https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=2024
Scientific Foreknowledge and Medical Acumen of the Bible
While it is the case that the Bible does not present itself as a
scientific or medical textbook, it is only reasonable that if God truly
did inspire the books that compose the Bible, they would be completely
accurate in every scientific or medical detail found among their pages.
Furthermore, if the omniscient Ruler of the Universe actually did
inspire these books, scientific and medical errors that fill the pages
of other ancient, non-inspired texts should be entirely absent from the
biblical record. Is the Bible infallible when it speaks about scientific
fields of discipline, or does it contain the errors that one would
expect to find in the writings of fallible men in ancient times?
That the first five books of the Old Testament are a product of Moses is a matter of historical record (
Lyons and Staff,
2003). Furthermore, the story of Moses’ education among the Egyptian
culture was well understood. In fact, even those Jews who did not
convert to Christianity were so familiar with the historic fact that
Moses was educated in “all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22),
that Stephen’s statement to that effect went completely undisputed.
Moses had been trained under the most advanced Egyptian educational
system of his day. With such training, it would have been only natural
for Moses to include some of the Egyptian “wisdom” in his writings if he
were composing the Pentateuch by using his own prowess and mental
faculties.
A look into the medical practices from ancient Egypt and those found in
the Pentateuch, however, reveals that Moses did not necessarily rely on
“wisdom” of the Egyptians (which, in many cases, consisted of
life-threatening malpractice). While some medical practices in the
Pentateuch are similar to those found in ancient Egyptian documents, the
Pentateuch exhibits a conspicuous absence of those harmful malpractices
that plague the writings of the Egyptians. Moses penned the most
advanced, flawless medical prescriptions that had ever been recorded.
Furthermore, every statement that pertained to the health and medical
well-being of the Israelite nation recorded by Moses could theoretically
still be implemented and be completely in accord with every fact modern
medicine has learned in regard to germ spreading, epidemic disease
control, communal sanitation, and a host of other medical and scientific
discoveries.
It is the case that the ancient Egyptians were renowned in the ancient
world for their progress in the field of medicine. Dr. Massengill noted
that “Egypt was the medical center of the ancient world” (1943, p. 13).
During the days of in the Medo-Persian Empire, the ancient historian
Herodotus recorded that it was king Darius’ practice “to keep in
attendance certain Egyptian doctors, who had a reputation for the
highest eminence in their profession” (3.129). Thus, while the medical
practices of the Bible could be equally compared to those of other
ancient cultures and found to be flawlessly superior, comparing them to
that of the eminent Egyptian culture should suffice to manifest the
Bible’s supernatural superiority in the field.
It Will Cure You—If It Doesn’t Kill You First
Among the ancient documents that detail much of the Egyptian medicinal
knowledge, the Ebers Papyrus ranks as one of the foremost sources. This
papyrus was discovered in 1872 by a German Egyptologist named Georg
Ebers (the name from which the papyrus acquired its moniker) (
Ancient Egyptian...,
1930, p. 1). It consists of a host of medical remedies purported to
heal, enhance, and prevent. “Altogether 811 prescriptions are set forth
in the Papyrus, and they take the form of salves, plasters, and
poultices; snuffs, inhalations, and gargles; draughts, confections, and
pills; fumigations, suppositories, and enemata” (p. 15). Among the
hundreds of prescriptions, disgusting treatments that caused much more
harm than good can be found. For instance, under a section titled “What
to do to draw out splinters in the flesh,” a remedy is prescribed
consisting of worm blood, mole, and donkey dung” (p. 73). [Doctors S.I.
McMillen and David Stern note that dung “is loaded with tetanus spores”
and “a simple splinter often resulted in a gruesome death from lockjaw
(2000, p. 10).] Remedies to help heal skin diseases included such
prescriptions as: “A hog’s tooth, cat’s dung, dog’s dung,
aau-of-samu-oil, berries-of-the-xet-plant, pound and apply as poultice” (
Ancient Egyptian...,
1930, p. 92). Various other ingredients for the plethora of remedies
concocted included “dried excrement of a child” (p. 98), “hog dung” (p.
115), and “a farmer’s urine” (p. 131). One recipe to prevent hair growth
included lizard dung and the blood from a cow, donkey, pig, dog, and
stag (p. 102). While it must be noted that some of the Egyptian medicine
actually did include prescriptions and remedies that could be helpful,
the harmful remedies and ingredients cast a sickening shadow of
untrustworthiness over the entire Egyptian endeavor as viewed by the
modern reader.
As medical doctor S.E. Massengill stated:
The early Egyptian physicians made considerable use of drugs. Their
drugs were of the kind usually found in early civilizations; a few
effective remedies lost in a mass of substances of purely superstitious
origin. They used opium, squill, and other vegetable substances, but
also excrement and urine. It is said that the urine of a faithful wife
was with them effective in the treatment of sore eyes (1943, p. 15).
In addition, it seems that the Egyptians were among the first to
present the idea of “good and laudable pus” (McMillen and Stern, 2000,
p. 10). Due to the idea that infection was good and the pus that
resulted from it was a welcomed effect, “well-meaning doctors killed
millions by deliberately infecting their wounds” (p. 10). Needless to
say, the modern-day reader would not want to be a patient in an ancient
Egyptian clinic!
