Medicine in the Old Testament

no. not really. i'm suggesting he cite real research that states that the bible is the first source of these things instead of spouting his own insane, unfounded opinions.

You might want to point to the Ebers Papyrus and the Edwin Smith Papyrus, both of which are actual medical texts that predate any written bible texts.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

The OT is a huge archive, very compacted, and most of its text is widely known. O think it better to ask for quote refs only where this is in doubt. Otherwise every utterence can be asked to be backed up.Re my references not evidencing my points, it may well be the other way around too. Anti-OT folk don't exactly say anything is right even if quites till kingdom come are tended. They have a head problem but it is in involuntary denial - this is not deniable, but it is.

These are not medical texts, but symptoms such as fever and pain, still attached to occultism. Embalming was an advanced skill, but still not medically or imperically based: it was directed to the dead living on in a chamber w/o organs and brains. The breakthrough of medicine and science emerged with the OT.Prior to the OT, there was only the occult, and IMHO, in ancient times occultism was real - not fiction; its advent ceased and became replaced with the introduction of science. Mankind does not need both - nor could he have survived without either in its time.

In fact, I appreciate jar's suggestion of another writings. You act as though there are many to chose from, when only 2 or 3 can even be introduced as possible alternatives. When the OT arrived, there were no laws or history books around - so you must get your spacetime in order before asking me to prove the blatant.

speaking of occult.woooooeeeeeeeoooooooooo

I'm sorry but that is simply bullshit.For info on the Medical material in the Ebers Papyrus, look here and the Smith Papyrus is nothing but a medical text.Once again you are simply peddling Falsehoods for Satan.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

There is doubt. Every time you refuse to quote your sources, you increase the doubt. Yes, your every utterenace does need to be backed up because you spout such an incredible volume of bullshit. You'd be much better off drowning us in references instead of your bullshit opinions. By all means, reference every sentence.In Message 38, you claimed:

quote:

---

The first recording of Herbology is also in the OT: namely how to make clean poisonous well water with a plant.

---

and I asked you for a reference. Now give us a reference. Stop making excuses.

---

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.

But is the disease(s) described incurable or contagious? In the text there is the potential for recovery; and in later stages of the 'quarantine' the patients hair was shaven, which meant someone would have to come into close contact. So either it was not very contagious, or someone else has been put at risk of infection.I agree we can't say for certain what the disease from the description in the text since it is really dependant on the level of understanding of the people at that time and their use of terminology. The description suggests a range of diseases which could cause degeneration of the skin, most likely psoriasis but also bacterial or fungal infection. But then it could be be a generic description of the symptoms. One thing we can say is that it does not describe the symptoms for leprosy. Well if you read the Edwin Smith papyrus you would see that it does not give incantations, but instead gives herbal ingredients for treatments. Interestingly in the current issue of New Scientist (15th December) there is an article looking at the pharmaceuticals described in this and other papyri (such as the Ebers papyrus which Jar mentioned) and it was found that 67% of corresponded to ingredients used in a dispensing chemists up to 1977 (since that time many of the ingredients have been replaced by related synthetic compounds). It was also found many of the ingredients could only be obtained if prepared in a specific way.As for occultism just look at the treatment for 'leprosy' described in Leviticus 14 involving birds as pointed out by clpMINI in message 3 of this thread. There is also other indications this 'quarantine' is based on spiritual rather than hygiene policies. For example investigations are performed by a priest and it is always this set seven days. If it is contagious the priest is also at risk from infection, especially if coming into physical contact while cutting the hair. If someone has a disease, they should be constantly monitored, not shut away for seven days before being examined. There is also the proclamation that the patient is clean when the skin infection has spread across the entire body - not only could the patient be at their most infectious, it also indicates that the term clean describes spiritual cleanliness. There was also the fact that whenever anyone developed 'leprosy' in the bible it was presented as some sort of punishment from god. And contrary to what you say, there is nothing in the text to suggest an attempt to identify the cause, and the only treatment was the already cited use of birds.I have to say that it is disappointing that after you concede that the Edwin Smith papyrus represents a medical text published significantly before Leviticus, you go on to repeat your original assertion. The two terms are used interchangeably since they do mean the same thing. Having said that, in my experience we tend to use the term contagious when discussing how effective a disease is at spreading through a population, so in this instance how a pathogen is transmitted is relevant (for example an airborne pathogen may spread more quickly than one transmitted through blood). We tend to use the term infectious when discussing the risk when you come into contact with a specimen or exposed to a pathogen (for example stabbing yourself with a needle when handling a blood culture or finding out an agar culture your looking at has grown anthrax). Well any pathogen in the upper respiratory tract will become airborne through coughing/sneezing. The obvious examples are influenza and the cold viruses, but there is also bacteria such as Strep pneumoniae or Neisseria meningitidis. Other spore-forming bacteria, such as Bacillus and Clostridium species, can also become airborne. Of course what goes up also comes down - sneezing into your hand or onto surfaces allow the pathogen to be transmitted by touch.But of course this is getting off topic. Even if there was a difference between contagious and infectious, there is nothing in the passage you quoted to suggest they recognised a difference.

