Samuel and the Witch

[archierieus]

An interesting point was raised on another thread, in regard to Samuel and the witch of Endor. The story is recorded in 1 Samuel 28:7 - 19. Reading this story, it certainly LOOKS like Samuel came back from the dead at the summons of the witch. Yes, I am familiar with our usual explanations for this, but I also know that SDA's have been accused of twisting Scripture and coming up with strained interpretations to support doctrine. So, how about it? Can someone come up with a good, solid explanation of this passage that does not do violence to THIS Scripture, and also supports our understanding of the State of the Dead?

Dave

[Bravus]

Great question, Dave. I certainly don't have an answer, but I look forward to the discussion.

[Nicodema]

Nope. I guess it's just one of those cases where we have to start with something we DO know for certain and fit the rest of what we are NOT seeing around that.

Similar to the "God does not kill" question, actually ... a similar process is involved.

That's my take on it. Not interested in arguing over it.

[there buster]

Then we have to start with the understanding of death at that time. What did they understand "the state of the dead" to be?

[archierieus]

That I don't know, Ed. I am wondering where one might discover that information. What comes to mind is the probability that there was a blending between the Hebrew and Canaanitish cultures, hence, logically, a blending of religious concepts as well. As for the writer of the book of 1 Samuel, whom I do not recall, what was his understanding? Had the Hebrews' understanding of the State of the Dead been sufficiently developed, apart from Canaanitish influences, to lend itself to clear exposition? I recall that some eight centuries later, there were varying schools of thought within the Jewish community. How about the time 1 Sam. was written? Ed, do you have info about this?

Another aspect of the question, and I think a fundamental one, would be philological considerations. What do the Hebrew words actually mean, what etymological info is available, grammatical considerations, etc. now THAT is something I can bite off, so I will take a swing at that part of the question.

[there buster]

I think you'll find that the word is sheol. It's a shadowy, indefinite realm.

I think that's the key here. Without a developed idea of what sheol is, the author does not know whether the apparition was actually Samuel. It appeared to be Samuel, so the writer simply wrote that it was Samuel.

This isn't all that different than writing that the Nile became blood. That isn't a statement about it's chemical composition or its origin, i.e., was it fish blood or alligator blood? It's irrelevant. It looked like blood, so it was blood.

I think that's most likely what happened here.

Thus, it's not conclusive about "the state of the dead," for the simple reason that the text and the author weren't concerned with that in this passage. And whenever we seek answers for questions the author wasn't addressing, we're on shaky ground.

[David Koot]

Ed, as I look at the passage, i don't find the word 'sheol' appearing there. Samuel comes up out of the ground or earth, which seems to have been a well-defined concept.

However, as you point out, 'sheol' seems to have been an important feature of their belief system. I would like to share an article which surveys evangelical scholarship in regard to 'sheol.' This article is not available online, so I can't provide a link. Keep in mind that this is evangelical thought, and we may want to take some of it with a grain of salt, but it is a perspective which many would probably have. One can see, in reading this article, how theological perspectives often color exegesis. Ahh, a favorite mantra: theology drives exegesis! The article is a bit long, but does also get into some interesting background about the etymology of the word and ANE usage. I have also included the bibliography, for those who may be interested in further study. The source is NIDOTTE. Here goes:

"(H8619) she'ol ( se'ôl), Sheol, netherworld (H8619).

ANE Sum./Akk. attest su'aru or a proposed su'alû (cf. AHw, 1255b), but most scholars reject any connection between them and Heb. she'ol (Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic, 173). Inasmuch as the lexeme occurs nowhere else in ancient Sem. texts, it seems clear so far that the term is a Heb. isogloss.

OT This term for the abode of the dead occurs 65x in the Heb. OT, 61x rendered hadës (G87) in LXX and 61x infernum or inferi in Vg. All attempts to recover its etymology have failed (cf. HALAT 1274). Its collocation with 'abadoh / `abadon (Prov 27:20; 15:11) and parallelism with bor (Isa 14:15) and mavet (Ps 89:48 [49]; Prov 5:5; 7:27; Song of Songs 8:6) make it clear that she'ol designates both the grave and the netherworld, particularly the latter. It is a favorite term in poetry and Wisdom literature (35x) and occurs several times in both Isaiah (9x) and Ezekiel (5x) as well.

