Health and hygiene/cleanliness in the Bible

[bilby]

I found some more relevant verses:

Sanitation & Health in the Bible - EARLY CHURCH HISTORY

Moses wrote down health laws, dictated to him by God, which were hundreds and thousands of years before they were discovered by doctors/scientists.

earlychurchhistory.org

Moses wrote down health laws, dictated to him by God, which were hundreds and thousands of years before they were discovered by doctors/scientists.

Below is the first written law for quarantine in c. 1500 BC. It comes from the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament Bible.

“….And if there be in the bald head, or bald forehead, a white reddish sore; it is a leprosy sprung up in his bald head, or his bald forehead. Then the priest shall look upon it: and, behold, if the rising of the sore be white reddish in his bald head, or in his bald forehead, as the leprosy appeareth in the skin of the flesh; He is a leprous man, he is unclean: the priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean; his plague is in his head. And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, ‘Unclean, unclean.’ All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be.” The Mosaic Law in Leviticus 13:42-46 (c. 1500 BC) KJV

The word “quarantine” comes from the Italian quarantina giorni, meaning “space of forty days,” from quaranta “forty,” from the Latin quadraginta. Quarantine was first enforced in 1377 AD, 2,877 years after the Mosaic quarantine law, when there was an outbreak of the plague. Venice required ships from plague-stricken countries to wait in their port for 40 days to make sure no active cases of plague were aboard the ships.

Washing after handling a dead body is prescribed. Numbers 19:11-19

“Whoever touches the dead body of any human being will be unclean for seven days.” Numbers 13:11

There are Biblical Laws on how to handle human excrement. It must be buried away from the camp:

“You shall have a designated area outside the camp to which you shall go. As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement.” Deuteronomy 23:12,13

Human waste, left in the open as many societies did and still do, carry viral and bacterial diseases. Many in our own day use rivers for toilets and for bathing. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates nearly 2.2 million people die annually from diseases caused by contaminated water.

Deu 23 notably fails to mention:

A latrine hole should be at least 1.5m deep; at least 6m from dwellings; at least 30m from wells, springs, rivers and other water sources; should never be uphill from water sources used for drinking or bathing; and these minimum 30m distances should be doubled on porous ground such as sand or limestone.

It wouldn't have been difficult to include these requirements, and would have prevented a lot of dysentery and cholera. Did the all knowing god not know that making these explicit rules would prevent suffering; Or did the all loving god not care?

 

[excreationist]

Deu 23 notably fails to mention:

A latrine hole should be at least 1.5m deep; at least 6m from dwellings; at least 30m from wells, springs, rivers and other water sources; should never be uphill from water sources used for drinking or bathing; and these minimum 30m distances should be doubled on porous ground such as sand or limestone.

It says "It must be buried away from the camp" which implies it is at least 6m from dwellings. It involves a single use hole.... that is covered up after use. So I don't think it should have added "at least 1.5m deep".

It wouldn't have been difficult to include these requirements, and would have prevented a lot of dysentery and cholera. Did the all knowing god not know that making these explicit rules would prevent suffering; Or did the all loving god not care?

So do you think single use holes would have caused "a lot of dysentery and cholera"?

 

[Learner]

Leaving aside the fact that there are no 100% effective treatments for anything (a hallmark of specious medical claims is that of 100% effectiveness), and that the article you cite is utter garbage, from a country notorious for Internet lies and scams, the question I asked was:

And what I quoted in my previous posts, as you browsed over. Was your conclusion an automatic one, based on some past experience ... like from Nigerians sending you e-mails to assit them in putting a large amount of funds in your bank account?

"Are mosquitoes mentioned anywhere in the Bible?"

No, nor the other vast amount of insects that can cause disease, which is also not mentioned,... sure. However, fevers and illness that have similar discriptions are mentioned.

Last I checked, shitty Nigerian websites were neither reliable sources of information, nor (and this is particularly pertinent here) are they part of the Bible.

Underestimating a people group as a whole i.e. beause they're Nigerians, - just because of what some people do, it seems you are implying, , is erroneus. But I think you may have tested the source yourself, and the data showing the failure of those "false claims" when boiling leaves etc..

Look forward to hearing your investigation of these particular claims..

I didn't give shit the first about those claims. This is supposed to be a discussion of what the Bible says about health, hygiene, and cleanliness.

