What insights does the Bible give concerning deadly drug resistant bacteria

[ZNPaaneah]

This thread is an offshoot of "Bible vs Science".

We want to explore what, if any, insights the Bible gives on dealing with deadly drug resistant strains of bacteria.

Because this is the Local Church Discussions any and all references to Witness Lee's ministry on this topic are welcome.

Because we are trying to see if the Bible gives insights into what is a field of science we will be quoting scientific literature on this topic extensively.

Of course we welcome any Bible verses on this topic that are relevant.

I personally will begin with the scientific advancements in this field to see if they were predated by the Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

I guess we should begin with Genesis.

Shifts in the bacterial composition of the human gut microbiota (i.e. dysbiosis) have been associated with digestive tract dysfunctions such as inflammatory bowel diseases. More strikingly, strong evidence, from both human studies and germ-free animal models, links intestinal microbiota dysbiosis with metabolic disorders, such as obesity and liver diseases. This chapter focuses on the changes and impact of the gut microbiota during these diseased states, and describes the possible direct and indirect mechanisms that an aberrant gut microbiota can promote metabolic dysregulations. The possible involvement of the 'microbiota-gut-brain' axis in the development of obesity is further discussed, as is the perspective of meta-omic technologies that give insight into the functions and potential effect of the non-cultured intestinal bacteria on the host health. Understanding how modifications in this finely tuned ecosystem lead to these pathological processes is crucial for the development of new therapeutic approaches to treat and hopefully ameliorate these metabolic diseases. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24732926)

Recent research is nicely summarized in and made very accessible to the lay reader in Dr. Perlmutter's books "The Grain Brain", and "Brain Maker".

The basic hypothesis is that bacteria is not "evil". This concept has resulted in a pervasive use of antibiotics for medicine, household cleaners, and water purification systems.

What we have come to learn is that the gut bacteria is essential for good health, and like any "garden" your job is to "tend it" and "keep it".

How do we tend gut bacteria? It is very interesting that the third most abundant component of human breast milk is not digestible. This has led to the discovery that breast milk is not merely designed to support the baby but also to support good biota in the gut of the baby. Instead of trying to kill "evil" bacteria what the body does is feed the good bacteria so that they can dominate the gut's environment. All bacteria is defined to defend itself from other bacteria. The concern is not to avoid all contact with bacteria, that would be impossible, but rather to make the good bacteria vibrant and healthy.

As a rule any substance that the human body cannot digest will nourish good bacteria. This is another reason why dietary fiber is so healthy, even though it is not digestible by us, it does nourish a healthy gut bacteria. It also creates a river of bulky waste that travels through the intestines quickly and can wash out harmful bacteria quickly before it can cause trouble.

Meat products and processed sugar on the other hand can feed bacteria that are harmful. What is worse, when you have these bacteria living in you they will send signals that they are "hungry". It is as though you are feeding a monster. They have been tied to obesity, diabetes, ADD, Autism, etc.

You might think, well hey, the Bible teaches us to eat fruit and meat. This is true. It isn't that these items in and of themselves are "evil" rather it is how you eat them that is important. If you eat meat every day you will develop a gut bacteria that eats meat and is well entrenched in your system. However, if you eat meat during feast days the bacteria has no opportunity to get entrenched.

The same is true of fruit. If you eat unprocessed fruit you will be eating water and dietary fiber along with the sugar. Those are two key ingredients that can balance out the effect of the sugar. Also, if you only eat it when it is in season it will prevent some harmful bacteria from becoming dominant and entrenched.

What our food industry has done is very similar to the woman who hid leaven in the meal. They understand that high glycemic foods are "addictive". We call these foods "comfort" foods. When your blood sugar spikes from eating high glycemic foods your metabolism switches to consume the glucose. This will result in a crash in the blood sugar and you will need to quickly consume some carbs to deal with the crash. The food industry has removed dietary fiber and increased the carbs and processed sugars.

Daniel realized how harmful this trend was with the "king's dainties". The Daniel diet is an excellent way to "tend the garden" of gut biota.

But interestingly what is most important is the water that you drink. We put chlorine in our water to kill bacteria. If you are drinking unfiltered water you are getting a daily dose of this bacteria killing chlorine and who knows what that does. If you filter your water with a good filtration system you can greatly reduce the amount of chlorine. If you then bring this water to a boil, say by making coffee or tea, you will decrease it even further because chlorine and many other toxins boil at a lower temperature than water. If after filtering the water and boiling it you then ran it through coffee grounds that would act as a second filtration. Dealing with health is all about clean water, which is a key focus of the account of the New Jerusalem which has a stream of crystal clean water flowing in it.

Those of us who can afford to buy "organic" meat and dairy should understand the negative health consequences of meat and dairy produced with antibiotics and hormones. These ingredients will get into your system and once again will indiscriminately kill bacteria in your gut. Our realization of the need to regulate our food industry for human health originated with the book of Leviticus and the concept of "Kosher" food. That is food that has been approved by the Levitical priesthood based on certain sanitary restrictions.

In conclusion, the first and best way to deal with harmful bacteria is to tend and keep the beneficial ones.

Using antibiotics should be a last resort, which is also what the medical community has learned.

Antibiotic use is the leading cause of antibiotic resistance. Up to one-third to one-half of antibiotic use in humans is either unnecessary or inappropriate. Each year in the United States, 47 million unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions are written in doctor’s offices, emergency rooms, and hospital-based clinics, which makes improving antibiotic prescribing and use a national priority. https://www.cdc.gov/features/getsmart/

The first step should be to promote beneficial bacteria. (Tend and Keep the garden)

The second step should be your sanitary practices. (Kosher food)

The third step is to identify the "leaven" which has been added to your food and purge all the leaven out of your house. Get rid of food with hormones, antibiotics, processed sugar, white flour, etc. (the feast of unleavened bread).

But sometimes we need to kill the harmful germs. The church is "the salt". Use of salt is a gentle way to promote healing. It gives the body a leg up in fighting a bacterial infection. http://woodlanddental.ca/press/2011/...why-they-work/

This is something we have also learned, we want the body to deal with a bacterial infection itself. Allowing the bodies immune system to respond to attacks strengthens the immune system. Using an antibiotic to wipe out an infection is similar to using a crutch. Yes, the wound will heal, but the immune system will atrophy. However, if we change the environment that the bacterial infection is in from acidic to alkaline, that alone will help cut down on the amount of bacteria and promote healing. We do the same thing in gardening. Very often the solution is to adjust the alkalinity of the soil.

That said, no one can deny the very powerful impact that penicillin has had on modern medicine. What exactly is penicillin? It is an extract from a mold. That is right, when Adam was tending the garden and keeping the garden and naming all the creatures one of the things he named was Penicillium notatum from which we get penicillin. As it turns out all forms of life (plants and animals) have developed defenses against bacterial infection. Every single one of them has defenses. All we need to do is study them and get extracts from them, just like penicillin. There is no lack of these new and different extracts to fight a bacterial infection, the problem is that overuse and misuse of them results in "bacterial resistance" at which point the drug is no longer effective and is good only for the dung heap http://www.pharmaceutical-journal.co...130209.article

Why do we have this "misuse and overuse"? Because people have ignored steps 1, 2, 3, and 4 outlined above.

They eat at McDonalds -- which does not promote a healthy biota. They don't eat organic food because it is too expensive. Why is it too expensive? Because they eat too much meat, processed food, and restaurant food. If people cooked their own meals using vegetables it would save them money, if they ate less meat they could then afford organic meat when they did eat meat. Third, our food industry is a Jezebel hiding leaven in the fine meal. We need to let the watchdogs loose to tear her to shreds. Fourth, if you do have an infection you should try to treat it without antibiotics using a saline solution if possible. Only after all that should you consider an antibiotic.