1. Fundamentally, she'ol is a place, one beneath the earth's surface to which people descend at death (Gen 37:35; Job 7:9; Ezek 31:15, 17; 32:27) or even while still alive (Num 16:33; Ps 55:15 [16]). The common use of yarad with the hi. suggests that people go to she'ol also against their will; they are brought down to that place (Gen 42:38; 44:29, 31; 1 Sam 2:6; 1 Kgs 2:6, 9; Ezek 31:16). Ultimately it is Yahweh who causes them to go down, but he also has it in his power to bring them forth again (1 Sam 2:6; cf. Isa 26:19). Whether the grave or the netherworld is in view, she'ol speaks of the deepest depths, the antithesis of the highest heavens (Job 11:8; cf. Prov 9:18). Like mavet it is a dwelling place, one approached through gates and covered everywhere with dust (Job 17:16; Isa 38:10).

2. As a personification, she'ol is a fearsome enemy. With ropes (2 Sam 22:6 = Ps 18:4 [5]) it drags its victims down (Job 24:19) into its very mouth (Ps 141:7). It is a cruel despot (Song of Songs 8:6), capable of carrying out its evil designs because of its irresistible power (Ps 89:48 [49]). Jonah, though in the belly of the fish, metaphorically saw himself also to be in the belly of Sheol (Jonah 2:2 [3]).

3. God cannot be frustrated by she'ol, however, but is able to direct the wise away from it (Prov 15:24) and to deliver his saints from its maraudings (Ps 86:13). It may take discipline to steer the recalcitrant child from heading to she'ol (Prov 23:14), but even those who end up there have the hope of being redeemed (padah H7009) from its grasp and brought back to life (Ps 49:15 [16]).

4. The most elaborate OT descriptions of the netherworld appear in Isaiah and Ezekiel. Isaiah, speaking of the king of Babylon in the guise of Helel ben Shacher, prophesies his fall from the heights to the depths, to Sheol (Isa 14:15 ; bor). There the occupants will marvel at his radical reversal of fortune (vv. 16-18). Ezekiel condemns Pharaoh in a similar manner, consigning him to Sheol, the place of the pit (bor) and the lowest parts of earth ('erets tachetit, Ezek 31:16). It is the realm of the uncircumcised (v. 18), a way of describing Gentile sinners especially (cf. 32:21). The dead there have an existence of some kind, though their description as "shades" (repa'im) (Isa 14:9) makes it clear that theirs is a weak and unrewarding style of life (14:10). There is no hope of deliverance from Sheol or the grave unless God himself should graciously intervene, a possibility hinted at here and there in the OT record (Ps 16:10; 49:15 [16]; 56:13 [14]; 86:13). Full assurance of victory over Sheol must await the revelation of the NT witness (1 Cor 15:50-58).

P-B DSS; Mish. Heb., Jastrow 2:1505.

See Death

Bibliography ABD 2:101-5; NIDNTT 2:205-10; TDNT 1:146-49; THAT 2:837-41; TWOT 2:892-93; W. F. Albright, "The Etymology of Se'ol," AJSL 34, 1917-18, 209-10; R. L. Harris, "The Meaning of the Word Sheol as Shown by Parallels in Poetic Texts," BETS 4, 1961, 129-35; A. Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, 173-91; S. Jellicoe, "Hebrew-Greek Equivalents for the Nether World, Its Milieu and Inhabitants in the Old Testament," Textus 8, 1973, 1-19; W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, reprinted [n.d.], 2:591-640; N. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament, 21-23.

Eugene H. Merrill"

I must say that the foregoing analysis reminds me a little of Josephus' description of Hades! Anyway, FWIW.

[there buster]

I didn't say "sheol" was in this verse. I said it was their understanding of where someone went at death. That's the question at issue.

In fact, that's exactly my point. This verse does not address the issue of "the state of the dead."

As a matter of careful scholarship, you might want to eliminate the references to "sheol" that occur significantly after the time of 1 Sam 28, because they may well reflect later developments in the Hebrew understanding of death.