I haven't wandered off anywhere. Mosquitos relates to malaria, that relates to anti-malarial remedies i.e. boiling leaves, in which I suggesed, ancient people would have as well boiled leaves - also having access to the same plants back then in the Middle East.

The more that it becomes obvious that the Bible says almost nothing useful about this topic, despite there being a large number of very simple commandments that could have been included and would have thereby saved millions of lives, and reduced the suffering of millions more, the less interested you seem to be in discussing the topic at all.
The Bible failed to provide even the most basic guidance on how to protect against disease. That modern day Nigerians are posting bullshit claims about boiling leaves to cure malaria is not even tangentially related to this fact, and you appear to have brought it up solely to divert the discussion away from the gross failure of the Bible to even hint at divine inspiration, or any special understanding of reality, on the part of its authors.

The bible has a particular narrative - the bible writers assumes that man has some degree of intelligence, and, that there'd be some understanding that the bible was not written to be specific as a medical journal. Trying to make arguments as if it should be like it, is not a good idea.
I don't look there for any mentions for testing my blood sugar levels.

It wouldn't have been difficult to include these requirements, and would have prevented a lot of dysentery and cholera. Did the all knowing god not know that making these explicit rules would prevent suffering; Or did the all loving god not care?

excreationist post #20 (a like) sufficiently highlights the particular mindset back then. There is enough info to simply deduce from... with lots of the obvious emphasis throughout the bible, on cleansiness & washing.

 

[bilby]

Deu 23 notably fails to mention:

A latrine hole should be at least 1.5m deep; at least 6m from dwellings; at least 30m from wells, springs, rivers and other water sources; should never be uphill from water sources used for drinking or bathing; and these minimum 30m distances should be doubled on porous ground such as sand or limestone.

It says "It must be buried away from the camp" which implies it is at least 6m from dwellings. It involves a single use hole.... that is covered up after use. So I don't think it should have added "at least 1.5m deep".

It wouldn't have been difficult to include these requirements, and would have prevented a lot of dysentery and cholera. Did the all knowing god not know that making these explicit rules would prevent suffering; Or did the all loving god not care?

So do you think single use holes would have caused "a lot of dysentery and cholera"?

Yes. If they're not a suitable distance from drinking water, and/or not deep enough.

Shallow pits, even single use, contaminate surface run-off.

 

[bilby]

Leaving aside the fact that there are no 100% effective treatments for anything (a hallmark of specious medical claims is that of 100% effectiveness), and that the article you cite is utter garbage, from a country notorious for Internet lies and scams, the question I asked was:

And what I quoted in my previous posts, as you browsed over. Was your conclusion an automatic one, based on some past experience ... like from Nigerians sending you e-mails to assit them in putting a large amount of funds in your bank account?

"Are mosquitoes mentioned anywhere in the Bible?"

No, nor the other vast amount of insects that can cause disease, which is also not mentioned,... sure. However, fevers and illness that have similar discriptions are mentioned.

Last I checked, shitty Nigerian websites were neither reliable sources of information, nor (and this is particularly pertinent here) are they part of the Bible.

Underestimating a people group as a whole i.e. beause they're Nigerians, - just because of what some people do, it seems you are implying, , is erroneus. But I think you may have tested the source yourself, and the data showing the failure of those "false claims" when boiling leaves etc..

Look forward to hearing your investigation of these particular claims..

I didn't give shit the first about those claims. This is supposed to be a discussion of what the Bible says about health, hygiene, and cleanliness.

I haven't wandered off anywhere. Mosquitos relates to malaria, that relates to anti-malarial remedies i.e. boiling leaves, in which I suggesed, ancient people would have as well boiled leaves - also having access to the same plants back then in the Middle East.

The more that it becomes obvious that the Bible says almost nothing useful about this topic, despite there being a large number of very simple commandments that could have been included and would have thereby saved millions of lives, and reduced the suffering of millions more, the less interested you seem to be in discussing the topic at all.
The Bible failed to provide even the most basic guidance on how to protect against disease. That modern day Nigerians are posting bullshit claims about boiling leaves to cure malaria is not even tangentially related to this fact, and you appear to have brought it up solely to divert the discussion away from the gross failure of the Bible to even hint at divine inspiration, or any special understanding of reality, on the part of its authors.

The bible has a particular narrative - the bible writers assumes that man has some degree of intelligence, and, that there'd be some understanding that the bible was not written to be specific as a medical journal. Trying to make arguments as if it should be like it, is not a good idea.
I don't look there for any mentions for testing my blood sugar levels.

