The water supply in Bible days

[Deacon]

If... and that did happen in Israel, Turkey, Greece in Biblical times?

It'd be a problem particularly in any populated town conditions (no chlorine, shallow open wells, abundant animal feces) and enough of a problem that Paul even compared Laodicea's spiritual condition to their widely known problem with their water supply.

"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth." Revelation 3:15–16 (NIV)

Rob

 

[kyredneck]

Christ.....Revelation 3:15–16

 

[Deacon]

Christ.....Revelation 3:15–16

Ha ha, of course!

Rob

 

[HankD]

How can we know 2000 years later the quality of the water supply in Israel apart from the historical fact that the Romans built aqueducts in Israel during the 1st century?

HankD

 

[Deacon]

How can we know 2000 years later the quality of the water supply in Israel apart from the historical fact that the Romans built aqueducts in Israel during the 1st century?

HankD

Just off the top of my head:

1. Archeology
Where did they store their water?
What did they store it in?
Where did they get their water from?
What were possible contaminants?
What did they do to preserve it?

2. Literature
What did the historians of the time say about their water supply?
Where did the historians say they got their water from?

3. Medical
What were the ailments of the time?
What did people die from?
What medicines were common and what illnesses were they used to treat?

Rob

 

[HankD]

Just off the top of my head:

1. Archeology
Where did they store their water?
What did they store it in?
Where did they get their water from?
What were possible contaminants?
What did they do to preserve it?

2. Literature
What did the historians of the time say about their water supply?
Where did the historians say they got their water from?

3. Medical
What were the ailments of the time?
What did people die from?
What medicines were common and what illnesses were they used to treat?

Rob

This is an answer I had in mind myself. Has anyone studied history and knows the historical facts concerning the Roman aqueduct systems, source of the water, purity, etc...

HankD

 

[kyredneck]

This is an answer I had in mind myself. Has anyone studied history and knows the historical facts concerning the Roman aqueduct systems, source of the water, purity, etc...

HankD

Here's a little history of one that's even [indirectly] mentioned by Christ:

1 Now there were some present at that very season who told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner perish.

You know Pilate didn't 'mingle their blood' himself , he sent soldiers to do the deed. 'In like manner' they were all to die if they did not repent.

4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed them, think ye that they were offenders above all the men that dwell in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Josephus most likely recorded this event that happened in the 'berg' of Siloam. Roman soldiers, again by Pilate's orders, disguised themselves and mingled with the crowd and fell upon them with clubs and beat them to death to quell a disturbance among the Jews over Pilate misappropriating temple funds to extend an aqueduct from the spring at Siloam. They were all to 'likewise' perish if they did not repent.

“After this he [Pilate] raised another disturbance, by expending that sacred treasure which is called Corban (10) upon aqueducts, whereby he brought water from the distance of four hundred furlongs. At this the multitude had indignation; and when Pilate was come to Jerusalem, they came about his tribunal, and made a clamor at it. Now when he was apprized aforehand of this disturbance, he mixed his own soldiers in their armor with the multitude, and ordered them to conceal themselves under the habits of private men, and not indeed to use their swords, but with their staves to beat those that made the clamor. He then gave the signal from his tribunal [to do as he had bidden them]. Now the Jews were so sadly beaten, that many of them perished by the stripes they received, and many of them perished as trodden to death by themselves; by which means the multitude was astonished at the calamity of those that were slain, and held their peace. “ Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 2.9.4

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I have heard many teetotalists say that the water supply in Jesus's day was bad and so people drank wine. But then again I was reading a RC Sproul commentary on the book of John and he said this is not true as the water was fine. He also argued that John the Baptist was expected to be a teetotalist but when Christ came he would symbolize the heavenly celebration of which he did in John 2.

I do not have a bible dictionary on my phone so I am not sure who is right and who is wrong. RC Sproul makes good arguments and hence at his church they use wine in communion.

Both are true, to some degree. Through their introduction of aqueduct systems, the Romans were able to provide clean water to many of their citizens.

But in other areas that did not have this technology, where water was drawn from local streams, it could be unsafe to drink, due to organisms and run off from livestock waste.

Likewise, while generally safe, well water was subject to some of the same hazards.

So both answers can be correct, depending on the context.

Both anecdotes are handy for historical background, but it should be remembered that that's all they are: historical background.

The most important thing is still, what does the Bible say?

We know that the Bible condemns drunkenness. Some believe it condemns any alcohol use and some don't, but the Bible isn't clear. This makes it adiaphora and a matter of conscience.

So, if you're one who believes you have the liberty to drink, don't drink to excess and don't exercise your liberty in such a way that causes a weaker brother or sister to stumble.