If we stop misusing and overusing antibiotics it will be a simple thing to get the pharmaceutical companies to continue rolling out new antibiotics.

[zeek]

https://www.biblegateway.com/quickse...s_version=NKJV

0 Bible results for “bacteria.”

Sorry, we didn’t find any results for your search. Please try the following:

Double-check spelling, especially people and place names.
Make sure there are spaces between words. Bible Gateway treats “nameoftheFather” and “name of the Father” differently.
Use fewer words in your search, especially if you’re unsure of the exact phrase. For example, “baptizing name Father” and “baptizing them in the name of the Father” will both return Matthew 28:19; however, the latter leaves a greater chance for spelling and syntax errors.
Retry your search in another translation.

New King James Version (NKJV)
Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

In what Bible translation will I find the word bacteria, ZNP?

[Evangelical]

ZNPaaneah's post is excellent. Thankyou ZNP for all the effort you have put in, now I can see how the Bible can be used to solve scientific problems. Just because it doesn't have the word bacteria in it, does not mean it does not contain a solution to the problem. Humans must be doing something wrong, to remove the protective mechanisms that protect animals, plants etc. The bible is a book that shows us where, as humanity, we go wrong. So the Bible also contains the solution to the problem.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNPaaneah's post is excellent. Thankyou ZNP for all the effort you have put in, now I can see how the Bible can be used to solve scientific problems. Just because it doesn't have the word bacteria in it, does not mean it does not contain a solution to the problem. Humans must be doing something wrong, to remove the protective mechanisms that protect animals, plants etc. The bible is a book that shows us where, as humanity, we go wrong. So the Bible also contains the solution to the problem.

This is 1 out of 10,000 posts. Unique.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNPaaneah's post is excellent. Thankyou ZNP for all the effort you have put in, now I can see how the Bible can be used to solve scientific problems. Just because it doesn't have the word bacteria in it, does not mean it does not contain a solution to the problem. Humans must be doing something wrong, to remove the protective mechanisms that protect animals, plants etc. The bible is a book that shows us where, as humanity, we go wrong. So the Bible also contains the solution to the problem.

Is the paper and ink good for our gut?

[Ohio]

Great points here! Let me add some comments ...

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

As a rule any substance that the human body cannot digest will nourish good bacteria. This is another reason why dietary fiber is so healthy, even though it is not digestible by us, it does nourish a healthy gut bacteria. It also creates a river of bulky waste that travels through the intestines quickly and can wash out harmful bacteria quickly before it can cause trouble.

One of the common side effects of medicine is constipation, especially in older folks like us. Huge problem. Personally I consume healthy fiber with every meal. Fresh, raw vegetable fiber is the best, but all fiber is good. There are two types of fiber, both are essential. Insoluble fiber, as you say, is for the digestive and immune systems. I know folks who have had colon cancer and still won't eat quality fiber. Unbelievable!

The other is soluble fiber. Just as insoluble fiber cleanses our GI system, soluble fiber cleanses our circulatory system. Today statins are widely prescribed for cholesterol problems, which can result in heart issues. I learned that two of the best sources (there are many) of soluble fiber are uncooked apples and oats. I have continually lowered my cholesterol numbers just by eating apples and raw oats (rolled or steel cut) every morning. Cheaper and better than drugs, with no side effects.

But interestingly what is most important is the water that you drink. We put chlorine in our water to kill bacteria. If you are drinking unfiltered water you are getting a daily dose of this bacteria killing chlorine and who knows what that does. If you filter your water with a good filtration system you can greatly reduce the amount of chlorine.

The aerator on sink faucets was designed to "boil" off chlorine, since it is so unstable in water. Never drink water out of a hose! Allowing water to sit overnight in the fridge also is great, since more of the chlorine will escape. Also, never drink hot water from the tap. The anode rods (either magnesium or aluminum) dump huge amounts of metal into the water. Heat the cold water on the stove.

Using antibiotics should be a last resort, which is also what the medical community has learned. Antibiotic use is the leading cause of antibiotic resistance. Up to one-third to one-half of antibiotic use in humans is either unnecessary or inappropriate.

People don't realize that the body's natural reaction to infection is to raise the internal body temperature, thus killing many infections. Short-circuiting this normal means, people pop tylenol like candy and prevent the body from working as designed. Antibiotics should be the last resort.

The first step should be to promote beneficial bacteria. (Tend and Keep the garden)

Several years ago I learned that 80% of our immune system was in our gut, and that yogurt nourished it. I started eating Greek yogurt every morning, and have not been sick since. Most popular yogurt is worthless, nothing more than "desert." Quality, beneficial yogurt can easily be identified by maximizing the protein/carb ratio from the nutrition label. I never eat yogurt with a ratio less than one. Good stuff, though a little tart, has a ratio of 3 or 4 to 1.

The third step is to identify the "leaven" which has been added to your food and purge all the leaven out of your house. Get rid of food with hormones, antibiotics, processed sugar, white flour, etc. (the feast of unleavened bread).

It is absolutely incredible how much sugar exists in the Standard American Diet (SAD). Prepared foods are saturated with High Fructose Corn Syrup (HiFruCS). Many folks cannot even eat a meal without soda pop. Store bought fruit drinks (like orange juice) are little more than flavored sugar water.

Third, our food industry is a Jezebel hiding leaven in the fine meal. We need to let the watchdogs loose to tear her to shreds.

For those who doubt, go watch the incredible documentary "Food Inc."

Fourth, if you do have an infection you should try to treat it without antibiotics using a saline solution if possible. Only after all that should you consider an antibiotic.

Ever hear of coloidal silver?

If we stop misusing and overusing antibiotics it will be a simple thing to get the pharmaceutical companies to continue rolling out new antibiotics.

One of the most dangerous bacterial infections is from C Diff (Clostridium difficile). I have two family members who nearly died from it, both of whom were in hospitals at the time. Why? The medical industry eventually learned that we all have C Diff in our system, but it is rendered ineffective by our healthy bacteria, that is until someone is on antibiotics for an extended period. Without a healthy immune system, nourished by healthy gut bacteria, we will eventually kill ourselves with antibiotics.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

https://www.biblegateway.com/quickse...s_version=NKJV

0 Bible results for “bacteria.”

Sorry, we didn’t find any results for your search. Please try the following:

Double-check spelling, especially people and place names.
Make sure there are spaces between words. Bible Gateway treats “nameoftheFather” and “name of the Father” differently.
Use fewer words in your search, especially if you’re unsure of the exact phrase. For example, “baptizing name Father” and “baptizing them in the name of the Father” will both return Matthew 28:19; however, the latter leaves a greater chance for spelling and syntax errors.
Retry your search in another translation.

New King James Version (NKJV)
Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

In what Bible translation will I find the word bacteria, ZNP?

Try using the word "leaven". The ancient world leaven was done naturally which is generally a result of the following bacteria:

B. Pastorianum, B. Delbrucki, B.Ternoas, S.Pastorianus, and S. Cervisiae

Sour dough, another way to leaven bread, is sour due to lactobacillus

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Try using the word "leaven". The ancient world leaven was done naturally which is generally a result of the following bacteria:

B. Pastorianum, B. Delbrucki, B.Ternoas, S.Pastorianus, and S. Cervisiae

Sour dough, another way to leaven bread, is sour due to lactobacillus

I know this thread is about bacteria, but what about Fungi? Then we could talk about the pesky problem back then of ergot poisoning from bad bread.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I know this thread is about bacteria, but what about Fungi? Then we could talk about the pesky problem back then of ergot poisoning from bad bread.

Start a thread on the plagues of Moses.

[awareness]

The Bible couldn't have known about bacteria. It wasn't discovered until the invention of the microscope, and was discovered in the 17th c. C.E.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

The Bible couldn't have known about bacteria. It wasn't discovered until the invention of the microscope, and was discovered in the 17th c. C.E.