[David Koot]

That is a very good point, Ed. What I find particularly intriguing is the very DEVELOPMENT of the doctrine. One would think that the Hebrews would have received their doctrinal information from the patriarchs. Job seems to have had a good understanding of man's condition in death, for example. David, also, likewise. But, what about the people of the time, generally speaking? Thus, the fascinating (to me, at least) questions of the sources of their information. Were their concepts influenced by the Canaanites? Were they influenced by the elaborate rituals of the Egyptians? Hmmmm. Most interesting.

And, a related question would be, to what extent, if any, such concepts filtered into the Bible? Yet, the Bible was inspired by God, thus we surely may assume that the information communicated from God, via the Bible writers, was accurate, would we not? What do you think?

[olger]

Dear archierieus:

It is a good question.

This whole fascinating story highlights the tragic fall of Saul from grace as a consequence of his choices.

"But the spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him (1 Samuel 16:14). Thus begins the final saga in the life of Saul. It is a downward spiral. What caused this fall from grace?

Rebellion. "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king."

It is also noteworthy that God is sometimes represented as causing that which He does not prevent in the OT. The evil spirit mentioned here came from the devil, not from God.

Saul's unresolved rebellion gave ground to the enemy in his heart, and he began to be mastered by an evil spirit. Notice that this "evil spirit" tried to get Saul to pin David to the wall with his spear. Was that God's spirit? Not at all...!

This drove the Lord farther from Saul, until finally the lines of communication were cut "And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets." Had Saul repented in his heart, the Lord would have answered him and redeemed him (remember Manasseh?). But Saul didn't, and he took the last step - consulting a witch.

Did this witch call up God's sleeping prophet? Never. God would not allow His sleeping servant to be disturbed by a method that He had already condemned (Lev. 20:27; Deut. 18:11).

The apparition that "came up" was a demon masquerading as Samuel. First off, he "comes up" according to the text. The immortal soul camp claims that the righteous go to heaven at the point of death. Why was this "thing" coming up?

Also the (hag) "perceived" that it was Samuel. It doesn't say that it was Samuel in the text, it says that Saul perceived that it was him. This is classic deception, and the primary reason that our Father taks a zero-tolerance policy towards the occult. It is a method of Satan to deceive people.

Also notice that the "apparition" did not reject the misplaced worship of Saul (1 Samuel 28:14).

"Tomorrow you will be with me" (v. 19). If it was Samuel, how could he say to Saul "you will be with me." I propose that they each had two different destinies according to their choices.

It wasn't Samuel. So, who was it?

This tragic story is summed up in 1 Chronicles 10:13 "Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not inquire of the LORD.."

The Bible says that the rebellious live (dwell) in a dry land (Psalm 68:6). Nothing good grows in a dry land. Just the occasional weed. Saul's life is a tragic example of his choices and the consequences that accompany our choices.

brother olger

[Nan]

Brother Olger, thank you for a thoughtful commentary on this topic, which I find most helpful.

[olger]

Welcome Sister.

olger

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

olger said:

Also the (hag) "perceived" that it was Samuel. It doesn't say that it was Samuel in the text, it says that Saul perceived that it was him.

---

The problem is that the passage is more definite than that. Note what is said:

" 1SA 28:11 Then the woman asked, "Whom shall I bring up for you?"

"Bring up Samuel," he said.

1SA 28:12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out at the top of her voice and said to Saul, "Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!"

1SA 28:13 The king said to her, "Don't be afraid. What do you see?"

The woman said, "I see a spirit coming up out of the ground."

1SA 28:14 "What does he look like?" he asked.

"An old man wearing a robe is coming up," she said.

Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground." (NIV)

What is the solution? Take a look at a couple of key words. In v. 14, Saul KNEW it was Samuel. Here is what the Hebrew word means:

2. General usage. The meanings of yada` are difficult to relate to one another. They range from sensory perception to intellectual process to practical skill to careful attention to close relationship to physical intimacy. The relation to other vbs. in this semantic field is difficult (cf. the vbs. in Isa 6:9; 32:3-4; 41:20; 44:18). It is probable that precision in nuancing is not to be sought in such words in isolation; only the context enables some distinctions to emerge. In the broadest sense, yada` means to take various aspects of the world of one's experience into the self, including the resultant relationship with that which is known. The fundamentally relational character of knowing (over against a narrow intellectual sense) can be discerned, not least in that both God and human beings can be subject and object of the vb . . ." (NIDOTTE)

The second word is "saw":

"OT 1. The meanings of the vb. ra'ah1. (a) Generally the vb. denotes the physical sense perception with the eyes. The q. denotes the act of seeing/perceiving/watching/looking with one's own eyes. Eve perceived that the fruit of the tree was good (Gen 3:6) . . ."

We can see that in this case, context counts for a lot. Particularly 'yada' has a wide range of meanings. ra'ahl pertains to the "perception with the eyes."

What might exegetes do with this? Ha! Another exemplar of this mantra: "Theology drives exegesis." When translators roll the dice, so to speak, as to how they choose to render words such as these, I submit that it is practically impossible to avoid being influenced by one's theological perspective.

Since the words may be understood in different ways, then one must rely on broader principles, such as you pointed out. That is, God surely wouldn't summon the prophet Samuel back from the world of the dead (the grave) at the demand of a medium! But, that is not an argument, strictly speaking, of exegesis.

One thing for sure: this does make for interesting discussion!

David Koot

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Since the words may be understood in different ways, then one must rely on broader principles, such as you pointed out. That is, God surely wouldn't summon the prophet Samuel back from the world of the dead (the grave) at the demand of a medium! But, that is not an argument, strictly speaking, of exegesis.

---

The first question, exegetically, after the dictionary definition, would be contextual.

What would a contemporary of the book of 1 Samuel have understood the text to mean? Not what do we understand it to mean in the 21st Century, with all of the Bible that was written after it, but what did the author and his audience at the time understand it to mean?

They did not have our highly developed theology of "the state of the dead."

As far as they were concerned, Samuel was raised. That's one of the reasons that God was so tough on witches. Without a developed theology about the dead, people would be easily deceived by what they thought they saw.

All the explanationa about "it only appeared to be" are impositions of our understanding on the narrative, not an explanation of their understanding.

Rather than attempting to developo a sophisticated theology at the time, God chose to tell people that witches were dangerous, and to stay away from them and their craft.

Don't forget, this is only a few years away from the time they took the Ark of the Covenant into battle. Their theology at this time was quite simple--even primitive--by our standards.

I can only conclude that God knew that there were more urgent needs for the Israelites at that time, than a sophisticated understanding of death.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

Don't forget, this is only a few years away from the time they took the Ark of the Covenant into battle. Their theology at this time was quite simple--even primitive--by our standards.

I can only conclude that God knew that there were more urgent needs for the Israelites at that time, than a sophisticated understanding of death.

---

A most fascinating concept, indeed. To me, this brings up, once again, the question of the extent of other influences upon the understanding of the Hebrews. We know from Scripture that idolatry was pervasive. We can imagine that the people were influenced by the beliefs and practices of the surrounding nations. We also have evidence that they were a primitive people, in some respects. Their language itself was primitive--a 'picture language.' When God gave them the Ten Commandments, his method of delivery was such as would have an impact on a primitive people. For that matter, the wording and content of the TC were such as would be understandable to such a people. (I also submit that therein may lie a source of the confusion which often surrounds efforts to reconcile NT principles of righteousness with the TC.)

The idea that God's revelation in the OT is progressive--specifically, in terms of doctrines such as the State of the Dead--is an exciting one, and opens up whole new vistas of Biblical understanding. For this student, the level of excitement it engenders, is comparable to that which might be experienced by scientists, should the Mars Lander retrieve hard evidence of life. Such is the nature of discussion and discovery. Well worth the investment of time.

David Koot

[bevin]

Quote:

---

The idea that God's revelation in the OT is progressive--specifically, in terms of doctrines such as the State of the Dead--is an exciting one, and opens up whole new vistas of Biblical understanding. For this student, the level of excitement it engenders, is comparable to that which might be experienced by scientists, should the Mars Lander retrieve hard evidence of life. Such is the nature of discussion and discovery. Well worth the investment of time.

