What’s going on with our young ladies

[Dr H..]

Question: do you understand anything about the Leviticus LAWS RELATING TO RITUAL CLEANLINESS.

All of what you are making a fuss over are related to Rituals or Ceremonial practiced by the Hebrews that had to do with health related issues. And if you do not understand why they were concerned about blood and cleanness, go back and health 101.


"Unclean" does not mean "sinful" but "impure / unclean." Being impure or unclean restricted the Israelite from participating in corporate worship at the tabernacle. The ritual purification of the mother of a newborn son lasted a total of 40 days. For the first seven of these she was contagiously unclean. Even though she had not entered the sanctuary after the birth of her child, her presence in the camp had still contaminated the altar (15:31). That is why she had to offer a sin (purification) offering.

Her ritual uncleanness evidently resulted from the woman's bodily discharge that followed the baby's delivery (4, 5, 7). For the remaining 33 days she was to remain separate from the sanctuary and anything holy. This period served the double purpose of allowing the new mother to regain her health and strength as well as her ritual purity.

The period for a female is longer, why because, there is medical evidence that the postnatal discharge (lochia) lasts longer in the case of a girl. Lochia discharge typically continues for 4 to 6 weeks after childbirth. If you look at Leviticus 12:5 – this fall within the 4 to 6 weeks. So, perhaps, the folks of the OT knew more than “someâ€￾ give them credit.

"The only thing this tells us that as long as the woman was unclean, 'she must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary' (12:4). The scriptures defines impurity or unclean with respect to the sanctuary (the tabernacle) and, more importantly and one's suitability within the worshiping community. The same hold true when individuals dealt with bodies and dead animals.

Note: blood is one the most polluting substance when it is in the wrong place.

 

[JayRob]

I've gone over the same thing over and over and over, yet you guys simply are too vain and too wrapped up in worthless writings by primitive men who had NO knowledge of bacteria, who had NO knowledge of viruses, who had NO knowledge of germs. You mean to tell me that their OT god couldn't simply explain to them what germs, viruses and bacteria were all about? Were the Israelites that dumb and illiterate that they wouldn't have been able to comprehend?
It had nothing to do with any god, it had to do with primitive man having NO knowledge of these germs, thus he COULDN'T talk about what he didn't know. If there truly was an OT god revealing KNOWLEDGE to them, that god would've explained it to them. It never happened.

This same god told women to leave the camp after giving birth as mentioned in Leviticus 2, for a so-called infirmity HE supposedly created when he supposedly created woman.

Lev 12
12:1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

You guys are so blinded by your own biasedness in favor of OT writings that you refuse to see the words for what they really say.
All of these foolish rituals were totally unnecessary.
They were nothing more than mere commands by pompous men who merely wanted to maintain control over women, children and other men.
The trick is that NONE of it matters today. None of it and nothing about it is holy.

All one has to do is study the cases of OTHER religions, religions that pre-date the bible, and compare temples, gods, rituals and the like to the Old Testament writings. One would be startled beyond amazement.

The person with an honestly open mind will more than likely come away with the conclusion that most of what's in the Old Testament is nothing more than mere plagiarisms and copies of the writings of previous cultures and religions....none of them being holy whatsoever.

 

[dacontinent]

...This same god told women to leave the camp after giving birth as mentioned in Leviticus 2, for a so-called infirmity HE supposedly created when he supposedly created woman.
Lev 12
12:1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

...

Confession: I am slower than you are.

I keep entering these exchanges with you thinking that there is something to be gained...thinking that perhaps there is something that I missed in the scriptures that you can share with me that will help with my course correction...thinking that I could perhaps do the same for you...and I am repeatedly wrong...like this case.

There is surely nothing in Leviticus 2 that relates to childbirth or being unclean; it deals with presentation of some offerings. Leviticus 12 doesn't say anything about new mothers being put out of the camp. Still, you base what your perspective largely on these women being ostracised but present nothing showing that it was ever done; you mock God of the scriptures but produce no scriptures that show He ever said to expel them.

I present to you scriptures, references to studies social, scientific, and medical to support my stance; you present your feelings. You ask questions, I answer them and give the above kinds of support. I ask you questions - often requiring binary answers - and you simply discard them. Yet, I have kept plodding along with these exchanges, hoping to find something that will stick. What do I get? Nothing.