In order to make bread there is a fermenting process that involves micro organisms. If you make bread regularly you learn that the temperature of the water is important, the temperature that you keep the bread, you want to keep it warm, out of a draft, but can't let it get too hot. Scalding water will kill the bacteria. You also know that honey or some other sweeter will help the process.

Today we know that we are dealing with something that is alive. According to you they didn't understand that thousands of years ago. But, I used to bake bread, the real stuff, and I find it very difficult that someone who made bread on a daily basis didn't realize it was alive.

Also, there were several ways of leavening bread back then since they didn't have little packets of yeast from the grocery store. One way is to use a wooden bowl. You don't wash it, merely scrape it clean. There will be lots of tiny bits of dough in the pores of the wood that will be an ideal place for the microorganisms to live so that the next day when you make your bread the leaven is already there. The second way is to use sour dough. You take a small lump from your dough and keep it till the next day. Now it is difficult for me to believe that people who had sour dough didn't realize that it was turning sour because it was being consumed.

Maybe they didn't know that the bread was "living bread", maybe they did and never published. But regardless the creator knew, and the Bible is God's word.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Try using the word "leaven". The ancient world leaven was done naturally which is generally a result of the following bacteria:

B. Pastorianum, B. Delbrucki, B.Ternoas, S.Pastorianus, and S. Cervisiae

Sour dough, another way to leaven bread, is sour due to lactobacillus

You know that, but did they? Your answer assumes what you seek to prove, i.e. that the authors knew anything about bacteria.

You have provided no evidence that the authors knew that bacteria existed. Of course they had observed the natural process of fermentation, but it doesn't follow from that that they understood that the process was caused by micro-organisms.

Once again, your "Bible science" involves you reading into the text something that isn't there.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But regardless the creator knew, and the Bible is God's word.

Yeah, right. God has microscopic vision so He knew about bacteria long before we discovered it in the 17th c..

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Once again, your "Bible science" involves you reading into the text something that isn't there.

Bro ZNP is our : ZNPaaneah the Bible Science Guy-ah.

[Evangelical]

Remember that organisms which are now microscopic, used to be large enough to see without a microscope years ago.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Remember that organisms which are now microscopic, used to be large enough to see without a microscope years ago.

Where in the Bible did you read about bacteria large enough to see with the naked eye?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

Where in the Bible did you read about bacteria large enough to see with the naked eye?

http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/...ger-organisms/

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In order to make bread there is a fermenting process that involves micro organisms. If you make bread regularly you learn that the temperature of the water is important, the temperature that you keep the bread, you want to keep it warm, out of a draft, but can't let it get too hot. Scalding water will kill the bacteria. You also know that honey or some other sweeter will help the process.

Today we know that we are dealing with something that is alive. According to you they didn't understand that thousands of years ago. But, I used to bake bread, the real stuff, and I find it very difficult that someone who made bread on a daily basis didn't realize it was alive.

Also, there were several ways of leavening bread back then since they didn't have little packets of yeast from the grocery store. One way is to use a wooden bowl. You don't wash it, merely scrape it clean. There will be lots of tiny bits of dough in the pores of the wood that will be an ideal place for the microorganisms to live so that the next day when you make your bread the leaven is already there. The second way is to use sour dough. You take a small lump from your dough and keep it till the next day. Now it is difficult for me to believe that people who had sour dough didn't realize that it was turning sour because it was being consumed.

Maybe they didn't know that the bread was "living bread", maybe they did and never published. But regardless the creator knew, and the Bible is God's word.

Probably the same things could be said of yogurt, which also is "live" food.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Probably the same things could be said of yogurt, which also is "live" food.

And cheese, and wine, and hard alcohol, and beer, etc.

When you make these items you quickly come to view them as "your baby" and realize they need that kind of love and care.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

You know that, but did they? Your answer assumes what you seek to prove, i.e. that the authors knew anything about bacteria.

You have provided no evidence that the authors knew that bacteria existed. Of course they had observed the natural process of fermentation, but it doesn't follow from that that they understood that the process was caused by micro-organisms.

Once again, your "Bible science" involves you reading into the text something that isn't there.

You say I have not provided any evidence that the authors of the Bible knew about bacteria. That is because you believe the authors of the Bible are men.

However, I have provided Bible verses that are scientifically accurate and that we have only just realized, such as "man was made from the dust of the ground". This is evidence that the Bible is written by God. What you mean is I have not provided any evidence that Moses knew about bacteria. However, I can provide plenty of evidence from the Bible that Moses knew God, the creator of heaven and earth.

Man was able to confirm the existence of bacteria with the invention of the microscope. The theory of evolution came along shortly thereafter. Mathematical analysis realized we need to provide this bacteria with an opportunity for coming in contact with many other bacteria for evolution to work, hence we hypothesized that intelligent life requires water. However, the math still did not work out until we realized bacteria was traveling around the world on dust particles. Now, as we approach the summit of this mountain of how we evolved we discover that "man was made from the dust of the ground". How could Moses know this? I am not claiming that he knew about bacteria, I'm claiming that he was talking with God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Remember that organisms which are now microscopic, used to be large enough to see without a microscope years ago.

Yeah, I heard the dinosaurs didn't become extinct, they reduced themselves down to bacteria size. Have you seen bacteria today? They look like space aliens. And prolly are.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/...ger-organisms/

I asked where the Bible mentions large bacteria that could be seen without a microscope and you responded with a dubious article that says nothing about bacteria or what the Bible says about it. You're grasping at straws.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

I asked where the Bible mentions large bacteria that could be seen without a microscope and you responded with a dubious article that says nothing about bacteria or what the Bible says about it. You're grasping at straws.

I never said the bible specifies the size of bacteria, nor that it must.

It is scientifically possible for a bacteria to be visible to the eye.

Even today there is bacteria visible to the eye:

http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/are-a...ible-naked-eye

If various plants, animals and insects used to be large in size, I do not see why the bacteria could not also be larger than they are today.

Also consider that the ancient people had much better eyesight than we do. Those things combined present a plausible scenario.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I never said the bible specifies the size of bacteria, nor that it must.

It is scientifically possible for a bacteria to be visible to the eye.

Even today there is bacteria visible to the eye:

http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/are-a...ible-naked-eye

If various plants, animals and insects used to be large in size, I do not see why the bacteria could not also be larger than they are today.

Also consider that the ancient people had much better eyesight than we do. Those things combined present a plausible scenario.

The Bible writers wouldn't know bacteria if it bit them on the nose.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

The Bible writers wouldn't know bacteria if it bit them on the nose.

Now that is definitely not true. Leprosy is caused by a bacillus (rod-shaped) bacterium known as Mycobacterium leprae. The priests had to be able to discern if this bacteria had bit someone on the nose.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Now that is definitely not true. Leprosy is caused by a bacillus (rod-shaped) bacterium known as Mycobacterium leprae. The priests had to be able to discern if this bacteria had bit someone on the nose.

I realized that I've been wrong. There is bacteria in the Bible. All you have to do is put it under a microscope and you'll see bacteria crawling all over it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

All you have to do is put it under a microscope and you'll see bacteria crawling all over it.

Just think what will grow from a sample put in a petri dish.

While I don't think ZNP will be going there, I know some people who need to find things like that so that they will know what Jesus would do about bacteria. They need to find a sign or instruction for everything. If it's not in the Bible, they are paralyzed.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Just think what will grow from a sample put in a petri dish.

While I don't think ZNP will be going there, I know some people who need to find things like that so that they will know what Jesus would do about bacteria. They need to find a sign or instruction for everything. If it's not in the Bible, they are paralyzed.

I call this living and thinking by quotations.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

If it's not in the Bible, they are paralyzed.

Paralysis is in the Bible, so your statement is a logical contradiction. Not disagreeing with you, just pointing this out.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

If it's not in the Bible, they are paralyzed.