That's the wrong pitch - try it in F Major.However, occult was not like a scary movie today - it was real. Moses had to confront formidable Egyptian sorcerors - they were able to know of Joseph's power, and that Moses would appear. Before discarding this as myth - consider if we could survive today w/o science. That's the equivalent 4000 years ago.

quote:

---

Yes, your every utterenace does need to be backed up because you spout such an incredible volume of bullshit.

---

I dont think so. One has to think up the correct concordance word to find this - I tried well, water, plant, unclean, bitter. Does it mean I was wrong? No I am right - just that everyone here bashes the OT - but they have not studied it - and become incredulous when common OT stuff is mentioned. Obviously.

You seem to have a problem producing. One would almost think you can't. Well, a day might be enough time to come up with the support.

Don't accuse me of bashing the Old Testament.I already said that I didn't deny your claim about a water-purifying plant. It sounded plausible. I only asked you for a reference. If it was "common", it wouldn't be hard to find.But I did find it for you:

quote:

---

Exo 15:23 And when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter: therefore the name of it was called Marah.
Exo 15:24 And the people murmured against Moses, saying, What shall we drink?
Exo 15:25 And he cried unto the LORD; and the LORD showed him a tree, which when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made sweet: there he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them,
Exo 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for am the LORD that healeth thee.

---

There's no mention of what tree it was, so it's not a "how-to" as you claimed.For good measure, here's another example - a well that was "healed" by throwing salt into it:

quote:

---

2Ki 2:19 And the men of the city said unto Elisha, Behold, I pray thee, the situation of this city is pleasant, as my lord seeth: but the water is naught, and the ground barren.
2Ki 2:20 And he said, Bring me a new cruse, and put salt therein. And they brought it to him.
2Ki 2:21 And he went forth unto the spring of the waters, and cast the salt in there, and said, Thus saith the LORD, I have healed these waters; there shall not be from thence any more death or barren land.
2Ki 2:22 So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spoke.

---

If you put half as much time into doing your homework as you do into making excuses....

---

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 have to find this piece, but have not been successful thus far. It needs a recall of one of the words in the verse, and plant, leaf, unclean well water, etc have not yielded. This is a statute relating to Herbology, namely the use of a plant to make undrinkable water into clean and drinkable.I also know of numerous environmental laws in the OT, such as not destroying a fruit yielding tree even during a battle; this renders trees such as bamboo destroyable for man's use. That is extends with 'even during a battle' accounts for the compulsion seen in environmental groups who pursue protection of trees with an intensity, even when it impinges on global corporation commerce. I see a direct connectivity here.The same applies to animal rights groups. The law to assist a beast of his load when it is too much for it, with the injunction, 'even an enemy's animal' - incurs the same compulsion in animal rights groups. All animal rights laws come from the OT.

Give the references.Don't even mention what you think is in the Bible until you can give the references.

---

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.