If you're one who believes you are prohibited from drinking alcohol, follow your conscience, but don't make it a law or a requirement for salvation, and don't impose it on those who do have that liberty.

But, in all cases, both sides should extend charity and the liberty to hold their respective beliefs to the other.

 

[just-want-peace]

Both are true, to some degree. Through their introduction of aqueduct systems, the Romans were able to provide clean water to many of their citizens.

But in other areas that did not have this technology, where water was drawn from local streams, it could be unsafe to drink, due to organisms and run off from livestock waste.

Likewise, while generally safe, well water was subject to some of the same hazards.

So both answers can be correct, depending on the context.

Both anecdotes are handy for historical background, but it should be remembered that that's all they are: historical background.

The most important thing is still, what does the Bible say?

We know that the Bible condemns drunkenness. Some believe it condemns any alcohol use and some don't, but the Bible isn't clear. This makes it adiaphora and a matter of conscience.

So, if you're one who believes you have the liberty to drink, don't drink to excess and don't exercise your liberty in such a way that causes a weaker brother or sister to stumble.

If you're one who believes you are prohibited from drinking alcohol, follow your conscience, but don't make it a law or a requirement for salvation, and don't impose it on those who do have that liberty.

But, in all cases, both sides should extend charity and the liberty to hold their respective beliefs to the other.

The whole crux of the matter!
Except to the legalists to whom it is "my way or the highway!":BangHead:

 

[evangelist6589]

Both are true, to some degree. Through their introduction of aqueduct systems, the Romans were able to provide clean water to many of their citizens.



But in other areas that did not have this technology, where water was drawn from local streams, it could be unsafe to drink, due to organisms and run off from livestock waste.



Likewise, while generally safe, well water was subject to some of the same hazards.



So both answers can be correct, depending on the context.



Both anecdotes are handy for historical background, but it should be remembered that that's all they are: historical background.



The most important thing is still, what does the Bible say?



We know that the Bible condemns drunkenness. Some believe it condemns any alcohol use and some don't, but the Bible isn't clear. This makes it adiaphora and a matter of conscience.



So, if you're one who believes you have the liberty to drink, don't drink to excess and don't exercise your liberty in such a way that causes a weaker brother or sister to stumble.



If you're one who believes you are prohibited from drinking alcohol, follow your conscience, but don't make it a law or a requirement for salvation, and don't impose it on those who do have that liberty.



But, in all cases, both sides should extend charity and the liberty to hold their respective beliefs to the other.

Most excellent post. I disagree with those that impose their convictions on others as a matter of church membership.

 

[evangelist6589]

The whole crux of the matter!

Except to the legalists to whom it is "my way or the highway!":BangHead:

Lots of those in IFB baptist churches

 

[blessedwife318]

Most excellent post. I disagree with those that impose their convictions on others as a matter of church membership.

Then don't become a member. You knew what the churches convictions were and how they were imposed before you joined. You either need to suck it up and deal with the church you chose to join, or ask to be removed from memberships and go to a church more in line with your convictions. Complaining about it publicly is wrong and sinful, and it is a bad testimony.

 

[HankD]

Here's a little history of one that's even [indirectly] mentioned by Christ:

1 Now there were some present at that very season who told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner perish.

You know Pilate didn't 'mingle their blood' himself , he sent soldiers to do the deed. 'In like manner' they were all to die if they did not repent.

4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed them, think ye that they were offenders above all the men that dwell in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Josephus most likely recorded this event that happened in the 'berg' of Siloam. Roman soldiers, again by Pilate's orders, disguised themselves and mingled with the crowd and fell upon them with clubs and beat them to death to quell a disturbance among the Jews over Pilate misappropriating temple funds to extend an aqueduct from the spring at Siloam. They were all to 'likewise' perish if they did not repent.

“After this he [Pilate] raised another disturbance, by expending that sacred treasure which is called Corban (10) upon aqueducts, whereby he brought water from the distance of four hundred furlongs. At this the multitude had indignation; and when Pilate was come to Jerusalem, they came about his tribunal, and made a clamor at it. Now when he was apprized aforehand of this disturbance, he mixed his own soldiers in their armor with the multitude, and ordered them to conceal themselves under the habits of private men, and not indeed to use their swords, but with their staves to beat those that made the clamor. He then gave the signal from his tribunal [to do as he had bidden them]. Now the Jews were so sadly beaten, that many of them perished by the stripes they received, and many of them perished as trodden to death by themselves; by which means the multitude was astonished at the calamity of those that were slain, and held their peace. “ Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 2.9.4

Thanks kyredneck. Ya, the Romans were not know for their gentleness.

HankD