PRESCRIPTIONS IN THE PENTATEUCH
The first five books of the Old Testament, admittedly, are not devoted
entirely to the enumeration of medical prescriptions. They are not
ancient medical textbooks. These books do, however, contain numerous
regulations for sanitation, quarantine, and other medical procedures
that were to govern the daily lives of the Israelite nation. Missing
entirely from the pages of these writings are the harmful remedies and
ingredients prescribed by other ancient civilizations. In fact, the
Pentateuch exhibits an understanding of germs and disease that much
“modern” medicine did not grasp for 3,500 years after the books were
written.
Blood: The Liquid of Life
Blood always has been a curious substance whose vast mysteries and
capabilities have yet to be fully explored. Doctors in the twenty-first
century transfuse it, draw it, separate it, package it, store it, ship
it, and sell it. And, although modern-day scientists have not uncovered
completely all of the wonders of blood, they have discovered that it is
the key to life. Without this “liquid of life,” humans and animals would
have no way to circulate the necessary oxygen and proteins that their
bodies need in order to survive and reproduce. Hemoglobin found in the
red blood cells carries oxygen to the brain, which in turn uses that
oxygen to control the entire body. A brain without oxygen is like a car
without gas or a computer without electricity. Blood makes all of the
functions in the body possible.
In the past, ignorance of blood’s value caused some “learned” men to do
tragic things. For instance, during the middle ages, and even until the
nineteenth century, doctors believed that harmful “vapors” entered the
blood and caused sickness. For this reason, leeches were applied to
victims of fever and other illnesses in an attempt to draw out blood
containing these vapors. Also, the veins and arteries located just above
the elbow were opened, and the patient’s arms were bled to expunge the
contaminated blood. George Washington, the first President of the United
States, died because of such misplaced medical zeal. An eyewitness
account of Washington’s death relates that he came down with a chill,
and in an effort to cure him, those who attended him resorted to
bleeding; “a vein was opened, but no relief afforded” (“The Death of
George Washington,” 2001).
Thousands of years before the lethal practice of bloodletting was
conceived, mankind had been informed by God that blood was indeed the
key to life. In Leviticus 17:11, Moses wrote: “For the life of the flesh
is in the blood.”
Today, we understand completely the truthfulness of Moses’ statement
that “the life of the flesh is in the blood.” But how did an ancient
shepherd like Moses come to know such information? Just a lucky guess?
How could Moses have known almost 3,500 years ago that life was in the
blood, while it took the rest of the scientific and medical community
thousands of years (and thousands of lives!) to grasp this truth? The
Old Testament’s conspicuous failure to institute improper medical
procedures as they related to blood speaks loudly of its medical
accuracy.
Germs, Labor Fever, and Biblical Sanitation
In their book,
None of These Diseases, physicians S.I.
McMillen and David Stern discussed how many of the hygienic rules
established by God for the children of Israel still are applicable
today. To illustrate their point, they recounted the story of Ignaz
Semmelweis.
In 1847, an obstetrician named Ignaz Semmelweis was the director of a
hospital ward in Vienna, Austria. Many pregnant women checked into his
ward, but 18% of them never checked out. One out of every six that
received treatment in Semmelweis’ ward died of labor fever (Nuland,
2003, p. 31). Autopsies revealed pus under their skin, in their chest
cavities, in their eye sockets, etc. Semmelweis was distraught over the
mortality rate in his ward, and other hospital wards like it all over
Europe. Nuland noted that Australia, the Americas, Britain, Ireland, and
practically every other nation that had established a hospital suffered
a similar mortality rate (2003, pp. 41-43). If a woman delivered a baby
using a midwife, then the death fell to only about 3%. Yet if she chose
to use the most advanced medical knowledge and facilities of the day,
her chance of dying skyrocketed immensely!
Semmelweis tried everything to curb the carnage. He turned all the
women on their sides in hopes that the death rate would drop, but with
no results. He thought maybe the bell that the priest rang late in the
evenings scared the women, so he made the priest enter silently, yet
without any drop in death rates.
As he contemplated his dilemma, he watched young medical students
perform their routine tasks. Each day the students would perform
autopsies on the dead mothers. Then they would rinse their hands in a
bowl of bloody water, wipe them off on a common, shared towel, and
immediately begin internal examinations of the still-living women.
Nuland commented concerning the practice: “Because there seemed no
reason for them to wash their hands, except superficially, or change
their clothing before coming to the First Division, they did neither”
(2003, p. 100). As a twenty-first-century observer, one is appalled to
think that such practices actually took place in institutes of what was
at the time “modern technology.” What doctor in his right mind would
touch a dead person and then perform examinations on living
patients—without first employing some sort of minimal hygienic practices
intended to kill germs? But to Europeans in the
middle-nineteenth-century, germs were virtually a foreign concept. They
never had seen a germ, much less been able to predict its destructive
potential. According to many of their most prevalent theories, disease
was caused by “atmospheric conditions” or “cosmic telluric influences.”
