scigirl

My apologies if this was discussed earlier - I can't get the search function to work!

I came across this verse when perusing Donald Morgan's excellent site here: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...an/index.shtml

So - how do biblical literalists feel about this verse? Why aren't they protesting anatomy labs, or autopsies (like they do homosexual funerals)? They should be, according to the Bible.

And what do they mean by "discharge?" According to my physiology instructur, we all have various discharges throughout the day, and there's not a whole lot we can do about it.

scigirl

CX

Ritual impurity is not a permanent condition according to Judeo-Xian theology. Before the destruction of the temple when someone was made ritually unclean all they had to do was go to temple and make an offering. In post-easter Xianity all believers are cleansed of impurity by the blood of Jesus. Not only that, but most Xians pick and choose from the Levitical laws only those which suit their existing moral/ethical view. So gays are out, but wearing blended linen clothes is okay.

YHWHtruth

A Biblical expression applicable to conditions of the genital organs of men and women. (Le 15:2, 19, 25; Nu 5:2, 3; 2Sa 3:29) In the case of men, it related to an unhealthy state, in which there was a flow of matter from the genital organ or the organ was obstructed by such matter. (Le 15:2, 3) No male offspring of Aaron was permitted to eat of "the holy things" while unclean because of a running discharge.-Le 22:4.

The expression "running discharge" sometimes applied to a woman's regular, normal menstrual flow. (Le 15:19-24) Yet it was also used to designate a diseased, extended, and thus abnormal, flow of blood. (Le 15:25-30) In the latter sense, it applied to the chronic "flow of blood" from which one woman suffered for 12 years before Jesus Christ cured her.-Mt 9:20-22.

According to the Law, a person having a running discharge was unclean, made articles and persons he or she touched unclean, and so forth. After a diseased discharge ceased, the individual took specified steps for purification

Max

YHWHtruth

Three of the most common causes of uncleanness involving persons are enumerated at Numbers 5:2: "[1] every leprous person and [2] everyone having a running discharge and [3] everyone unclean by a deceased soul."

Max

scigirl

Is this before or after antibacterial therapy?

Where are you getting your information about what the biblical authors considered a running discharge? Do wet dreams count? Also, every woman has probably had an abnormal period at some point in her life. Are you honestly saying that the authors of the bible had current knowledge of physiology in mind??

What's the test for that - I'll add it to the CBC/Chem panel for my future patients!

scigirl

Evangelion

Because we're Christians, not Jews. You're quoting from the Law of Moses, which was binding upon Jews, but never upon Christians.

No, according to the Bible, Christians are not required to keep the Law of Moses. Please, if you're going to criticise Christianity, at least take a little time to learn what it actually teaches.

YHWHtruth already showed you what they meant by "a discharge." He even quoted several passages (in context) which spell it out pretty clearly.

I shall add to these by providing a citation from the New English Translation:

• Leviticus 15:1-7.
  The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron:
  “Speak to the Israelites and tell them, ‘When any man1 has a discharge2 from his body,3 his discharge is unclean.
  Now this is his uncleanness in regard to his discharge4—whether his body secretes his discharge or blocks his discharge, he is unclean. All the days that his body has a discharge or his body blocks his discharge,5 this is his uncleanness.6
  “‘Any bed the man with a discharge lies on will be unclean,7 and any furniture he sits on will be unclean.8
  Anyone who touches his bed9 must wash his clothes, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening.10
  The one who sits on the furniture the man with a discharge sits on must wash his clothes, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening.
  The one who touches the body11 of the man with a discharge must wash his clothes, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening.

The corresponding footnotes read as follows:

• 1 Heb “Man man.” The reduplication is way of saying “any man” (cf. Lev 17:3; 22:18, etc.; see the distributive repetition of the noun in GKC §123.c).
  
  2 The term “discharge” actually means “to flow,” whether referring to a full flow as at a spring of water (Psa 78:20 and parallels) or in reference to the promised land as “a land flowing with milk and honey” (Exod 3:8 and parallels).
  
  3 Heb “man, man when there is a discharge from his flesh.” The repetition of the word “man” is distributive, meaning “any [or, ‘every’] man” (GKC §123.c).
  
  It is well-recognized that the term “flesh” (i.e., “body”) in this chapter refers regularly and euphemistically to the male and female genital members or areas of the body (HALOT 164 [a]; see also, e.g., Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 93). The euphemism has been retained in this translation since it is, in fact, intended in the text.
  
  4 The LXX has “this the law of his uncleanness…” (cf. v. 32 and compare, e.g., 13:59; 14:2, 56).
  
  5 [Omitting a lengthy excursus on the various textual streams.] The contrast between the dripping or flowing from the male sexual member as opposed to there being a blockage is important. One might not understand that even though a blockage actually causes a lack of discharge, it is still unclean.
  