---

Until, of course, one applies EXACTLY this same concept to the theory of evolution.

The OT guys did not understand the state of the dead, so God allows the Bible authors to say that Samuel was brought back.

The NT guys did not understand the theory of evolution, so God allows the Bible authors to say that the creation took a week and was done 6000 years ago.

Both are over-simplifications of complex truths.

/Bevin

[Bravus]

Yeah, I had the same thought, bevin.

[Dr. Shane]

The idea that there is a soul apart from the body goes back to Plato but was popularized by the philosopher Rene Descartes.

Quote:

---

Descartes argued two distinct substances in nature -- thought and extension, spiritual vs. corporeal. Each is an "existent thing" and therefore requires only itself to exist, in his view. Thus, data about the body says nothing about the mind and data about the mind says nothing about the body from a Cartesian viewpoint.

|

According to Descartes, the biological aspects of humans are explained by mechanical and mathematical laws governing everything else in material existence. Accordingly, he reasoned that animals (other than humans) are only automata, incapable of thinking despite how humans thought animals had thoughts and emotions. He argued that human actions are not directed by the mind and that only some body movements are affected by the human soul. Through "vital spirits" he argued, the soul (in the pineal gland) interacts with the body.

|

Descartes viewed the bodies of humans and animals as machines with animals being totally governed by laws of physics. Humans, to Descartes, are affected by the interaction of soul and body made possible only by the linkage of soul to "vital spirits." Essentially, he saw a spurious relationship between mind and body, such that nothing in one causes anything in the other as a rule, yet the covariation of both can be attributed to a third factor, namely God.

---

There are some major philosophic holes with dualism. If the mind and body are seperate, what keeps them together? If the mind is inmaterial and the body is material how does one communicate with the other?

The Bible does not teach dualism. If Samuel did die and go to heaven, he wouldn't have been coming back because a witch was calling him.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Until, of course, one applies EXACTLY this same concept to the theory of evolution.

---

Well, actually, to apply EXACTLY the same concept, you would have to find further Biblical data to support the transition from creation to Evolution.

So, it's not EXACTLY the same.

Secondly, the Bible does not make one claim about the state of the dead, and gradually change that to the opposite. As I pointed out, 1 Kings 28 is not addressing the "state of the dead," one way or the other.

And you should at least have the integrity to state the opposition case accurately.

The Bible nowhere claims that the Earth is 6000 years old. Some people have, but some people have claimed all sorts of things. That some people believe in the Rapture does not invalidate all eschatology.

Evolution is today where Creationism was at the time of the Scopes Monkey trial. Having lost its power to persuade, it must resort to the courts to protect its monopoly.

Like the rest of the failed ideas of the hard left, only state power can preserve it for long.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

The OT guys did not understand the state of the dead, so God allows the Bible authors to say that Samuel was brought back.

---

Not really. I excerpted portions of a good article on two significant Hebrew words found in the referenced passage: that for 'knew,' and for 'saw.' In both cases, and particularly for 'knew,' there are wide ranges of meanings for these words. 'perceived,' 'appeared to be,' etc., all are well within those ranges. The fact that an apparition looked like Samuel does not mean that it was, in fact, Samuel. Evidently, Saul had some belief in communicating with the dead, or he would not have consulted a medium. TO SAUL, the apparition appeared to be Samuel. The record suggests that SAUL believed it to be Samuel. {I should add that, in consulting a medium, he was already setting himself up to be deceived.] That does not mean that it was, in fact, Samuel. As for the Bible writer who recorded this event, we do not know his personal views. We DO have evidence that other OT writers had an understanding of the State of the Dead: David, Job, Solomon, Moses, for example. I tend to think that those who remained close to God, and received the teaching of the patriarchs, knew. And, those were the men with whom God communicated in recording the Scriptures. Certainly, of course, God knew. I expect that other Israelites, who were perhaps exposed to other influences, may have had other ideas.

Quote:

---

The NT guys did not understand the theory of evolution, so God allows the Bible authors to say that the creation took a week and was done 6000 years ago.