Semmelweis ordered everyone in his ward to wash his or her hands
thoroughly in a chlorine solution after every examination. In three
months, the death rate fell from 18% to 1%. Semmelweis had made an
amazing discovery. On the inside cover-flap of the book about
Semmelweis, written by medical doctor and historian Sherwin Nuland, the
text reads:
Ignác Semmelweis is remembered for the now-commonplace notion that
doctors must wash their hands before examining patients. In
mid-nineteenth-century Vienna, this was a subversive idea. With deaths
from childbed fever exploding, Semmelweis discovered that doctors
themselves were spreading the disease (2003, inside cover flap).
Had Semmeliweis made a groundbreaking discovery, or is it possible that
he simply “rediscovered” what had been known in some circles for many
years? Almost 3,300 years before Semmelweis lived, Moses had written:
“He who touches the dead body of anyone shall be unclean seven days. He
shall purify himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh
day; then he will be clean. But if he does not purify himself on the
third day and on the seventh day, he will not be clean.” Germs were no
new discovery in 1847; the biblical text recorded measures to check
their spread as far back as approximately 1500 B.C.
The Water of Purification
Also germane to this discussion is the composition of the “water of
purification” listed in Numbers 19. When Old Testament instructions are
compared to the New Testament explanations for those actions, it becomes
clear that some of the ancient injunctions were primarily symbolic in
nature. For instance, when the Passover Lamb was eaten, none of its
bones was to be broken. This symbolized the sacrifice of Christ, Whose
side was pierced, yet even in death escaped the usual practice of having
His legs broken (John 19:31-37).
With the presence of such symbolism in the Old Testament, it is
important that we do not overlook the Old Testament instructions that
were pragmatic in value and that testify to a Master Mind behind the
writing of the Law. One such directive is found in Numbers 19, where the
Israelites were instructed to prepare the “water of purification” that
was to be used to wash any person who had touched a dead body.
At first glance, the water of purification sounds like a hodge-podge of
superstitious potion-making that included the ashes of a red heifer,
hyssop, cedar wood, and scarlet. But this formula was the farthest thing
from a symbolic potion intended to “ward off evil spirits.” On the
contrary, the recipe for the water of purification stands today as a
wonderful example of the Bible’s brilliance, since the recipe is nothing
less than a procedure to produce an antibacterial soap.
When we look at the ingredients individually, we begin to see the value
of each. First, consider the ashes of a red heifer and cedar. As most
school children know, the pioneers in this country could not go to the
nearest supermarket and buy their favorite personal hygiene products. If
they needed soap or shampoo, they made it themselves. Under such
situations, they concocted various recipes for soap. One of the most
oft’-produced types of soap was lye soap. Practically anyone today can
easily obtain a recipe for lye soap via a quick search of the Internet
(see “Soapmaking,” n.d.). The various lye-soap recipes reveal that, to
obtain lye, water often is poured through ashes. The water retrieved
from pouring it through the ashes contains a concentration of lye. Lye,
in high concentrations, is very caustic and irritating to the skin. It
is, in fact, one of the main ingredients in many modern chemical
mixtures used to unclog drains. In more diluted concentrations, it can
be used as an excellent exfoliant and cleansing agent. Many companies
today still produce lye soaps. Amazingly, Moses instructed the
Israelites to prepare a mixture that would have included lye mixed in a
diluted solution.
Furthermore, consider that hyssop was also added to the “water of
purification.” Hyssop contains the antiseptic thymol, the same
ingredient that we find today in some brands of mouthwash (McMillen and
Stern, 2000, p. 24). Hyssop oil continues to be a popular “healing oil,”
and actually is quite expensive. In listing the benefits of hyssop, one
Web site noted: “Once used for purifying temples and cleansing lepers,
the leaves contain an antiseptic, antiviral oil. A mold that produces
penicillin grows on the leaves. An infusion is taken as a sedative
expectorant for flue, bronchitis, and phlegm” (see “Hyssop”).
Other ingredients in the “water of purification” also stand out as
having beneficial properties. The oil from the cedar wood in the mixture
most likely maintained numerous salutary properties. A Web site dealing
with various essential oils noted: “Cedar wood has long been used for
storage cabinets because of its ability to repel insects and prevent
decay. In oil form, applied to humans, it is an antiseptic, astringent,
expectorant (removes mucus from respiratory system), anti-fungal,
sedative and insecticide” (“Spa Essential Oils,” 2005). Another site,
more specifically dealing with the beneficial properties of cedar,
explained:
Cedar leaves and twigs are in fact rich in vitamin C, and it was their
effectiveness in preventing or treating scurvy that led to the tree’s
being called arbor vitae or tree of life. In addition, recent research
has shown that extracts prepared from either Thuja occidentalis or Thuja plicata [types of oriental cedar—KB]
do in fact have antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and antibacterial
properties. A group of German researchers reported in 2002 that an
extract prepared from cedar leaf, alcohol, and water inhibits the
reproduction of influenza virus type A, while a team of researchers in
Japan found that an extract of Western red cedar was effective in
treating eczema (Frey, n.d).