The Bible can paralyze. It can also make the imagination run will, and invent things that aren't in the Bible. Like bacteria.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

The Bible can paralyze. It can also make the imagination run will, and invent things that aren't in the Bible. Like bacteria.

You are as arrogant at they get. Leaven, which in those days was a result of bacteria, fermentation -- a process of bacteria, and Leprosy - a bacterial infection are all very clearly in the Bible.

How do you say it is not in the Bible? Because they don't use the word bacteria? That is ridiculous. Leprosy refers to the name of the Bacteria.

[ZNPaaneah]

I find it very interesting that the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil was in the midst of the garden, the day in which you eat it you die, and yet we were never instructed to cut it down or get rid of it.

We have learned this just recently concerning bacteria. Yes, we are surrounded by deadly bacteria, but they have a purpose. They fill a niche. Just because we aren't supposed to "eat them" doesn't mean they aren't fulfilling a very important function.

Our first inclination when we discovered bacteria was to create "anti biotics", poisons, kill all the bacteria, and rename the poisons "disinfectant" as though all these bacteria were some kind of evil infection.

This was a major mistake as we merely created "super bugs".

What we have learned in farming is also true of bacteria. When you create a poison to kill bacteria the dose of poison for the creatures that eat the "deadly" bacteria is 100 times greater. As a result the poison will be much more effective at killing the predators of the deadly bacteria than it will be on the bacteria.

Organic farming is moving away from "poison farming" which is what it should be called.

What have we learned in 6,000 years? The minute we swallow this idea of "good bacteria and evil bacteria" that is the day we will die. Instead what we need is to take the idea of life. We can deal with pests by nurturing the bugs that eat the pests. Bats are not evil, they are our friend. Spiders are not evil, they are our friend. It is equally true on the microscopic level. Penicillin comes from bread mold. That mold is not evil, it is our friend.

This is why Adam named every creature, he realized they were a "help" for him. Of course, my use of Adam here is collective, there may have been one many who originally named a bunch of creatures, but the job of naming every creature is too great for just one individual. So in this sense I am using Adam as it is used in Genesis 5 -- "He called their name Adam".

Oops living by quotation again. I call that "Living by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are as arrogant at they get. Leaven, which in those days was a result of bacteria, fermentation -- a process of bacteria, and Leprosy - a bacterial infection are all very clearly in the Bible.

How do you say it is not in the Bible? Because they don't use the word bacteria? That is ridiculous. Leprosy refers to the name of the Bacteria.

Careful. awareness is the Moderator Of The Age!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are as arrogant at they get. Leaven, which in those days was a result of bacteria, fermentation -- a process of bacteria, and Leprosy - a bacterial infection are all very clearly in the Bible.

How do you say it is not in the Bible? Because they don't use the word bacteria? That is ridiculous. Leprosy refers to the name of the Bacteria.

The fact that people in Biblical times suffered from leprosy doesn't mean they understood what caused it. In fact, it wasn't understood until modern times. That you fail to understand this is what I find "ridiculous".

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Leprosy refers to the name of the Bacteria.

Putting the cart before the horse are we?

Leprosy is the name the disease was historically given. The fact that it is caused by bacteria was not known when the name came to be used for the disease. The bacteria did not have the name prior to the discovery that it was bacteria that cause the disease.

Think before you post.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are as arrogant at they get. Leaven, which in those days was a result of bacteria, fermentation -- a process of bacteria, and Leprosy - a bacterial infection are all very clearly in the Bible.

How do you say it is not in the Bible? Because they don't use the word bacteria? That is ridiculous. Leprosy refers to the name of the Bacteria.

You're just yanking my chain. Of course there were bacteria back in the Bible days. But they didn't know anything about bacteria.

Yes they caught onto fermentation, by accident prolly ... to make beer and wine.

Silly boy.

[Evangelical]

Before they discovered bacteria, yeast etc as the cause of these things, they attributed them to magic.

They believed superstitiously that stirring beer with a "magic stick" would make it bubble. The stick of course was how the yeast was introduced. If beer did not ferment it was attributed to some sort of evil.

They all sorts of reasons and explanations for these things, but none of them were microscopic organisms called bacteria.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The fact that people in Biblical times suffered from leprosy doesn't mean they understood what caused it. In fact, it wasn't understood until modern times. That you fail to understand this is what I find "ridiculous".

No one, including me, has disputed that Moses understood bacteria.

What was said is that "Bacteria is not in the Bible". That statement is absurd. Leprosy is a bacteria. The types of fermentation the Bible refers to were bacterial. The principles that apply to caring for gardens also apply to bacteria. The key mistake we have made in dealing with bacteria is the key mistake described in the Bible -- eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Does the Bible talk about microscopes? No. So what. Either you can't read what I wrote or you intentionally misrepresent it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Putting the cart before the horse are we?

Leprosy is the name the disease was historically given. The fact that it is caused by bacteria was not known when the name came to be used for the disease. The bacteria did not have the name prior to the discovery that it was bacteria that cause the disease.

Think before you post.

Why don't you think before you post. I never have said that the writers of the Bible understood bacteria. Nor have I ever said that we are not continually learning and developing our understanding.

Your interpretation of what I said is insulting. Why don't you try reading the posts before posting.

The idiotic statement was that references to bacteria were not in the Bible. You yourself admit that Leprosy is a reference to bacteria.

No one said that there were references to micro biology, or microscopes, etc.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Before they discovered bacteria, yeast etc as the cause of these things, they attributed them to magic.

They believed superstitiously that stirring beer with a "magic stick" would make it bubble. The stick of course was how the yeast was introduced. If beer did not ferment it was attributed to some sort of evil.

They all sorts of reasons and explanations for these things, but none of them were microscopic organisms called bacteria.

Since this thread is concerning the insights of the Bible are you saying that the Bible referred to a "magic stick"? Are there "all sorts of reasons and explanations" in the Bible?

[ZNPaaneah]

14 And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, 2 This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: he shall be brought unto the priest: 3 and the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look; and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper, 4 then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two living clean birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop: 5 and the priest shall command to kill one of the birds in an earthen vessel over [a]running water. 6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water: 7 and he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let go the living bird into the open field.

What we now know is that there are antibiotics that can be used to treat and cure leprosy. However, let's assume, and this could be incorrect and yet still useful, let's assume that this term "leprosy" refers to any spreading bacterial infection of the skin.

And let us also assume that we are unable to diagnose exactly which bacteria it is and even if we could we don't have an entire drug store of possible antibiotics. What can we do?

1. Quarantine is not a bad choice. We can stop the spread of the infection in the community.

2. Some people will survive and be cleansed of this infection. What we know is that on the day in which you are cleansed your body will be shedding both the weakened form of the bacteria as well as antibodies from your immune system.

3. Wiping the blood of a bird on your skin will create a very effective medium for the weakened bacteria and antibodies to grow. Putting this on a live bird that is then released into the wild will allow this natural "antibiotic" to be released. This bird will preen itself and this will also help get the blood and antibodies into its system.

4. Washing this "treated" blood off in running water can also allow the antibodies to spread.

The practice that is described in Leviticus makes the production of the antibodies something that takes place in the infected person. Not our first choice, but if that is the best you can do not a bad choice from the perspective of the civilization.

The cleansing ritual might actually have a positive effect on spreading antibodies to this particular bacterial infection into the surrounding area. What is described is not fundamentally different from the most primitive inoculation to small pox, but predates it by about 2,000 years. That first use of inoculation was basically to take puss from postules of small pox and wipe them on people who hadn't been infected yet. We also give weakened forms of diseases to animals, like this bird, so that they can produce the inoculation. This is how we get our yearly flu vaccine.

Today, we don't use people, we use animals to manufacture antibodies. This is not because animals are better at doing it than people, but rather because given the choice we would rather use animals.