---

That would have been OT as well--Gen. 1 in regard to the 7-day Creation week. We also have the seventh-day Sabbath, which has relevance as a unit of time originating in that initial Creation week.

When I use the term 'progressive revelation,' perhaps I need to clarify what I mean. I do, indeed, think that Ed has an excellent idea. God worked with the people where they were, and led them a step at a time, basically. HOWEVER, He did not teach them error at one time, then change that teaching at a later time. The revelation was progressive, but later steps in that revelation did not contradict the earlier steps. That is what I mean by the term. For example, the Ten Commandments were both pronounced and worded in such a way that a primitive people could understand and be impressed. Over time, as the Jews' understanding became more sophisticated, the presentation of the plan of salvation, too, was broadened and perhaps deepened. HOWEVER, those later revelations neither contradicted nor replaced the earlier revelation of the TC.

David Koot

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

HOWEVER, He did not teach them error at one time, then change that teaching at a later time.

---

BTW: the theory of evolution came to us by Charles Darwin, not Ellen White. In fact, God called forth his end-time church to preach the end-time message (which includes the Sabbath of creation) just before Orgins of the Species was published (1859). Sister White had her first vision about the Sabbath in 1848.

So present truth does not contradict Biblical truth. Not in matters of evolution or the state of the dead.

[there buster]

For the purposes of accuracy, please note that the Bible nowhere addresses the question of how old the Earth is, one way or another. The 6000 year calculation is based on numbers given for a different purpose, and which do not claim to be connected to the age of the earth.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Well, actually, to apply EXACTLY the same concept, you would have to find further Biblical data to support the transition from creation to Evolution.

---

Not so. The concept is clear - God does not feel obliged to correct major misconceptions. There are many other instances of this - for example the subject of mental health is not well addressed in the Bible, nor is hygiene, nor is vegetarianism, nor is anti-slavery, nor is the layout of the solar system, nor is genetics.

We can point to dozens of true scientific ideas that are contradicted by the Bible.

The addition of books to the Bible JUST HAPPENED to cease after one concept was worked out (state of the dead)but before the others (various scientific ideas) were.

"The Bible is to tell you how to get to Heaven, not to tell you how the Heaven's go." - Galileo???

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

---

mental health is not well addressed in the Bible, nor is hygiene, nor is vegetarianism, nor is anti-slavery, nor is the layout of the solar system, nor is genetics.

---

Granting that point for discussion's sake (although it is in fact significantly in error), it doesn't fit.

Is it your position, then, that the Bible doesn't address origins? That's pretty interesting considering both Genesis 1 and John1 do in fact address origins.

Not only that, but the Bible does in fact address the state of the dead, just not in 1 Sam 28.The central issue of that episode is not "the state of the dead," but "the state--and the fate--of the king." Saul has fallen so far that he consults with those he himself has outlawed.

The Bible does in fact address both the state of the dead, and origins. So your statement, above, about things the Bible does not address, is irrelevant to both the case at hand and the case of origins.

[bevin]

The Bible makes statements about origins, about the behavior of the dead, about genetics, about hygiene.

These statements reflect the understanding of the authors at the time the material was captured.

These statements, as observed earlier, may have to be understood as correctly describing the view of the author rather than the actual situation.

The oldest parts of the Bible were captured in written form at approximately the time of the Babylonian captivity. At this point the "Exodus" was 1000 years earlier, and the version in the Bible is only a loose fit with what archaeology tells us about the Middle East of 1500BC.

The State of the Dead doctrine was so poorly worked out even in Jesus time that the two major sects - Pharisees and Sadducees - did not agree! A fact that Paul exploits to his advantage. You can see this also in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

You can see the major misunderstandings about the shape and origins of the earth in many OT places - reflecting the fact that the Babylonians and Israelites and everyone else thought the earth was flat - until the Greeks finally got it right.

You can see the major misunderstanding of genetics in the story of Laban and the goats.

And the ritual baths of the Jews, even in the time of Christ, were NOT purifying in the modern 'hygienic clean water' sense - the water was filthy, and you or I would no more get into them than we would drink the water of the Ganges.

/Bevin