It wouldn't have been difficult to include these requirements, and would have prevented a lot of dysentery and cholera. Did the all knowing god not know that making these explicit rules would prevent suffering; Or did the all loving god not care?

excreationist post #20 (a like) sufficiently highlights the particular mindset back then. There is enough info to simply deduce from... with lots of the obvious emphasis & viewpoint throughout the bible, on cleansiness & washing.

Yeah, god simply never realised that people wouldn't understand something so obvious as the germ theory of disease without him explicitly mentioning countermeasures against its spread.

It's all our own fault for not realising how fucking ignorant god was about everything.

The Bible isn't supposed to be a manual on any specifics about how to survive or how to avoid shitting your life out; Just on the details of important things, like how much to beat slaves, or what burned offerings smell nicest to god.

 

[excreationist]

Deu 23 notably fails to mention:

A latrine hole should be at least 1.5m deep; at least 6m from dwellings; at least 30m from wells, springs, rivers and other water sources; should never be uphill from water sources used for drinking or bathing; and these minimum 30m distances should be doubled on porous ground such as sand or limestone.

It says "It must be buried away from the camp" which implies it is at least 6m from dwellings. It involves a single use hole.... that is covered up after use. So I don't think it should have added "at least 1.5m deep".

It wouldn't have been difficult to include these requirements, and would have prevented a lot of dysentery and cholera. Did the all knowing god not know that making these explicit rules would prevent suffering; Or did the all loving god not care?

So do you think single use holes would have caused "a lot of dysentery and cholera"?

Yes. If they're not a suitable distance from drinking water, and/or not deep enough.

Shallow pits, even single use, contaminate surface run-off.

They were in the desert.... I think outside of the camp it would be unlikely for a single use hole to contaminate drinking water (because the drinking water probably wouldn't be nearby). And it would be a lot better than cultures that use a river as their toilet.
BTW what about people going camping in modern times.... where they don't stay long at a particular spot - do you think they'd always dig a hole that is at least 1.5m deep?

 

[bilby]

Deu 23 notably fails to mention:

A latrine hole should be at least 1.5m deep; at least 6m from dwellings; at least 30m from wells, springs, rivers and other water sources; should never be uphill from water sources used for drinking or bathing; and these minimum 30m distances should be doubled on porous ground such as sand or limestone.

It says "It must be buried away from the camp" which implies it is at least 6m from dwellings. It involves a single use hole.... that is covered up after use. So I don't think it should have added "at least 1.5m deep".

It wouldn't have been difficult to include these requirements, and would have prevented a lot of dysentery and cholera. Did the all knowing god not know that making these explicit rules would prevent suffering; Or did the all loving god not care?

So do you think single use holes would have caused "a lot of dysentery and cholera"?

Yes. If they're not a suitable distance from drinking water, and/or not deep enough.

Shallow pits, even single use, contaminate surface run-off.

They were in the desert.... I think outside of the camp it would be unlikely for a single use hole to contaminate drinking water (because the drinking water probably wouldn't be nearby). And it would be a lot better than cultures that use a river as their toilet.
BTW what about people going camping in modern times.... where they don't stay long at a particular spot - do you think they'd always dig a hole that is at least 1.5m deep?

They should. But probably don't.

Anyway, an all-knowing god would be aware that his book would be hugely popular outside the Middle East. That it's obviously not written for Medieval Europeans or Modern Americans is not a point in its favour.

 

[excreationist]

BTW what about people going camping in modern times.... where they don't stay long at a particular spot - do you think they'd always dig a hole that is at least 1.5m deep?

They should. But probably don't.

It would be very uncommon for campers to always dig a hole that at least 1.5m. I think a shallow single use hole outside the camp isn't necessarily worse than a 1.5m hole that stays open for a significant amount of time. I mean it could allow flies to breed, etc.

Anyway, an all-knowing god would be aware that his book would be hugely popular outside the Middle East. That it's obviously not written for Medieval Europeans or Modern Americans is not a point in its favour.

Well the rules about what not to eat, about the Sabbath, circumcision, etc, became somewhat irrelevant centuries earlier than that - in Paul's time.... I think scientific problems (creation, flat earth, etc) are a more serious problem than having hygiene rules that don't apply to future people that aren't wandering the desert.

 

[Politesse]

If a scriptorium of priestly ceremonial laws is being taken as a panacea of all medical knowledge, that says more about the reader than it does about the book.