But the process begins by collecting a weakened or dead form of the infectious agent, and introducing this into an animal to develop antibodies which we will then collect.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Since this thread is concerning the insights of the Bible are you saying that the Bible referred to a "magic stick"? Are there "all sorts of reasons and explanations" in the Bible?

Yes there are magic sticks in the bible. Pharaoh's magicians for example.
Often, explanations for various phenomenon were intrinsically linked to the notion of good versus evil, blessing or curse. Those are biblical concepts.

Magic sticks and beer making can be read about here:
http://www.beerhunter.com/documents/19133-000103.html

There is also a book The Barbarian's Beverage: A History of Beer in Ancient Europe By Max Nelson. Some excerpts readable from Google books.

That yeast converts sugar into ethanol was not discovered until the 19th century in Europe. The ancient people did not understand about yeast, sugar, ethanol, carbon dioxide.

Understanding, (or lack of) bacteria can also be seen in the toiletry habits of the Jews. They acknowledged God (not bacteria) as the one who opens and shuts doors, including the various openings of the body. The superstition around the ability to poop, or not, was attributed to an act of God, rather than microscopic organisms. They recited the Asher yatzar which thanked God for the ability to poop. If one had diarrhea they would recite the blessing after each instance of diarrhea. These days we'd take an antibiotic.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes there are magic sticks in the bible. Pharaoh's magicians for example.
Often, explanations for various phenomenon were intrinsically linked to the notion of good versus evil, blessing or curse. Those are biblical concepts.

Magic sticks and beer making can be read about here:
http://www.beerhunter.com/documents/19133-000103.html

There is also a book The Barbarian's Beverage: A History of Beer in Ancient Europe By Max Nelson. Some excerpts readable from Google books.

That yeast converts sugar into ethanol was not discovered until the 19th century in Europe. The ancient people did not understand about yeast, sugar, ethanol, carbon dioxide.

Understanding, (or lack of) bacteria can also be seen in the toiletry habits of the Jews. They acknowledged God (not bacteria) as the one who opens and shuts doors, including the various openings of the body. The superstition around the ability to poop, or not, was attributed to an act of God, rather than microscopic organisms. They recited the Asher yatzar which thanked God for the ability to poop. If one had diarrhea they would recite the blessing after each instance of diarrhea. These days we'd take an antibiotic.

Actually the books of Moses give certain specifications for dealing with excrement. Soldiers were required to have a shovel and to bury the poop. They were told where they could and could not poop. I think it is very clear in the Biblical account that they had laws concerning sanitation.

Also thanks for the clarification, it was not Moses or Paul talking about "magic sticks" but Pharaoh and the Egyptians.

[ZNPaaneah]

At this point we have discussed Biblical insights on:

Fermentation due to bacterial activity

Bacterial infections like Leprosy

Inoculations and antibodies to Bacteria

Sanitation

Cultivating bacteria like a garden

Two ways to deal with bacteria ("good and evil" bacteria -- kill evil bacteria, vs "tree of life" -- promote good bacteria so that potentially harmful bacteria doesn't become harmful).

I am not an expert on Bacteria, so perhaps Zeek or Awareness can tell us what other areas or industries make use of Bacteria.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Actually the books of Moses give certain specifications for dealing with excrement. Soldiers were required to have a shovel and to bury the poop. They were told where they could and could not poop. I think it is very clear in the Biblical account that they had laws concerning sanitation.

Also thanks for the clarification, it was not Moses or Paul talking about "magic sticks" but Pharaoh and the Egyptians.

After wiping their butt with their bare hands.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No one, including me, has disputed that Moses understood bacteria.

Well you should dispute it. There is no evidence that Moses understood Bacteria.

What was said is that "Bacteria is not in the Bible". That statement is absurd. Leprosy is a bacteria. The types of fermentation the Bible refers to were bacterial. The principles that apply to caring for gardens also apply to bacteria. The key mistake we have made in dealing with bacteria is the key mistake described in the Bible -- eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Does the Bible talk about microscopes? No. So what. Either you can't read what I wrote or you intentionally misrepresent it.

Your proposition that the Bible gives insights concerning deadly drug-resistant bacteria is false. It is modern science that gives insights about deadly drug-resistant bacteria not the Bible.

People read the Bible for centuries without any insight into bacteria until bacteria were first observed by the Dutch microscopist Antonie van Leeuwenhoek in 1676, using a single-lens microscope of his own design. Antibiotics were totally unknown until Alexander Fleming identified penicillin, the first chemical compound with antibiotic properties in 1928. Nobody was having insights about antibiotics before then. Antibiotic resistance wasn't discovered until sometime after that and until it was observed no one had insights about it.

The Bible gave no insight into bacteria, antibiotics or antibiotic resistance. Now a person like yourself that has learned about these things from science can go back and read the Bible and have insights about fermentation and diseases and the like. But, the insights don't come from the Bible; they come from science.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well you should dispute it. There is no evidence that Moses understood Bacteria.

I am agreeing with you. How was that not clear? I never said that Moses understood bacteria. What I said is that Bacteria is in the Bible.

How can this be? For me it is simple, the Bible is the word of God.

If someone thinks the Bible is the word of man then I have no idea how they explain it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well you should dispute it. There is no evidence that Moses understood Bacteria.



Your proposition that the Bible gives insights concerning deadly drug-resistant bacteria is false. It is modern science that gives insights about deadly drug-resistant bacteria not the Bible.

People read the Bible for centuries without any insight into bacteria until bacteria were first observed by the Dutch microscopist Antonie van Leeuwenhoek in 1676, using a single-lens microscope of his own design. Antibiotics were totally unknown until Alexander Fleming identified penicillin, the first chemical compound with antibiotic properties in 1928. Nobody was having insights about antibiotics before then. Antibiotic resistance wasn't discovered until sometime after that and until it was observed no one had insights about it.

The Bible gave no insight into bacteria, antibiotics or antibiotic resistance. Now a person like yourself that has learned about these things from science can go back and read the Bible and have insights about fermentation and diseases and the like. But, the insights don't come from the Bible; they come from science.

That's like saying people had no idea what gravity was until Newton came along to describe the laws of gravity.

Just because they could not "see" bacteria doesn't mean they did not know of its existence.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

But, the insights don't come from the Bible; they come from science.

And science says:

"Leprosy, also known as Hansen's disease (HD), is a long-term infection by the bacteria Mycobacterium leprae or Mycobacterium lepromatosis."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy

If they knew bacteria in Bible days, are the names "Mycobacterium leprae or Mycobacterium lepromatosis" in the Bible?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And science says:

"Leprosy, also known as Hansen's disease (HD), is a long-term infection by the bacteria Mycobacterium leprae or Mycobacterium lepromatosis."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy

If they knew bacteria in Bible days, are the names "Mycobacterium leprae or Mycobacterium lepromatosis" in the Bible?

Prolly in the Vulgate.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

After wiping their butt with their bare hands.

I am not familiar with that verse.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am agreeing with you. How was that not clear?

OK then. It was not clear because what you apparently meant was "No one, including me, has claimed that Moses understood bacteria." What you stated was "No one, including me, has disputed that Moses understood bacteria." which literally means the opposite. If no one disputed that Moses understood bacteria, then everyone would accept that Moses understood it, which is not the case, and, as you have now clarified, not what you intended to imply.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why don't you think before you post. I never have said that the writers of the Bible understood bacteria. Nor have I ever said that we are not continually learning and developing our understanding.

Your interpretation of what I said is insulting. Why don't you try reading the posts before posting.

The idiotic statement was that references to bacteria were not in the Bible. You yourself admit that Leprosy is a reference to bacteria.

No one said that there were references to micro biology, or microscopes, etc.

I didn't say any of what you said. You are the master of the strawman redirection. Make a lot of noise about what isn't actually there but claim it is.

