Unhygienic practices of the OT

  • Thread starter Thread starter noobio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

noobio

Guest
I have been re reading passages from the old testament and it just occurred to me that sprinkling blood, either on a person or onto their house may be a bad idea, and lead to the spread of disease.

Examples of this can be seen in Leviticus chapter 14:7 which gives instructions on how to cleanse someone after they have been healed of their skin disease. “Seven times he shall sprinkle the one to be cleansed of the defiling disease, and then pronounce them clean. After that, he is to release the live bird in the open fields.”

Knowing that blood can easily transmit disease would it not be ill advised to follow these instructions given by God?
 
Do you have any sources to back up your assertion?

Has it been proven medically that diseases can be transmitted to humans by sprinkling of animal blood on them?
 
it has been shown that Aids most likely crossed the species barrier thhrough fresk killed bush meat and a cut on the hand of a central African hunter…
 
To the best of my knowledge, that belief is now discredited. I haven’t found a whole lot of hard science about that.
 
But that’s through consuming meat which may have blood in it.

God didn’t command the Israelites to drink blood, in fact he commanded the opposite.

I’m not so sure diseases could be spread simply by sprinkling someone with animal blood.
 
The risk of disease transmission to a human from most animal blood is low because most animal diseases cannot transmit to humans.

Source (one of many): Exposure to animal blood | Worms & Germs Blog

On the off chance that a person might possibly get sick from animal blood, for instance if a new virus emerged that was communicable, the people back in Old Testament days had no idea about viruses or bacteria and thus would not know about it.
 
Regardless if the people knew about disease or not, God should have not instructed if it could have disastrous results, that is my argument.
 
In the example posed by Maximilian75, although the animal was killed for the purpose of consumption, the transmission of the disease occured when blood from the meat entered the cut/wound, not from eating
 
From the article which @Tis_Bearself posted:

“Even contact with blood from a rabid animal is not considered rabies exposure, because the virus is found in the saliva, not the blood.”

Going to the Book of Leviticus, God specifically states in Lev 14:4 “two live, clean birds.”

So far from rabid animal blood being used, God specifically says two CLEAN birds. My estimation is that the danger of any disease spreading from avians to humans from simply sprinkling the blood of the animal onto the human, especially when the bird in question was clean and healthy, is nigh zero.
 
Last edited:
noobio said:
Regardless if the people knew about disease or not, God should have not instructed if it could have disastrous results, that is my argument.
Click to expand...
People have butchered and slaughtered animals for human consumption and use of their hides, etc. for many thousands of years. The amount of blood that gets on a person from this activity tends to be way more than a sprinkle. It’s simply not that dangerous.
 
Spyridon said:
Going to the Book of Leviticus, God specifically states in Lev 14:4 “two live, clean birds.”
Click to expand...
I think “clean” refers to whether it’s “clean” according to dietary law, versus the “not-sick” definition we use. Like, no eating of owls, or cormorants, or hawks, or herons, or whatever. So one place says that characteristics of “clean” birds are:
They are not birds of prey.
They have a supernumerary toe (ezba yeterah), which is interpreted to mean either an additional toe behind the others, or an elongation of the middle toe.
They are supplied with a crop.
Their stomachs have two skins that can be easily separated.
They catch food thrown to them in the air, but bring it to the ground, where they divide it with their bills before eating it, while the unclean birds devour it in the air, or press it with one foot to the ground and tear it with their bills.
They must spread their toes so that three front toes are on one side of a perch and the hind one on the other side of the perch.
Click to expand...
Noobio, have you ever processed an animal?
 
noobio said:
Regardless if the people knew about disease or not, God should have not instructed if it could have disastrous results, that is my argument.
Click to expand...
I will have to study this some more, but from what I’ve been told by a priest, not every single line in the Old Testimate is directly from God. Leviticus, for example, contains a lot of what would be comparable to Canon Law in the Catholic Church.

Overall, each book is considered inspired scripture, but if I understand correctly, not every single line (esp in books like Leviticus) are directly from God.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
40.png
noobio:
Regardless if the people knew about disease or not, God should have not instructed if it could have disastrous results, that is my argument.
Click to expand...
People have butchered and slaughtered animals for human consumption and use of their hides, etc. for many thousands of years. The amount of blood that gets on a person from this activity tends to be way more than a sprinkle. It’s simply not that dangerous.
Click to expand...
This is very true, esp before modern machinery. Butchers used to be covered in blood all day long.
 
Last edited:
@phil19034

I’ve got my Bible open in front of me. The chapter of Leviticus in question (14) explicitly begins with “the LORD said to Moses”.
 

@Spyridon

according to this, Aids did cross the species barrier.
 
I’m no epidemiologist, but I strongly suspect that chimp->human disease transmission would be much more easy and likely than bird or goat-> human transmission, due to how similar our DNA and physiology is between us.
 
yes, but one can also point to H1N1 and tuberculosis (it originated in cows) as examples of how the species barrier is not as defined as we think.
 
I just remembered, that for an animal to be clean it can’t be defective in any way, I suppose that can include sickness and disease. Now the only question is how would the ancient people know without technology

Also, I never asked myself about the probability of transmitting disease, I just assumed it would definitely happens, glad that this thread cleared that up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top