It is interesting to note that this information about the beneficial
properties of the ingredients such as cedar, hyssop, and lye in the
water of purification is not coming from Bible-based sources. Most of it
is simply coming from studies that have been done through cosmetic and
therapeutic research.
Finally, the Israelites were instructed to toss into the mix “scarlet,”
which most likely was scarlet wool (see Hebrews 9:19). Adding wool
fibers to the concoction would have made the mixture the “ancient
equivalent of Lava® soap” (McMillen and Stern, 2000, p. 25).
Thousands of years before any formal studies were done to see what type
of cleaning methods were the most effective; millennia before American
pioneers concocted their lye solutions; and ages before our most
advanced medical students knew a thing about germ theory, Moses
instructed the Israelites to concoct an amazingly effective recipe for
soap, that, if used properly in medical facilities like hospitals in
Vienna, would literally have saved thousands of lives.
Quarantine
Moses detailed measures to prevent the spread of germs from dead bodies
to living humans long before such was understood and prescribed in
modern medicine. But the Old Testament record added another extremely
beneficial practice to the field of medicine in its detailed
descriptions of maladies for which living individuals should be
quarantined. The book of Leviticus lists a plethora of diseases and ways
in which an Israelite would come in contact with germs. Those with such
diseases as leprosy were instructed to “dwell alone” “outside the camp”
(Leviticus 13:46). If and when a diseased individual did get close to
those who were not diseased, he was instructed to “cover his mustache,
and cry, ‘Unclean! Unclean!” (13:45). It is of interest that the
covering of ones mustache would prevent spit and spray from the mouth of
the individual to pass freely through the air, much like the covering
of one’s mouth during a cough.
Concerning such quarantine practices, S.E. Massengill wrote in his book
A Sketch of Medicine and Pharmacy:
In the prevention of disease, however, the ancient Hebrews made real
progress. The teachings of Moses, as embodied in the Priestly Code of
the Old Testament, contain two clear conceptions of modern
sanitation—the importance of cleanliness and the possibility of
controlling epidemic disease by isolation and quarantine (1943, p. 252).
In regard to the understanding of contagion implied in the quarantine rules in the Old Testament, McGrew noted in the
Encyclopedia of Medical History:
“The idea of contagion was foreign to the classic medical tradition and
found no place in the voluminous Hippocratic writings. The Old
Testament, however, is a rich source for contagionist sentiment,
especially in regard to leprosy and venereal disease” (1985, pp.77-78).
Here again, the Old Testament exhibits amazingly accurate medical
knowledge that surpasses any known human ingenuity available at the time
of its writing.
LAWS OF FOOD CONSUMPTION
Food regulations enumerated in the first five books of the Old
Testament have been scrutinized by credentialed professionals in the
fields of dietary and pathological research. The regulations have proven
to coincide with modern science’s understanding of various aspects of
health and disease prevention.
In 1953, an extensive study, performed by David I. Macht and published in the
Bulletin of the History of Medicine
(a publication of the American Association of the History of Medicine
and of The Johns Hopkins Institute of the History of Medicine), tested
the toxicity of the meat of animals listed in Leviticus 11 and
Deuteronomy 14. Macht’s technique was to place a certain seedling (
Lupinus albus)
in fresh muscle juices of the various animals noted as clean and
unclean in the biblical text. This method was used at the time to study
the blood of normal human patients as compared to the blood of cancerous
patients (1953, p. 444). Macht noted that his results revealed “data
which are of considerable interest not only to the medical investigator
but also to the students of ancient Biblical literature” (p. 445).
Some of his results were indeed of interest. For instance, he would
take a control group of seedlings that grew in normal solutions and
compare that group to seedlings placed in the various meat juices. He
would then record the percent of seeds that grew in the meat juices as
compared to those that grew under normal circumstances. For example,
when placing the seedlings in meat juices from the Ox, the seeds grew
91% as often as they would if placed in a regular growing solution.
Seeds in sheep juices grew 94% as often as those in the control group in
regular solution. Seedlings in meat juice from a calf—82%; from a
goat—90%; and from a deer 90%. Since these animals chew the cud and have
a divided hoof, they were listed as clean in Leviticus 11 and
Deuteronomy 14:
Now the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the
children of Israel, saying, ‘These are the animals which you may eat
among all the animals that are on the earth: Among the animals, whatever
divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud—that you may
eat’” (Leviticus 11:1-3).
When several unclean animals were studied, however, they showed
significantly higher levels of toxicity and much lower levels of
seedling growth. Seedlings in meat juice from pigs grew only 54% as
often as the control group under normal growing conditions; rabbit—49%;
camel—41%; and horse—39%. These results for larger mammals suggested
that the biblical division between clean and unclean could have been
related to the toxicity of the juices of such animals.