But you said "Leprosy refers to the name of the Bacteria." Right there in post #32. Let's give it some context.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How do you say it is not in the Bible? Because they don't use the word bacteria? That is ridiculous. Leprosy refers to the name of the Bacteria.

That is a direct quote from your post. How else am I supposed to understand that?

Leprosy does not refer to the name of the bacteria other than in very recent times. But in the Bible it only refers to the disease. The use of the word in the Bible was a reference to a disease, not to anything about bacteria. So the use of the word "leprosy" was not a reference to the bacteria.

In modern times we have learned that the cause of the disease is a bacteria and have given that bacteria the same name as the disease. But that fact is irrelevant to a study of the Bible and to leprosy in the Bible.

[OBW]

That's like saying people had no idea what gravity was until Newton came along to describe the laws of gravity.

Just because they could not "see" bacteria doesn't mean they did not know of its existence.

Not a very good comparison. Something as observable and constant as gravity set up against something unseen that is not simply a constant to the observer. There is no parallel to "walk off the top the building and you fall o the ground," or "jump in the air and you always come back down — quickly." There was no clear "go down that street and you will get leprosy." They did have some notion that it could be passed from one to another, so a form of quarantine. But they didn't understand that enough to really know what kind of quarantine was required.

2,000+ years ago the knowledge of the causes of so many things, including disease, was not generally understood. They could see the effects of something larger, like worms. But the had no idea about bacteria, viruses, etc. And even if someone supposed that there was something like worms that just couldn't be seen, it does not appear to have made it into the record of the Bible, which is what the current controversy is about. While God may have done much through rules of clean and uncleans meats, ritual washings, etc., to keep the people from what was the actual problem, that root problem was never discussed or revealed.

The real problem with this thread is that there are people who will go to great lengths to force any discussion about almost anything into a biblical discussion, and the creator of this thread has done it once again. Now the Bible is discussing and revealing things about bacteria.

I don't think so.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I didn't say any of what you said. You are the master of the strawman redirection. Make a lot of noise about what isn't actually there but claim it is.

But you said "Leprosy refers to the name of the Bacteria." Right there in post #32. Let's give it some context. That is a direct quote from your post. How else am I supposed to understand that?

Simple, when I say that the Bible refers to Bacteria I am referring to the Bible which is the word of God. Yes, it was delivered through His servant Moses, but it is not Moses word, it is God's word. When I say I have never disputed that Moses understood bacteria that is in the context of me having made it very clear that God the creator did understand bacteria.

Originally Posted by OBW

Leprosy does not refer to the name of the bacteria other than in very recent times. But in the Bible it only refers to the disease. The use of the word in the Bible was a reference to a disease, not to anything about bacteria. So the use of the word "leprosy" was not a reference to the bacteria.

Whoa! You can't make that jump. In the OT it is very clear that Leprosy refers to a very contagious skin disease. It could refer to a multitude of contagious skin diseases caused by a variety of bacteria and virus, that is fair. But it certainly referred to a skin disease which would include Leprosy as we know it today.

If you want to say that the word Leprosy in the Bible is a catch all phrase for contagious skin diseases, including leprosy as we know it today, that is fine with me. But it is certainly a reference to bacterial infectious diseases.

Originally Posted by OBW

In modern times we have learned that the cause of the disease is a bacteria and have given that bacteria the same name as the disease. But that fact is irrelevant to a study of the Bible and to leprosy in the Bible.

I see no reason why we need to tell anyone what is relevant or not to their study of the Bible. I am not aware that having knowledge in a subject harms your ability to study the Bible. On the other hand I have found it very useful very many times.

If you want to say that many people felt that Leprosy in the Bible was a result of God's judgement, that would be fair and that today we see it as a result of a microscopic organism, that also would be fair. But it doesn't change the fact that these microscopic organism are everywhere and you have been exposed to them multiple times without an infection, so what happened that now you have gotten an infection? We usually ascribe that to a "weakened immune system". How did that happen? Poor diet, poor sleep, poor exercise -- but it could be the result of drinking, carousing, fornication, and riotous life. So then, what our scientific understanding has really done is give us a better understanding of what it means that this infection is a result of "God's judgement".

Just because I know more in college, it doesn't mean that what I learned in HS was not accurate. It is the same with the Bible. It wasn't written for people getting an advanced degree in microbiology, but that doesn't mean that what it says isn't scientifically accurate, relevant and applicable.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I didn't say any of what you said. You are the master of the strawman redirection. Make a lot of noise about what isn't actually there but claim it is.

But you said "Leprosy refers to the name of the Bacteria." Right there in post #32. Let's give it some context. That is a direct quote from your post. How else am I supposed to understand that?

Leprosy does not refer to the name of the bacteria other than in very recent times. But in the Bible it only refers to the disease. The use of the word in the Bible was a reference to a disease, not to anything about bacteria. So the use of the word "leprosy" was not a reference to the bacteria.

In modern times we have learned that the cause of the disease is a bacteria and have given that bacteria the same name as the disease. But that fact is irrelevant to a study of the Bible and to leprosy in the Bible.

Someone posted that they had done a search for the word bacteria and had been unable to find a single listing in the Bible.

I responded that the name of the bacteria that gives us Leprosy is called Leprosy, so why not search for Leprosy.

I can refer to mumps by referring to the disease, the symptoms, how many people got it, etc. That is a reference to the disease. I do not have to use micro biology to refer to it, and yet I am referring to the entire disease.

The Bible refers to fermenting cheese, bread, wine, alcohol, etc. That means they were working with, growing, cultivating and caring for microscopic organisms -- either bacteria, yeast or some other spore. That is a reference to bacteria. You don't have to refer to a latin name since the Bible predates latin, and you don't have to provide a picture taken under a microscope to refer to the microscopic organism.

The Bible refers to sanitation and the proper way to dispose of human waste. That is an issue of bacterial infection.

The Bible refers to Leprosy.

The Bible refers to leaven.

No one is claiming that the Bible was teaching microbiology, but the references are accurate, relevant, and applicable.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Simple, when I say that the Bible refers to Bacteria I am referring to the Bible which is the word of God. Yes, it was delivered through His servant Moses, but it is not Moses word, it is God's word. When I say I have never disputed that Moses understood bacteria that is in the context of me having made it very clear that God the creator did understand bacteria.

Wow. You outdid yourself this time! Quote me and answer someone else's post. Really shows you are not reading.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Whoa! You can't make that jump. In the OT it is very clear that Leprosy refers to a very contagious skin disease. It could refer to a multitude of contagious skin diseases caused by a variety of bacteria and virus, that is fair. But it certainly referred to a skin disease which would include Leprosy as we know it today.

The only un-makeable jump is yours when you declare that The Bible is discussing bacteria by making reference to a disease that we now know is caused by bacteria.

The rest of this is just a continuation based upon the first premise that the Bible is discussing bacteria.

Standard understanding of study of the Bible is that you can't push modern knowledge back into the Bible. This whole thread is based upon the premise that because bacteria exist and there is reference to a disease caused by bacteria, and to yeast which is really just a handful of bacteria, that the Bible has information that is important to the study or dealing with bacteria.


You can tell a genius, but you can't tell him much.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Someone posted that they had done a search for the word bacteria and had been unable to find a single listing in the Bible.

I responded that the name of the bacteria that gives us Leprosy is called Leprosy, so why not search for Leprosy.

Not very meaningful and utterly non-responsive.

The poster (someone else) is clearly trying to show that there is no reference to bacteria in the Bible. You back-fill a disease's name to mean the bacteria that causes it and now you can search for bacteria in the Bible. By name.

I don't think so. And that you do says a lot.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's like saying people had no idea what gravity was until Newton came along to describe the laws of gravity.

Just because they could not "see" bacteria doesn't mean they did not know of its existence.

