse matters, the Greeks referred to leprosy as "elaphantiasis" which we use to describe a completely different disease). Since psoriasis is not infectious, quarantining was unnecessary, and in fact would be counter-productive since being shut up the person wouldn't get much exposure to sunlight (a recommended treatment), as well as increased stress and risk of secondary infections, which would further exacerbate the symptoms. Also bathing in water after however many weeks of quarantine wouldn't make much difference - better to have daily applications of cream to reduce swelling.You may find this page from jewishencyclopedia.com interesting. As well as going into more detail about the how the description in Leviticus was confused with leprosy, it discusses how quarantining was more to do with religious ceremonial, rather than hygienic, restrictions. Also that clean/unclean refers to spiritual cleanliness, since all those in the bible who were struck down by 'leprosy' had transgressed Gods laws. I certainly couldn't help noticing that in verses 12-13 the priest would proclaim a person clean if the 'leprosy' had spread across the entire body, which would suggest he is not 'clean' in terms of hygiene.Just a few quick points (Don't have time to go into detail, sorry if I'm repeating other peoples points):Leviticus (written around 1000BC) is not the oldest medical text as you claim, the Edwin Smith papyrus dates from the seventeenth century BC, and is thought to be a copy of an original dating back to 3000 BC. You can read it here. It describes mostly battle injuries but the level of detail is impressive, for example checking for signs of fever to determine if an injury should be operated on, or associating neck stiffness with injuries to the skull (suggesting irritation of the meninges).could you clarify this:

quote:

---

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.

---

I would point out that the majority of STI's are not transmitted by blood. Therefore if she had such an infection, she would be infective all the time, not just during her period.Infectious and contagious mean the same thing, and I couldn't see how you could make that distinction from the verses (32-36) which you quoted. I note in message 6 you seem to think infectious is air-borne viral transmission, whereas contagious is physical contact without mentioning which kinds of pathogen would be transmitted. However the fact is that viruses, bacteria and fungal spores can all be transmitted by both physical contact and through airborne aerosols.As others have mentioned, simply washing your hands will do little to remove any pathogens which are carried on the skin. If the text had mentioned washing hands in alcohol, or indeed anything the that had some antiseptic action, I would have been more impressed. But then things like hand washing or quarantining the sick could just as easily arise from the peoples observations of their own experiences.Edited by Meddle, : No reason given.

While you may be right about any confusion with the term leprosy, it refers to an incurable desease only, its exact illness not specified or possible for its spacetime. In any case, I use the term to denote some form of incurable and contagious desease.With regard the egyptian text, no doubt this is a predating document, and that the egyptians were very advanced in medical prowess for its spacetime, as seen with their embalming hi-tech and efforts to prevail over death. The difference with the OT is, the egyptians were steeped in occultism - all ailments had a diety and spell to cure it - a syndrome which clung to the hebrews, as seen in their construction of a golden calf when Moses tarried from returning: these were inculcations from Egypt. Also, the details seen in the egyptian texts are not as detailed and condusive to ID, treatment, quarantine, etc as in the OT. However, it would be dishonest not to agree you have raised a good counter, and I concede.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I would point out that the majority of STI's are not transmitted by blood. Therefore if she had such an infection, she would be infective all the time, not just during her period.

---

No contest. But the term unclean and impure are multi-levelled, applicable for various factors, and used as authentic terms of its spacetimes vocab and superstitions. The blood issue, specially an on-going issue [as opposed a repeatable, natural women's cycle], refers to a chronic ailment. Similarly, a 'running issue' for a man denotes a venereal desease as opposed nature release flow.

quote:

---

Infectious and contagious mean the same thing,

---

My understanding is, one refers to spread via airborn factors by virus, the other by physical contact transference by bacteria.

quote:

---

and I couldn't see how you could make that distinction from the verses (32-36) which you quoted. I note in message 6 you seem to think infectious is air-borne viral transmission, whereas contagious is physical contact without mentioning which kinds of pathogen would be transmitted. However the fact is that viruses, bacteria and fungal spores can all be transmitted by both physical contact and through airborne aerosols.

---

Ok. But does this negate that some are exclusively airborn and some exclusively by contact?

that doesn't sound like what people would and did do (or almost did) under the commands of god. no, not at all.

Exactly. The command of God was thus against murder and deciet, which ruined peoples' lives, against false beliefs and towards the correct paths. The OT introduced this valid law - but it was later mis-used in Europe to enforce conversion.

you need to adjust your sarcasm detector.

I posted evidential texts 1000s of years old, affirming where medicine comes from. Adjust your sense of truth too - even if it overturns your premious premises. That is the rules for debating. Acknowledging when your denial point has been well past and quelled.The first recording of Herbology is also in the OT: namely how to make clean poisonous well water with a plant.The first equation [constant] for cosmology is that 'The universe is FINITE' - it had a BEGINNING. It is first recorded in Genesis.The first scientific equation is also recorded in Genesis: 'THAT A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND'.If automatic denial mode is the only response to blatant and evidenced displays of truth - it is hardly a debate anymore.

Give your reference - book, chapter and verse.

---

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.

no. you said "it's in the bible" you haven't given specific citations, and you haven't demonstrated that no document prior to the bible demonstrated these. you've simply dismissed them out of hand. you haven't done any research outside of reading your pacifier book and deciding it has the answer to all life's questions. you have done zero research on the reality of human history or recorded literature or the thousands of years of study of human literature and history.you haven't proven anything. until you prove your premises, i have no reason to believe you.

quote:

---

no. you said "it's in the bible" you haven't given specific citations, and you haven't demonstrated that no document prior to the bible demonstrated these.

---

Both were responded to adequately: citations were given with actual quotes and OT refs, depicting what is clearly future science 'medicine', relating to ID, treatment and quarantine of infecticious and non-infecticious deseases; and that there are no such documents predating or contemporary. If you have better history knowledge, then you can put down counter evidence: that's how a debate works.

quote:

---

you haven't proven anything. until you prove your premises, i have no reason to believe you.

---

I can, but will not bother putting more proof. It will obviously not impact.

I guess I will, seeing this is one of the few I did not give a ref of. I have read it in the OT, and remeber marking it too, while I was noting the references relating to medicine.

no. you suggested, claimed that there are no previous works. you made the claim. prove it. no. you made a claim. prove it. no, it won't. because you've been lied to.

The reason I asked for the reference is because you systematically don't give references - and when a reference is pried out of you, it seldom supports your point.I'm not saying you're wrong about the water purification. I'm just trying to get you to make a habit of giving your references before you're asked. It will save a lot of redundant posts.

---

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.

I'm athinkin' here that you are asking someone to prove a negative. Correto?Probably, not fair eh?