Macht did similar research on birds, in which he found that extracts
from biblical clean birds such as the pigeon and quail grew his
seedlings 93% and 89%, while those from unclean birds such as the
Red-tail hawk (36%) and owl (62%) were much more toxic. As Moses said:
“And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they
shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the
buzzard, the kite, and the falcon after its kind; every raven after its
kind, the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk
after its kind” (Leviticus 11:13-19). Other studies included several
different kinds of fish. The biblical regulation for eating fish was
that the Israelites could eat any fish that had fins and scales
(Deuteronomy 14:9). Those water-living creatures that did not possess
fins and scales were not to be eaten (14:10). In regard to his study on
the toxicity of fish, Macht wrote:
Of special interest were experiments made with muscle juices and also
blood solutions obtained from many species of fishes. Fifty-four species
of fishes were so far studied in regard to toxicity of meat extracts.
It was found that the muscle extracts of those fishes which possess
scales and fins were practically non-toxic [Herring—100%; Pike—98%;
Shad—100%—KB], while muscle extracts from fishes
without scales and fins were highly toxic for the growth of Lupinus
albus seedlings (pp. 446-448).
Macht’s study, even after more than five decades, continues to remain
of great interest. His rigorous research led him to conclude:
The observations described above corroborate the impression repeatedly
made on the author in investigations as a physician (M.D. Johns
Hopkins, 1906), as an experimental biologist (Member of Society for
Experimental Biology and Medicine), and as Doctor of Hebrew Literature
(Yeshiva University, 1928) that all allusions of the Book of Books, to
nature, natural phenomena, and natural history, whether in the form of
factual statements or in the form of metaphors, similes, parables,
allegories, or other tropes are correct either literally or
figuratively.... Such being the extraordinary concordance between the
data of the Scriptures and many of the modern and even most recent
discoveries in both the biological and physico-chemical sciences, every
serious student of the Bible will, I believe, endorse the assertion of
Sir Isaac Newton, that “The Scriptures of God are the most sublime
philosophy. I find more such marks of authenticity in the Bible than in
profane history anywhere” (p. 449).
Some, however, have questioned Macht’s results. Prior research done by
Macht in 1936 and 1949 produced discordant results from his research in
1953. But there are several compelling reasons for accepting Macht’s
1953 research. First, it could be the case that Macht’s 1953 research
simply was more refined and the procedure better understood. As one
would expect in the scientific field, research generally tends to
improve with time. Second, Macht was a high-profile doctor with copious
credentials. His research in 1936 and 1949 had been published and was
easily accessible. Yet even though his previous research was available,
the Johns Hopkins Institute considered it acceptable to publish his 1953
research, which would suggest that the 1953 research included
additional methods and/or information that would override the earlier
research. Third, Macht’s procedure as described in the 1953 paper was
fairly simple and easily reproducible. But those who question the work
have failed to produce experimental data after 1953 that would negate
Macht’s study. If his 1953 procedures were fraught with error, a few
simple experiments could be done to prove that. No such experimental
data refuting Macht has been produced.
For these reasons, the findings of Dr. Macht aid in the defense of the
Bible’s inspiration and remarkably accurate medical procedures as far
back as the time of Moses. But the validity of Old Testament food
consumption laws certainly does not rely solely on Macht’s 1953
research. Additional confirmation of the beneficial, protective nature
of Mosaic food consumption laws is readily available.
Fins and Scales
As was previously mentioned, the Mosaic criteria for eating
water-living creatures was that the creatures have scales and fins
(Leviticus 11:12). This injunction was extremely beneficial, since a
multitude of problems surround many sea creatures that do not have
scales and fins.
The Blowfish
The blowfish has fins but does not have scales. Thus, it would not have
been edible under the Old Testament laws—fortunately for the
Israelites. The blowfish can contain toxin in its ovaries, liver, and
other organs that is highly potent and deadly. This toxin, called
tetrodotoxin, is thought to be “1250 times more deadly than cyanide” and
160,000 times more potent than cocaine. A tiny amount of it can kill 30
grown adults (Dilion, 2005). As odd as it sounds, blowfish is served as
a delicacy all over the world, especially in Japan and other far
eastern countries. As a delicacy, it is called fugu, and is prepared by
certified, licensed chefs. The toxins can be removed successfully,
making the food edible, but the procedure often goes awry. Some who have
researched fugu say that it is a food connoisseur’s version of Russian
roulette. Due to the extreme danger involved in eating fugu, it is
illegal to serve it to the Emperor of Japan! The Mosaic instructions
concerning edible fish would have helped the Israelites avoid the
dangerous blowfish, as well as danger posed by eating other toxic sea
creatures such as certain jelly fish, sea anemones, and octopi.
Shellfish
Although shellfish are edible today, there are inherent dangers in eating ill-prepared types such as oysters. The U.S.
Food and Drug Administration has produced a twelve-page tract warning
people about the dangers of eating raw or partially cooked oysters
(“Carlos’ Tragic...,” 2003). In the tract, the FDA warns that some raw oysters contain the bacteria
Vibrio vulnificus. In regard to this dangerous bacteria, the tract states:
Oysters are sometimes contaminated with the naturally occurring bacteria Vibrio vulnificus. Oysters contaminated with Vibrio vulnificus can’t be detected by smell or sight; they look like other oysters. Eating raw oysters containing Vibrio vulnificus is very dangerous for those with pre-existing medical conditions such as liver disease, diabetes, hepatitis, cancer and HIV.... 50 percent of people who are infected with Vibrio vulnificus as a result of eating raw contaminated oysters die (2003).