  6 Heb “it is his uncleanness,” but the last clause recapitulates the effect of the first clause in this verse, both of which introduce the regulations for such uncleanness in the following verses. In other words, whether his discharge flows from his sexual member or is blocked in it, he is still unclean and must proceed according to the following regulations (vv. 4ff).
  
  7 Heb “All the bed which the man with a discharge sits on it shall be unclean.”
  
  8 Heb “and all the vessel which he sits on it shall be unclean.”
  
  9 Heb “And a man who touches in his bed.”
  
  10 Heb “he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening” (cf. also vv. 6-8, 10-11, etc.).
  
  11 Heb “And the one who touches in the flesh.” In this instance, “flesh” (or “body”) probably refers literally to any part of the body, not the sexual member specifically (see the discussion in Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 [AB], 914).

So now you know.

Evangelion

Before, of course. Quite remarkable, isn't it?

*snip*

Already answered in previous posts.

Nope. But they knew what an unhealthy genital discharge looked like. You don't need 21st Century medicine for that.

Easy. If you had touched a dead body, you were considered to be "unclean" for a certain period of time, and ritual cleaning was consequently required.

New English Translation again:

• “Command the Israelites to put out of the camp every leper, everyone who has a discharge, and whoever becomes defiled by a corpse.

So the test is quite simple, in fact. Just ask your future patients if they've touched a dead body recently.

Clear enough, yes?

lpetrich

While we are on this sort of subject, has anyone tried to identify the skin disease of Leviticus 13-14? Or are the symptoms too general?

Also, the authors of that description are somewhat imprecise -- they use the same word for that skin disease and for mildew.

Evangelion

lpetrich -

Some have tried, and for all I know, they may even be correct. But there is very little to go on, which is why most conservative commentators prefer not to speculate.

Hence the footnotes in the New English Translation:

• It is sometimes difficult to know how to render some of the terms for disease or symptoms of disease in this chapter. Most modern English versions render the Hebrew ta@c= “swelling” (from acn “to lift up”), which has been retained here (see the explanation in Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 189).
  
  Some have argued that “deeper (qm)u*) than the skin of his body” in v. 3 means that “this sore was lower than the surrounding skin” (Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 [AB], 773), in which case “swelling” would be an inappropriate translation of ta@c= in v. 2.
  
  Similarly, ta@c= also occurs in v. 19, and then v. 20 raises the issue of whether or not it appears to be “lower (lp*v*) than the skin” (cf. also 14:37 for a mark on the wall of a house), which may mean that the sore sinks below the surface of the skin rather than protruding above it as a swelling (Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 76-77).
  
  Thus, one could translate here, for example, “discoloration” (Milgrom and II ta@c= “spot, blemish on the skin” in HALOT 1301) or “local inflammation, boil, mole” (Levine). However, one could interpret “lower” (lp*v*) as “deeper” (qm)u*; i.e., visibly extending below the surface of the skin into the deeper layers as suggested by Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 188, 192).
  
  “Swelling” often extends deeply below the surface of the skin, it is certainly a common symptom of skin diseases, and the alternation of these two terms (i.e., “deeper” and “lower”) in vv. 25-26 below shows that they both refer to the same phenomenon (see also the note on v. 20 below).
  
  [...]
  
  Although the Hebrew term tu^r`x* rendered here “diseased” is translated in many English versions as “leprosy,” it does not refer to Hanson’s disease, which is the modern technical understanding of the term “leprosy” (HALOT 1057 {{a}).
  
  There has been much discussion of the proper meaning of the term and the disease(s) to which it may refer (see, e.g., Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 {AB}, 774-776, 816-826; Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 187-189 and the literature cited by them).
  
  The further description of the actual condition in the text suggests that the regulations are concerned with any kind of infectious diseases that are observable on the surface of the skin and, in addition to that, penetrate below the surface of the skin (vv. 3-4) or spread further across the surface of the skin (vv. 5-8).

Other commentators have been more specific. G. A. F. Knight (1981) believes that there are four basic conditions listed here:

• (1) The horrible anaesthetic leprosy that exists unto this day;
  
  (2) tuberculous leprosy that begins with a skin disease and develops into deformities;
  
  (3) several kinds of skin eruptions resembling leprosy, but sometimes disappearing spontaneously; and
  
  (4) a number of diseases known and treated today under such names as herpes, ringworm, eczema, and psoriasis.

Hell, he might even be onto something there. Or he could be right off the planet. Frankly, your guess is as good as mine.

The word in question is tsâra‛ath, and yes, it was also used in reference to mildew or mould in buildings and clothes. (There does not appear to be any alternative word for it in the Hebrew vocabulary.) I can only surmise that they identified both as a form of "rot" or fungus, and on this basis equated the two.

BTW, I've used a Hebrew font in this post, which your computer may or may not have. Hope it works for you.