What gravity actually is, is still unknown. Science has not been able to explain it. Some think gravity does not exist:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...-illusion.html

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am not familiar with that verse.

Show me the verse where it says they wiped their bums.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Show me the verse where it says they wiped their bums.

I would stipulate that there is no such verse. But what is the purpose of the question?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What gravity actually is, is still unknown. Science has not been able to explain it. Some think gravity does not exist:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...-illusion.html

Some think the earth is flat. The round earth is merely an illusion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Show me the verse where it says they wiped their bums.

Here is the Complete History of Toilet Paper proving that Moses could not have provided any instruction on this sensitive matter.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Show me the verse where it says they wiped their bums.

I was referring to Deuteronomy 23:12 “Also you shall have a place outside the camp, where you may go out; 13 and you shall have an implement among your equipment, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and turn and cover your refuse. 14 For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and give your enemies over to you; therefore your camp shall be holy, that He may see no unclean thing among you, and turn away from you.

I did not say anything about toilet paper. I talked about sanitation. There was a law about where you could relieve yourself and there was a law that this had to be buried.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's like saying people had no idea what gravity was until Newton came along to describe the laws of gravity.

Where in the Bible does a writer demonstrate idea of gravity beyond the observation that things fall to earth?

Just because they could not "see" bacteria doesn't mean they did not know of its existence.

The opposite of your statement has more weight: The fact that people could not see bacteria, means that they had no way of knowing that it existed. As with gravity, they saw the effects but they didn't know what caused them.

You claim people in Biblical times knew about bacteria. How? And what did they know about it?

If they make no mention of it, why would you assume they knew about it? If they knew about it, why didn't they write about it?

The simple answer is, they couldn't see bacteria without a microscope so they didn't know it existed. If that's wrong, just show me the Bible verses that prove it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

You claim people in Biblical times knew about bacteria. How? And what did they know about it?

If they make no mention of it, why would you assume they knew about it? If they knew about it, why didn't they write about it?

The simple answer is, they couldn't see bacteria without a microscope so they didn't know it existed. If that's wrong, just show me the Bible verses that prove it.

Because when anyone got close to a sick person they also got sick. A completely observable fact of life.

Kind of like the small particulates of smoke blowing in the wind affecting those nearby. Closer to the smell, the "unseen" particulates were stronger.

Perhaps the "fragrance" of poop signaled them to things unseen. They knew that the smell of certain things contain unseen and breathable smells that transmitted both fragrances and illnesses.

They obviously had no known microscopes, yet they knew of "things" unseen.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Because when anyone got close to a sick person they also got sick. A completely observable fact of life.

Kind of like the small particulates of smoke blowing in the wind affecting those nearby. Closer to the smell, the "unseen" particulates were stronger.

Perhaps the "fragrance" of poop signaled them to things unseen. They knew that the smell of certain things contain unseen and breathable smells that transmitted both fragrances and illnesses.

They obviously had no known microscopes, yet they knew of "things" unseen.

Observing people get sick or an smelling something unpleasant is not tantamount to knowledge of bacteria. The unseen things the Biblical writers speculated about were spirits, angels and demons not microorganisms.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Observing people get sick or an smelling something unpleasant is not tantamount to knowledge of bacteria. The unseen things the Biblical writers speculated about were spirits, angels and demons not microorganisms.

I disagree.

The odor of poop, or the sight and smell of smoke, had nothing to do with evil spirits. These were the activitoes of daily life, which did not rise to the level of demons.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I disagree.

The odor of poop, or the sight and smell of smoke, had nothing to do with evil spirits. These were the activitoes of daily life, which did not rise to the level of demons.

Where did you read that?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I disagree.

The odor of poop, or the sight and smell of smoke, had nothing to do with evil spirits. These were the activitoes of daily life, which did not rise to the level of demons.

I don't think zeek was suggesting that the smell of poop had anything to do with evil spirits. Rather that the things that they did write about were concerning ordinary things of life.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

You claim people in Biblical times knew about bacteria. How? And what did they know about it?

I am not sure if Ohio has made this claim. I certainly didn't.

My claim is that the Bible gives insights. Not that "people in Biblical times knew about bacteria".

Originally Posted by zeek

If they make no mention of it, why would you assume they knew about it?

Again, no one that I know of has made the claim that they knew about it.

Originally Posted by zeek

If they knew about it, why didn't they write about it?

The simple answer is, they couldn't see bacteria without a microscope so they didn't know it existed. If that's wrong, just show me the Bible verses that prove it.

On the contrary I would say that God did know about it and His knowledge is revealed in the Bible.

Treatment of human waste and contagious infections are done in a way that, given the limitations of the day, could not be improved on.

Thinking that some bacteria are "evil" and deciding the best way to deal with them is to kill them (antibiotics, antiseptics, etc) is a mistake that is very well predicted and warned against in the Bible.

The bible's description of leaven makes it very clear that there is something there that we cannot see and is "hidden" in the wheat.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Observing people get sick or an smelling something unpleasant is not tantamount to knowledge of bacteria. The unseen things the Biblical writers speculated about were spirits, angels and demons not microorganisms.

The cleansing ritual for those cured of "Leprosy" is quite remarkable from a viewpoint of microbiology.

If you want to make a culture of a biologic agent like the antibodies manufactured by the human body or the weakened bacteria of the infection then blood taken immediately from a living bird is as good a medium as you can get. Taking that blood that came in contact with the skin and which will now have those antibodies and dead bacteria onto the feathers of a living bird is an ingenious way of introducing the antidote into the ecosystem. Maybe it gets transmitted, maybe not, but using a bird lowers the risk and the possibility is certainly there.

You might not know that what is fermenting your beer or bread is "bacteria" but they know it is alive, they know the temperature is important, food is important, water is important, sugar is important. People who make bread know it is alive. Jesus clearly told them that the "Leaven was hidden in the meal". They knew that whatever was alive was very small and "hidden".

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My claim is that the Bible gives insights. Not that "people in Biblical times knew about bacteria".

It has been accepted for a long time that the Bible provided rules of cleaning, eating, etc., that was designed to limit various ailments. From trichinosis to Leprosy. We now know that certain of these things were caused by bacteria. Obviously God knew before there was a man to have problems with any of it.

And while there was a ritual aspect to circumcision, the practice also limited a certain kind of cancer.

But other than the simple rules to limit exposure, the Bible provides no insight into the kind or source of the diseases or other problems caused. Just rules to follow. This food is in. That food is out. Circumcise. Bury your poop. And so on. While it is true that you can now look back and see the ultimate wisdom in those practices, it does not provide any valuable insight into the problems of bacteria or other things. Just shows that God was looking out for his people.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The cleansing ritual for those cured of "Leprosy" is quite remarkable from a viewpoint of microbiology.

If you want to make a culture of a biologic agent like the antibodies manufactured by the human body or the weakened bacteria of the infection then blood taken immediately from a living bird is as good a medium as you can get. Taking that blood that came in contact with the skin and which will now have those antibodies and dead bacteria onto the feathers of a living bird is an ingenious way of introducing the antidote into the ecosystem. Maybe it gets transmitted, maybe not, but using a bird lowers the risk and the possibility is certainly there.

You might not know that what is fermenting your beer or bread is "bacteria" but they know it is alive, they know the temperature is important, food is important, water is important, sugar is important. People who make bread know it is alive. Jesus clearly told them that the "Leaven was hidden in the meal". They knew that whatever was alive was very small and "hidden".

So what your doing is analogous to a Hindu claiming the health benefits derived from practicing yoga according to their ancient holy book Bhagavad-gita or a Taoist who claims health based on the Tao Te Ching their ancient sacred book. Count the fact that I get most of my health practices from modern science among my many liberal failings. I can live with that.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I was referring to Deuteronomy 23:12 “Also you shall have a place outside the camp, where you may go out; 13 and you shall have an implement among your equipment, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and turn and cover your refuse. 14 For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and give your enemies over to you; therefore your camp shall be holy, that He may see no unclean thing among you, and turn away from you.