Eating oysters if they are not cooked properly can be potentially fatal, says the FDA.
Thus, the wisdom of the Mosaic prohibition is evident to an honest
observer. In a time when proper handling and preparation procedures were
difficult to achieve, the best course of action simply would have been
to avoid the risk of eating potentially contaminated foods, especially
since the contamination cannot be detected by smell or sight.
Reptiles and Salmonella
In Leviticus 11, Moses included reptiles in the list of unclean
animals. Obviously, they are not cud-chewers that walk on cloven hooves,
so they would not classify as clean, edible animals according to
Leviticus 11:3. But to make sure that the Israelites understood, Moses
specifically mentioned reptiles such as the large lizard, gecko, monitor
lizard, sand reptile, sand lizard, and chameleon (Leviticus 11:29-31).
Immediately following this listing of reptiles, the text states:
“Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until evening”
(11:31).
Interestingly, reptiles have a much higher rate of carrying
Salmonella
bacteria than do most mammals, especially those listed as clean in the
Old Law. The Center for Disease Control has repeatedly warned people
about the possibility of being infected with
Salmonella passed through reptiles. In summarizing the CDC’s 2003 report, Lianne McLeod noted that the CDC estimates over 70,000 cases of human
Salmonella infection a year are related to the handling of reptiles and amphibians (2007). The CDC
recommends that homes with children under five should not have reptiles
as pets. Furthermore, while other animals such as cats and dogs can
pass
Salmonella, McLeod noted:
As high as 90% of reptiles are natural carriers of Salmonella
bacteria, harboring strains specific to reptiles without any symptoms
of disease in the reptile. While it is true that many pets can carry Salmonella, the problem with reptiles (and apparently amphibians) is that they carry Salmonella
with such high frequency. It is prudent to assume that all reptiles and
amphibians can be a potential source of Salmonella (2007, emp. added).
In light of such evidence, the prudence of the Mosaic prohibition to eat or handle reptile carcasses is clearly evident.
Of further interest is the fact that reptilian
Salmonella
contamination can occur without even touching a reptile. If a person
touches something that has touched a reptile the bacteria can spread.
The ARAV (Association of Reptilian and Amphibian Veterinarians) made this statement: “
Salmonella
bacteria are easily spread from reptiles to humans. Humans may become
infected when they place their hands on objects, including food items,
that have been in contact with the stool of reptiles, in their mouths”
(“
Salmonella Bacteria...,” 2007).
When this statement by the ARAV is compared with
the injunctions in Leviticus 11:32-47, the astounding accuracy of the
Old Testament regulation is again confirmed.
Anything on which any of them falls, when they are dead shall be
unclean, whether it is any item of wood or clothing or skin or sack,
whatever item it is, in which any work is done, it must be put in water.
And it shall be unclean until evening; then it shall be clean. Any
earthen vessel into which any of them falls you shall break; and
whatever is in it shall be unclean: in such a vessel, any edible food
upon which water falls becomes unclean, and any drink that may be drunk
from it becomes unclean (Leviticus 11:32-34).
After reading Leviticus 11:32-34, it seems as though a microbiologist
was present with Moses to explain the perfect procedures to avoid
spreading
Salmonella and other bacteria from reptiles to
humans. How could Moses have accurately laid down such precise
regulations that belie a superior understanding of bacteria? An honest
reader must conclude that he had divine assistance.
Bats and Rabies
Moses specifically forbade the Israelites to eat bats (Leviticus
11:19). The wisdom of this instruction is demonstrated by the fact that
bats often carry rabies. While it is true that many animals are
susceptible to rabies, bats are especially so. The American College of
Emergency Physicians documented that between 1992 and 2002, rabies
passed from bats caused 24 of the 26 human deaths from rabies in the
United States (“Human Rabies...,” 2002). In the
Science Daily article describing this research, “Robert V. Gibbons, MD, MPH,
of Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in Silver Spring, MD,
reviewed the 24 cases of humans with bat rabies.” From his research, he
advised “the public to seek emergency care for preventive treatment for
rabies
if direct contact with a bat occurs” (“Human
Rabies...,” 2002). Moses’ instruction to avoid bats coincides perfectly
with modern research. Once again, the super-human wisdom imparted
through Moses by God cannot be denied by the conscientious student of
the Old Testament. As the eminent archaeologist, W.F. Albright, in
comparing the list of clean and unclean animals detailed in the
Pentateuch, noted that in other ancient civilizations, “we find no
classifications as logical as this in any of the elaborate cuneiform
list of fauna or ritual taboos” (1968, p. 180).
Case in Point: Pork Consumption
One of the most well-known Old Testament food regulations is the
prohibition of pork consumption (Leviticus 11:7). Under close scrutiny,
this prohibition exemplifies the value of the biblical laws regarding
clean and unclean animals. During the days of Moses, proper food
preparation and cooking conditions did not always exist. In fact, the
general knowledge of the need to separate certain uncooked foods,
especially meats, during preparation from other foods was virtually
non-existent. Certain meats, if contacted raw or under-cooked, have
greater potential to carry parasites and other harmful bacteria that can
infect the end consumer (in this case, humans).
