• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Why no divine revelation about microscopic life?

I sort of like the answer that bacteria did not represent a source of income for God, so was of no interest.

The Bible guys get up early, go for a run, milk the cows, collect the chicken eggs, and look for ways to intrepret the Bible so that modern science was somehow predicted in the Bible - all before we stir our sleepy little heads.

Since the Bible can say just about anything you want, the practice is long established.

13. Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who gave birth in hospitals. As many as 30 percent died after giving birth. Semmelweis noted that doctors would examine the bodies of patients who died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next ward and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped to 2 percent. Look at the specific instructions God gave His people for when they encounter disease: "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean" (Leviticus 15:13). Until recent years, doctors washed their hands in a bowl of water, leaving invisible germs on their hands. However, the Bible says specifically to wash hands under "running water."

http://evidencebible.com/witnessingtool/scientificfactsintheBible.shtml
 
However even that's basically lying for God. E.g., just 2 verses up of it, comes a more relevant verse for that exact situation: "And whomsoever he toucheth that hath the issue, and hath not rinsed his hands in water, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even." (Leviticus 15:11.) The same page on Leviticus even clarifies what counts as having an issue, and more importantly who counts as having that issue: "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When any man hath a running issue out of his flesh, because of his issue he is unclean." (Leviticus 15:2.)

Clearly the one having an "issue" (or more accurately "discharge") is the one having something running out of his flesh, presumably some form of puss or oozing. Not only the doctor doesn't qualify as having the issue himself, and thus is not qualifying for Leviticus 15:13, probably most patients didn't either, which would make the doctor actually ineligible for Leviticus 15:11 either.

Clearly for the doctor only touching such a patient, either he rinses his hands and that's good enough for God, or he has to bathe. And counts as unclean for the rest of the day. Which is stupid, since it would limit doctors to one patient per day, without any real necessity. Furthermore the implication is that a day after doing that and washing your hands you're more clean than immediately after washing your hands, which is pretty stupid for anyone with even the most elementary knowledge about bacteria.

Furthermore, that is only for touching live people who have such open sores.

The rules for handling corpses are in a whole different place, making Leviticus 15 wholly irrelevant anyway. The relevant rules for touching a corpse are in Numbers 19:11-14. Namely:

11. He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days.

12. He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean.

13. Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.

14. This is the law, when a man dieth in a tent: all that come into the tent, and all that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.
​

Namely a doctor touching a corpse would be "unclean" for a whole frikken week. And so would anyone entering the same building.

But more interestingly, you see the only purification required is to be sprinkled with the "waters of separation". That's the "it" in verse 12. On days 3 (but why not immediately after the autopsy???) you have to sprinkle yourself with the "waters of separation". And then you're still unclean for 4 more days. Again, with the stupid implication that you're more clean 4 days after "disinfecting" yourself with those waters of separation, then immediately after it.

What, you might ask, are the waters of separation? Well, Numbers 19:2-10 tell you what and how to prepare them. I won't quote half a frikken bible page in toto, but the summary is this: the priests will sacrifice a heifer without blemish, burn the corpse, and mix the ashes in some water. That is the disinfectant the OT actually prescribes for touching a corpse.

Needless to say, that's a stupid rite for disinfecting oneself, and wouldn't do anything to kill the bacteria on the doctor's hands.

So to make this short, yes, people find whatever they want in the bible, but most of the time they need to be stupid (either naturally or wilfully), liars or both for that to work. Because, honestly, one needs to be stupid or a liar to say that the verse that proves God's knowledge is Lev 15:13, ignoring the more relevant verses even on the same frikken page. I mean, I can imagine that some apologist wrote that while not actually being knowledgeable enough to know about the more relevant stuff in Numbers 19, and while being too lazy to just google what other apologists say about the OT and corpses. But pretending that even stuff on the same frikken page they quote doesn't exist, takes a special kind of dishonest idiot.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, and IMHO an excellent analysis.

However, rather than being some errant and marginalized apologist, the material is award nominated and recommended by several mainstream evangelical Christians.

All the material in this section of our website comes directly from the pages of The Evidence Bible. This KJV bible has been commended by Josh McDowell, Dr. D. James Kennedy, and Franklin Graham...