Where did I go wrong? I actually thought that you read the scriptures. Silly me. I have finally wised-up. I lost sight of the simple fact that you can't discuss the scriptures with those who refuse to read them.

So...I'll be around. I'll keep reading the posts, but I won't be engaging with you (JayRob) until you start reading the scriptures. Please forgive me for wasting your time.

 

[Dr H..]

primitive men who had NO knowledge of bacteria, who had NO knowledge of viruses, who had NO knowledge of germs.

With that being said, why do the Hebrews and others prohibit eating flesh with blood in it? What was the purpose of washing and staying away from dead animals and people?

So do you think it's ok to contiminate yourself with a dead animal found on the side of the road, go home a preparea meal for your family?

 

[JayRob]

Confession: I am slower than you are.

I keep entering these exchanges with you thinking that there is something to be gained...thinking that perhaps there is something that I missed in the scriptures that you can share with me that will help with my course correction...thinking that I could perhaps do the same for you...and I am repeatedly wrong...like this case.

There is surely nothing in Leviticus 2 that relates to childbirth or being unclean; it deals with presentation of some offerings. Leviticus 12 doesn't say anything about new mothers being put out of the camp. Still, you base what your perspective largely on these women being ostracised but present nothing showing that it was ever done; you mock God of the scriptures but produce no scriptures that show He ever said to expel them.

I present to you scriptures, references to studies social, scientific, and medical to support my stance; you present your feelings. You ask questions, I answer them and give the above kinds of support. I ask you questions - often requiring binary answers - and you simply discard them. Yet, I have kept plodding along with these exchanges, hoping to find something that will stick. What do I get? Nothing.

Where did I go wrong? I actually thought that you read the scriptures. Silly me. I have finally wised-up. I lost sight of the simple fact that you can't discuss the scriptures with those who refuse to read them.

So...I'll be around. I'll keep reading the posts, but I won't be engaging with you (JayRob) until you start reading the scriptures. Please forgive me for wasting your time.

dacontinent, if that's your way of bowing out gracefully, then so be it. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink, I always say.

For someone who claims to understand scripture, I think I understand it enough to know that women were commanded to leave the camp after giving childbirth. As a matter of fact, you unknowingly posted the verses that make this very claim.
You even AGREED with me by agreeing to the fact that you cleaned the house for your wife, and you claimed that she was basically quarantined for six weeks. Why even admit to the fact that you followed such laws to begin with if they weren't true? Your wife had JUST given birth and she was basically quarantined. What's so hard to understand about that?

You also claimed that the medical profession agreed with your bible.
How can the medical profession agree with something that you claimed NEVER happened? The medical profession NEVER tells women to leave home or their dwelling place for 7 or 14 days.
You're in fact, contradicting yourself and have failed to realize it.

You can claim that I don't read the bible all you want to, but in your heart, you know that I understand scripture far more than you're wanting to admit, and far more than most who post over here, nevertheless that's fine.

I will hold to the fact that medical doctors NEVER tell a woman to leave her family for any amount of time, no matter if she's on her period or menstrual cycle.

As a matter of fact, out of all my years of attending church, I NEVER heard one minister, preacher or teacher even teach on this subject. Why? Because it's a primitive outdated and baseless command by men who knew very little about blood, germs, viruses and bacteria; who treated women like property and who knew very little about a woman's body. I say to you, if they didn't know about any of these things in detail, neither did their god.

As far as blaspheming goes, if the bible wasn't so full of contradictions, errors, major injustices, racist, gender-biased, unfulfilled prophecies, plagiarisms and more, I MIGHT be inclined to listen to those who preach about it, but since it's not, no sweat off my back. I've done my homework and proven such, so it's no blaspheming in my book.

 

[JayRob]

With that being said, why do the Hebrews and others prohibit eating flesh with blood in it? What was the purpose of washing and staying away from dead animals and people?

So do you think it's ok to contiminate yourself with a dead animal found on the side of the road, go home a preparea meal for your family?

H, many cultures that existed long before the Hebrews forbade the eating of blood and dead animals.

As far as touching a dead body, how is that harming someone. People, when mourning a loved, touch their dead body at funerals ALL the time. Are they breaking a law? No, just another primitive and worthless man-made law.

 

[Dr H..]

H, many cultures that existed long before the Hebrews forbade the eating of blood and dead animals.