Due to the fact that pigs are scavengers, and will eat practically
anything, they often consume parasites and bacteria when they eat the
carcasses of other dead animals. These parasites and bacteria can, and
often do, take up residence in the pigs’ muscle tissue. Fully cooking
the meat can kill these harmful organisms, but failure to cook the meat
completely can cause numerous detrimental effects. R.K. Harrison listed
several diseases or other health maladies that can occur due to the
ingestion of improperly cooked pork. He noted that pigs often are the
host of the tapeworm
Taenia solium. Infection by this
parasite can cause small tumors to arise throughout the body, including
on the skin, eyes, and muscles. Furthermore, these tumors can affect the
brain and cause epileptic convulsions. Additionally, humans can develop
trichaniasis (
trichinosis) infestation from eating undercooked, as well as tape worm known as
Echiococcus granulosus
from water polluted by pigs. Further, pigs can pass on the
microorganisms that cause toxoplamosis, a disease affecting the nervous
system (Harrison, 1982, p. 644).
Due to a much more exhaustive body of knowledge concerning parasites
and pathogens, modern readers are increasingly attune to the dangers of
consuming raw or undercooked pork. In fact, most pork bought in grocery
stores contains nitrates and nitrites that have been injected into the
meat to hinder the growth of harmful microorganisms. But Moses and the
Israelites did not have access to such modern knowledge. How is it that
the food regulations recorded by Moses over 3,000 years ago contain such
an accurate understanding of disease control? Albright noted along
these lines, “thanks to the dietary and hygienic regulations of Mosaic
law...subsequent history has been marked by a tremendous advantage in
this respect held by Jews over all other comparable ethnic and religious
groups” (1968, p. 181).
Circumcision
In the book of Genesis, the text relates that God chose Abraham and his
descendants to be a “special” people who were set apart from all other
nations. The covenant that God made with Abraham included a physical
“sign” that was to be implemented in all future generations of Abraham’s
descendants. According to the text, God said:
He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male
child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with
money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. He who is born in
your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and
My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the
uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his
foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My
covenant (Genesis 17:12-14).
Thus, the covenant with Abraham and his offspring was to be indelibly marked in the flesh of every male child.
The inclusion of this medical, surgical practice provides another
excellent example of the medical acumen of the biblical text. Two
significant aspects of biblical circumcision need to be noted. First,
from what modern medicine has been able to gather, circumcision can
lessen the chances of getting certain diseases and infections.
Pediatrician, Dorothy Greenbaum noted in regard to the health benefits
of circumcision: “Medically, circumcision is healthful because it
substantially reduces the incidence of urinary tract infection in boys,
especially those under one year of age. Some studies cited in the
pediatric policy statement report 10 to 20 times more urinary tract
infection in uncircumcised compared with circumcised boys.” She further
noted that sexually transmitted diseases are passed more readily among
men who have not been circumcised (2006). In addition, circumcision
virtually eliminates the chance of penile cancer. In an article titled
“Benefits of Circumcision,” the text stated: “Neonatal circumcision
virtually abolishes the risk [of penile cancer—KB]” and “penile cancer occurs almost entirely in uncircumcised men” (Morris, 2006). [NOTE:
Morris’ work is of particular interest due to the fact that it has an
evolutionary bias and was in no way written to buttress belief in the
biblical record.]
Not only can a litany of health benefits be amassed to encourage the
practice of infant circumcision, but the day on which the biblical
record commands the practice to be implemented is of extreme importance
as well. The encyclopedic work
Holt Pediatrics remains today
one of the most influential works ever written about child care,
pediatric disease, and other health concerns as they relate to children.
First written in 1896 by L. Emmet Holt, Jr. and going through several
revisions until the year 1953, the nearly 1,500-page work is a master
compilation of the “modern” medicine of its day. One section, starting
on page 125 of the twelfth edition, is titled “Hemorrhagic Disease of
the Newborn.” The information included in the section details the
occurrence of occasional spontaneous bleeding among newborns that can
sometimes cause severe damage to major organs such as the brain, and
even death. In the discussion pertaining to the reasons for such
bleeding, the authors note that the excessive bleeding is primarily
caused by a decreased level of prothrombin, which in turn is caused by
insufficient levels of vitamin K. The text also notes that children’s
susceptibility is “peculiar” (meaning “higher”) “between the second and
fifth days of life” (1953, p. 126).
In chart form,
Holt Pediatrics illustrates that the percent of
available prothrombin in a newborn dips from about 90% of normal on its
day of birth to about 35% on its third day of life outside the womb.
After the third day, the available prothrombin begins to climb. By the
eighth day of the child’s life, the available prothrombin level is
approximately 110% of normal, about 20% higher than it was on the first
day, and about 10% more than it will be during of the child’s life. Such
data prove that the eighth day is the perfect day on which to perform a
major surgery such as circumcision.