I did not say anything about toilet paper. I talked about sanitation. There was a law about where you could relieve yourself and there was a law that this had to be buried.

Yes but what about personal hygiene.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

So what your doing is analogous to a Hindu claiming the health benefits derived from practicing yoga according to their ancient holy book Bhagavad-gita or a Taoist who claims health based on the Tao Te Ching their ancient sacred book. Count the fact that I get most of my health practices from modern science among my many liberal failings. I can live with that.

No, what I am saying is that even today, with all that we know about microbiology, if for some reason we returned to the stone age (perhaps the present administration makes a disastrous wrong turn) and we didn't have our antibiotics or our microscopes or any of our modern technology then what we would do, using our most advanced scientific knowledge without any of our modern technology, is precisely what the Bible prescribes.

That, to me, is quite remarkable.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No, what I am saying is that even today, with all that we know about microbiology, if for some reason we returned to the stone age (perhaps the present administration makes a disastrous wrong turn) and we didn't have our antibiotics or our microscopes or any of our modern technology then what we would do, using our most advanced scientific knowledge without any of our modern technology, is precisely what the Bible prescribes.

That, to me, is quite remarkable.

That's what I'm saying. The other religions make remarkable claims about their sacred books too. You're in good company.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I was referring to Deuteronomy 23:12 “Also you shall have a place outside the camp, where you may go out; 13 and you shall have an implement among your equipment, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and turn and cover your refuse. 14 For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and give your enemies over to you; therefore your camp shall be holy, that He may see no unclean thing among you, and turn away from you.

I did not say anything about toilet paper. I talked about sanitation. There was a law about where you could relieve yourself and there was a law that this had to be buried.

I see.
https://books.google.com/books?id=AN...0bible&f=false

Although too many hookworms can cause anemia, hookworms aren't all bad. There is evidence that a mild hookworm infection prevents asthma, a bane of modern existence. http://www.radiolab.org/story/91691-...tal-narrative/

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I see.
https://books.google.com/books?id=AN...0bible&f=false

Although too many hookworms can cause anemia, hookworms aren't all bad. There is evidence that a mild hookworm infection prevents asthma, a bane of modern existence. http://www.radiolab.org/story/91691-...tal-narrative/

It works both ways, the theory is that hookworms will cause us to dial down our immune response, as thought they sing a lullaby to the immune response. As a result man has learned to dial up the immune response to compensate. As a result, without being infected with hookworms you then will get auto immune diseases like asthma.

So then asthma and other auto immune diseases are thought to be due to our ancestors being infected with parasites. Therefore parasites are not the cure, they are the cause.

I liken this to driving in a jalopy on the freeway with the windows down and radio blaring. When you get home and pull into the driveway you wonder why you have your radio turned up to ear splitting levels.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

It has been accepted for a long time that the Bible provided rules of cleaning, eating, etc., that was designed to limit various ailments. From trichinosis to Leprosy. We now know that certain of these things were caused by bacteria. Obviously God knew before there was a man to have problems with any of it.

And while there was a ritual aspect to circumcision, the practice also limited a certain kind of cancer.

But other than the simple rules to limit exposure, the Bible provides no insight into the kind or source of the diseases or other problems caused. Just rules to follow. This food is in. That food is out. Circumcise. Bury your poop. And so on. While it is true that you can now look back and see the ultimate wisdom in those practices, it does not provide any valuable insight into the problems of bacteria or other things. Just shows that God was looking out for his people.

Cats cover their poop. Other critters poop outside their living area. Other peoples, who knew nothing of the Jews or the Bible, practice pooping outside the camp.

God must care for the critters and other peoples, not related to "His" word.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Cats cover their poop. Other critters poop outside their living area. Other peoples, who knew nothing of the Jews or the Bible, practice pooping outside the camp.

You are oversimplifying it. "Outside my living area" would still be in the relatively small space between tents. The idea was not just to get it out of your living room, but to get it beyond a grouping of tents. Animals may poop outside of their own environs, but are they as careful about the environs of others. Few animals group as closely as humans. Cows do somewhat. And they just poop all over the place. No rhyme or reason.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

You are oversimplifying it. "Outside my living area" would still be in the relatively small space between tents. The idea was not just to get it out of your living room, but to get it beyond a grouping of tents. Animals may poop outside of their own environs, but are they as careful about the environs of others. Few animals group as closely as humans. Cows do somewhat. And they just poop all over the place. No rhyme or reason.

That is because cows are migratory. In the wild they are always on the move and run a circuit over the course of a year, like the Buffalo.

The best analogy of a creature that lives in large communities like man is the ant. Some ant hills number a million individuals.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is because cows are migratory. In the wild they are always on the move and run a circuit over the course of a year, like the Buffalo.

Yes, they are migratory. But slowly. Not a whole lot of running except when something startles them. But when they are grazing, they work their way through the grasslands pooping where they stand, not somewhere off to the side, then go back into the pasture to graze some more.

The point is that the way that God made the animals with patterns of behavior, and taught the humans, especially the Children of Israel, was designed, in part, to deal with the consequences of certain bacteria. But not to instruct or give insights into bacteria. God protected the people without describing what it was that they were being protected from. Foods that were out were simply called "unclean" without any explanation of why.

The premise of this thread is to find something that does not appear to be there.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes, they are migratory. But slowly. Not a whole lot of running except when something startles them. But when they are grazing, they work their way through the grasslands pooping where they stand, not somewhere off to the side, then go back into the pasture to graze some more.

The point is that the way that God made the animals with patterns of behavior, and taught the humans, especially the Children of Israel, was designed, in part, to deal with the consequences of certain bacteria. But not to instruct or give insights into bacteria. God protected the people without describing what it was that they were being protected from. Foods that were out were simply called "unclean" without any explanation of why.

The premise of this thread is to find something that does not appear to be there.

Initially there was instruction from God without explanation, but that was merely the starting point. God desired man to learn and eventually know His ways, knowing why we were given such instructions.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Initially there was instruction from God without explanation, but that was merely the starting point. God desired man to learn and eventually know His ways, knowing why we were given such instructions.

Absolutely true. But the Bible did not provide the insight. Just the means to live long enough to eventually have the knowledge base to start to study and learn.

And then realize that the rules from the Bible protected without any revelation of the nature of the problem. (Pretty smart for dealing with a bunch of ancients who couldn't fathom microbiology even if told to them.)

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Absolutely true. But the Bible did not provide the insight. Just the means to live long enough to eventually have the knowledge base to start to study and learn.

And then realize that the rules from the Bible protected without any revelation of the nature of the problem. (Pretty smart for dealing with a bunch of ancients who couldn't fathom microbiology even if told to them.)

I think that Medieval Europe didn't have this insight. Only after the black plague did they learn the value of this insight. Making this behavior a law was, by definition, insightful.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think that Medieval Europe didn't have this insight. Only after the black plague did they learn the value of this insight. Making this behavior a law was, by definition, insightful.

It is difficult to understand a 2,000 BC edict of practice only as insightful if by 1,000 AD there was still no insight into it. If you are simply implying that by providing the edict as part of the law, there is evidence that something is up, then I would agree. But it provided no insight into what was up. Just that something was up.

But if that is all you need to declare "insight" then who benefitted from this insight? Keeping the ignorant alive required no insight to any reader? It did that with no insight. And those people had no insight. They just followed the rules.

Or if you are trying to declare that God knew about bacteria and protected the Children of Israel from them, then that was accomplished by the rule. And we know God knows. He doesn't have insight. He has "complete sight."

And there is no evidence that anyone tried to figure it out. Just followed the rules.

And probably blamed disobedience on the law as the cause of any illness that came from such disobedience. Not some unseen or un-seeable organism.