As far as touching a dead body, how is that harming someone. People, when mourning a loved, touch their dead body at funerals ALL the time. Are they breaking a law? No, just another primitive and worthless man-made law.

Are you serious, are you serious are you really serious. During that time “in the wildernessâ€￾ they did not embalm the dead as we do it today or as did the Egyptians. The first mention of embalming was in Genesis 50:2 (Jacob) in Egypt. The Hebrew’s were not practicing embalming (in the wilderness). Besides, what sense does it make for someone to see a dead body on side of the road, and then proceed to touch / examine the body? That’s rarely done today (2009) especially when the body (animal or man) was decaying.

If what you are saying is true, why do Medical Examiners and Morticians wear mask and gloves while performing their duties? No one said in (2009) a person was breaking the law if they touch, hug or kiss a dead body after they have been properly prepared. If what you are saying is why are there local, state and federal regulation on the proper disposal of contaminated blood and bodies especially individuals that died from AIDS, certain Hepatitis and other communicable diseases.

Would you handle the body of a person died from AIDS the same as a person died from a stroke or heart attack? Would you handle the body of a person found dead on the side of a road the same as a person died from a stroke or heart attack?

 

[JayRob]

Are you serious, are you serious are you really serious. During that time “in the wildernessâ€￾ they did not embalm the dead as we do it today or as did the Egyptians. The first mention of embalming was in Genesis 50:2 (Jacob) in Egypt. The Hebrew’s were not practicing embalming (in the wilderness). Besides, what sense does it make for someone to see a dead body on side of the road, and then proceed to touch / examine the body? That’s rarely done today (2009) especially when the body (animal or man) was decaying.

If what you are saying is true, why do Medical Examiners and Morticians wear mask and gloves while performing their duties? No one said in (2009) a person was breaking the law if they touch, hug or kiss a dead body after they have been properly prepared. If what you are saying is why are there local, state and federal regulation on the proper disposal of contaminated blood and bodies especially individuals that died from AIDS, certain Hepatitis and other communicable diseases.

Would you handle the body of a person died from AIDS the same as a person died from a stroke or heart attack? Would you handle the body of a person found dead on the side of a road the same as a person died from a stroke or heart attack?

First of all H, the bible was written hundreds of years after the earliest Egyptian civilizations. They were practicing embalming long before any mention of a fictitious group of nomads, called Israelites, ever came on the scene.

H, the bible says to not touch a dead body, but it doesn't say how long after the death of the person. One minute, one hour, two hours after death? It says nothing of the kind.
This is why one should be careful NOT to read a meaning into a primitive book that's not there.

Any how, who would want to touch rotting flesh in the first place? I don't need a book to tell me that. Do you need a book to tell you not to touch rotting stinking flesh? LOL!!

Detectives, police officers, morticians and doctors touch dead bodies long after they've been diagnosed as brain dead and nothing happens to them healthwise.

Again, another worthless scripture in the bible that people practiced long before Judaism or Christianity came on the scene.

 

[JayRob]

In conjunction with the subject above, Numbers 19 commands that whoever touches a dead corpse must do the following:

"Anyone who is deemed "unclean" must take the ashes of the burnt heifer and add it to running water in a vessel (a bowl, kettle, pot, or similar container). A "clean" person is then to dip a hyssop branch into the water and sprinkle it upon the tent, upon all containers, upon the people who were in the tent, and upon anyone who has touched a bone, corpse, or a grave. The "clean" person is to do this on the third day, and upon the seventh day, the "unclean" shall purify themselves by washing their clothes and bathing in water, and they will be considered "clean" when the evening arrives."

So anyone who touches a grave shall have to wash using this primitive ritual. Again, another worthless ritual, written by men who were basically ignorant nomads who had no basic knowledge about bacteria, viruses and germs.
If I touched the wrist of a dead person to make sure the pulse had stopped, I'd have to follow such a ritual.
Instead of just washing my hands, I'd have to be labelled as unclean for a period of days, THEN I'd have to go through all the listed mundane rituals. LOL!!

This is further proof that these primitive writers of the bible were very ignorant of bacteria, viruses and germs or they wouldn't have made such idiotic comments.

It's understandable if the person had a disease to wear protective clothing, but the bible simple says you have to follow the ritual if you touched a "dead body". It didn't specify HOW LONG the body had to be dead, it simply said a dead body.