How did Moses know such detailed data about newborn hemorrhaging? Some
have suggested that the early Hebrews carried out extensive observations
on newborns to determine the perfect day for surgery. But such an idea
has little merit. McMillen and Stern noted:
Modern medical textbooks sometimes suggest that the Hebrews conducted
careful observations of bleeding tendencies. Yet what is the evidence?
Severe bleeding occurs at most in only 1 out of 200 babies. Determining
the safest day for circumcision would have required careful experiments,
observing thousands of circumcisions. Could Abraham (a primitive,
desert-dwelling nomad) have done that (2000, p. 84)?
In fact, such amazing medical accuracy cannot be accounted for on the
basis of human ingenuity in the ancient world. If circumcision was the
only example of such accuracy, and the Hebrew writings were laced with
incorrect, detrimental medical prescriptions, such an explanation might
be plausible. But the fact that the entire Old Testament contains
medical practices that would still be useful in third world countries,
without a hint of error in regard to a single prescription; divine
oversight remains the only reasonable answer.
CONCLUSION
In reality, entire books could be written on the Old Testament’s
amazing medical accuracy. Medical doctors McMillen and Stern have done
just that in their extremely interesting volume
None of These Diseases.
Many physicians who have compared Moses’ medical instructions to
effective modern methods have come to realize the astonishing value and
insight of the Old Testament text. As Dr. Macht once wrote: “Every word
in the Hebrew Scriptures is well chosen and carries valuable knowledge
and deep significance” (Macht, 1953, p. 450). Such is certainly the case
in regard to the medical practices listed in its pages. Indeed, the
accurate medical practices prescribed thousands of years before their
significance was completely understood provide excellent evidence for
the divine inspiration of the Bible.
REFERENCES
Albright, W.F. (1968),
Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
Bryan, Cyril (1930),
Ancient Egyptian Medicine: The Papyrus Ebers (Chicago, IL: Ares Publishers).
“Carlos’ Tragic and Mysterious Illness: How Carlos Almost Died by
Eating Contaminated Raw Oysters” (2003), U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, [On-line], URL: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~acrobat/vvfoto.pdf.
Collins, Anne (2002), “What is Saturated Fat?” [On-line], URL: http://www.annecollins.com/dieting/saturated-fat.htm.
“The Death of George Washington, 1799,” (2001), EyeWitness to History, [On-line], URL: http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/washington.htm.
Dilion, Denise (2005), “Fugu: The Deadly Delicacy,”
Welcome Magazine, [On-line], URL: http://www.welcome-moldova.com/articles/fugu.shtml.
Frey, Rebecca J. (no date), “Thuja,” [On-line], URL: http://health.enotes.com/alternative-medicine-encyclopedia/thuja.
Greenbaum, Dorothy (2006), “Say ‘Yes’ to Circumcision,” [On-line], URL: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/8/story_813_1.html.
Harrison, R.K. (1982), “Heal,”
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition.
Herodotus, (1972 reprint),
The Histories, trans. Aubrey De Sẻlincourt (London: Penguin).
“Historical Chronology of Significant Medical and Sanitary Engineering
Discoveries” (no date), from Gerald Friedland and Meyer Friedman (1998),
Medicine’s Ten Greatest Discoveries (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press), [On-line], URL: http://bridge.ecn.purdue.edu/~piwc/w3-history/discoveries/med-env-eng- discoveries.html.
Holt, L.E. and R. McIntosh (1953),
Holt Pediatrics (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts), twelfth edition.
“Human Rabies Often Caused by Undetected, Tiny Bat Bites” (2002),
Science Daily, [On-line], URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/05/020506074445.htm.
“Hyssop” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://www.taoherbfarm.com/herbs/herbs/hyssop.htm.
Lyons, Eric and A.P. Staff (2003), “
Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch—Tried and True”
Reason & Revelation, 23:1-7, January.
Macht, David I. (1953), “An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of Leviticus XI and Deuteronomy XIV,”
Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 27[5]:444-450, September-October.
Massengill, S.E. (1943),
A Sketch of Medicine and Pharmacy (Bristol, TN: S.E. Massengill).
McGrew, Roderick (1985),
Encyclopedia of Medical History (London: Macmillan).
McLeod, Lianne (2007), “
Salmonella and Reptiles,” [On-line], URL: http://exoticpets.about.com/cs/reptiles/a/reptsalmonella.htm.
McMillen, S.I. and David Stern (2000),
None of These Diseases (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell), third edition.
Morris, Brian (2006), “Benefits of Circumcision,” [On-line], URL: http://www.circinfo.net/#why.
“New Dietary Guidelines from the American Heart Association,” (2000), [On-line], URL: http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/972602194.html.
Nuland, Sherwin B. (2003),
The Doctor’s Plague (New York, NY: Atlas Books).
“Salmonella Bacteria and Reptiles” (2007), ARAV, [On-line], URL: http://www.arav.org/SalmonellaOwner.htm.
“Soapmaking” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://www.itdg.org/docs/technical_information_service/ soapmaking.pdf.
“Spa Essential Oils” (2005), [On-line], URL: http://www.mysticthai.com/spa/essential_oil.asp.