...Welcome to "The Evidence Bible Online." The Evidence Bible is commended by Josh McDowell, Dr. D. James Kennedy and Franklin Graham, and was a finalist in the 2002 Gold Medallion Book Awards.
http://evidencebible.com/

The Christian Book Award (known as the Gold Medallion Book Award from 1978 through 2005) is an annual award given by the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association to honor Christian content in several categories, including Bibles, Fiction, Children, Inspiration, Bible Reference, and Non-Fiction. Winners are announced each year at the industry's Executive Leadership Summit. From among these recipients is also chosen a Christian Book of the Year, based on a combination of judging scores and sales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECPA_Christian_Book_Award
 
Well, yes. Lying for Jesus is a common passtime, and has always been. Not much surprise there.
 
Um, I do vaguely remember there being something in Deuteronomy about not digging your latrines right next to your well. But that sort of thing really should just be common sense.
 
Myths and religions purport to explain a wide variety of phenomena: how the leopard got its spots, why humans speak many different languages, how plants and animals came to be, etc.

But they don't explain anything about microscopic life! Their all-knowing deity never bothered to reveal anything about bacteria, for example, or dust mites.

I encountered someone who claimed The Bible mentioned everything science later discovered. I told him it didn't mention microbes. His answer was that it mentioned leprosy.

Sigh.
 
Um, I do vaguely remember there being something in Deuteronomy about not digging your latrines right next to your well. But that sort of thing really should just be common sense.

Actually, you probably remember it because there were discussions on this board before before that that's exactly its failing: it fails to mention "don't put it next to your well". In fact, I gave an alternate wording of a verse God should have said a couple of times, as an example of how he could give it without having to explain bacteria, which might (or might not) be what you're remembering. But that's really just a verse by Hans Mustermann, not from God. God doesn't actually say it.

The place in Deuteronomy is in chapter 23, which talks about stuff to do while on military campaigns, verses 12 to 13:

12. Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself.

13. As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement.
​

To his credit, God does say to go outside the camp, dig a hole a bury your crap. But the problem is exactly that he doesn't say where. Really, the above two verses are all that God has to say about burying crap, and even then only when you're in a military camp.

The next verse, number 14, deals with the hare-brained reason why. Namely God walks around the camp at night to watch over you, and will be mightily pissed off if you crapped in your camp and he steps in it. And, hey, I would be too :p Well, ok, not exactly in those words, but that's the whole gist: God is doing the rounds at night and he doesn't like crap in the camp.

In fact, verse 14 even make clear the scope. God isn't really all that concerned even about burying it generally, and much less about where, just as long as it's not in the camp. Really, the main idea is: dude, don't crap around in the military camp, it's disgusting.

And the previous verses, numbers 10 to 11, deal with people "unclean" because of a "nocturnal emission", who are to stay outside the camp all day and in the evening wash themselves and come back. The idea that to be clean, one must stay soiled all day outside the military camp and only wash himself of that "nocturnal emission" in the evening, instead of just washing oneself and one's loincloth immediately, is pretty much one of those absurdities that tell me God never had a microscope.

Also, that God doesn't understand how he built the human body, if he thinks a "nocturnal emission" is some transgression that makes one spiritually unclean, and which warrants such a punishment as staying a day outside the safety zone of the military camp. A lone couple of people outside the camp are not only in danger from animals, but because it's a war and they're deep in enemy territory, from enemy scouts and raiding parties and even pissed off locals with a vengeance to settle, so make no mistake: it's a scary punishment.

But at any rate, that's it.

A) there is no verse before or after Deu 23:12-13 that says "don't do it near your well." And

B) it explicitly only applies to military campaigns. When you're at home, God doesn't give a crap about what you do with your crap.

And that's actually the problem. A God who knew what the disease potential of that crap is, when he's at the topic of talking about it, should have said something about where to bury it, or make it a more general rule than just something pertaining to military camps.

And really, as I've been saying before, iit's one of the things that God doesn't even need to explain bacteria to give a rule. I mean, if the excuse is that God doesn't want to tell people such stuff they haven't discovered yet, really, he doesn't have to. He can just pack it in some commandment like, "Don't bury your crap next to your water supply, or I the Lord thy God shall smite thee with such a case of diarrhea, that verily thou shalt think thine own soul is coming out thine arse." That's that lost verse of the prophet Hans Mustermann that, as I mentioned, I keep throwing around as what a knowing God should have said, but unfortunately he didn't actually say it.
 
Last edited:
God had more important things to put in the Bible than bacteria or germs.

Ezekiel 23:20
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Clearly god felt this was more important for the whole world to know.
 
Ah, thank you Hans. I must have been remembering that quote as being far more useful than it really was.

As a comparison I wonder what sort of rules and regulations the Romans had regarding military camp hygiene? They certainly can't be worse than that.
 
God also clearly wanted to hide that he made parasitic worms and some of the deadly forms of bacteria out there.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom