biblical to think

Question

0The official warnings about bird flu have been growing scarier in the past few days. In a speech last Sunday, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt advised folks to stock up on tuna fish and powdered milk in case the bird flu virus mutates into a form that could easily infect people. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns recently told reporters, "01font00It would be almost biblical to think02font00 we would be protected." Then there was Robert Webster, the noted flu virologist from St. Jude Children's Research Center, who said on national television Tuesday night that he had a three-month supply of food and water in his house in case bird flu becomes a serious human pandemic. 02br02br00What's the meaning of "01font00It would be almost biblical to think"02font00?02br02br00Thank you in advance!0-

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

0I think M Mike Johanns believes to ***. He considers that they were protected by *** as miracles in Bible, It would be almost biblical to think means Like in Bible, everybody is infected with this form bird flu but we are not. It's miraculous!02br
02br
00Phuong Ninh0-

Kajjo · Answer

0 He probably means, that to think we are protected, you would need a belief as strong as taught in the bible.02br
02br
00However, I find that metaphor does not fit very well here, but the consequences of such a pandemic could have biblical dimensions (referring to the Plagues of Egypt). Maybe Johanns stumbled a little bit about what he wanted to say and biblical came to mind.02br
02br
00Kajjo0-

WendyWu · Answer

0The bird flu have been growing so scarier that even the officials cannot find a good way to solve this problem. Maybe a Biblical belief can calm the panicky people, and give all of us the hope that it will be better tomorrow. 05002br
02br
00If 05100 have a strong belief in their mind, the bird flu will pass by soon.02br
02br
00P.S. If there are some mistakes in my post, pls feel free to point out . Thank you in advance.010id1241hrefhttp://www.sogou.com/sogoupedia?query=everybodyceverybody

Matress · Answer

0It's easy to be protected - just don't eat chicken.02br
02br
00Simple, it isn't? 0-

WendyWu · Answer

0I don't think so . We can get from the context that bird flu may mutates into a form that could easily infect people. Stop eatting the chicken is not enough. We should not eat all the birds, take care of  both people and animals all around us, keep a clean and dry environment...... Do as many as we can to prevent the spread of virus. 050010id1

Kajjo · Answer

0 01blockquote

01cite10Matress12cite10It's easy to be protected - just don't eat chicken. Simple, it isn't? 12blockquote

10Hello Matress,02br
00no, you are absolutely wrong! The transmission by eating or preparing food can be avoided pretty easily, so far you are more or less right (primary infections), even if one should be aware of the possibility that pets like cats and dogs might infect themselves when touching wild birds and bring the desease into households. Also, there are a lot of health and vetinary professionals that come into contact with the virus. This might lead to step 2:02br
02br
00The main risk is that the virus accepts the human body as new host and man-to-man infections become possible. If that should be the case in the future, the desease would spread as easily as the flu -- that is very fast and without barriers of food preferences or hygienic awareness. This is what could lead to a epidemic with a hugh death toll.02br
02br
00However, since infected birds die very fast, the risk of purchasing infected chicken is pretty low. As for mow, there appears to be no sense in avoiding chicken as food.02br
02br
00Kajjo0-

Davkett · Answer

1font00"00It would be almost biblical to think00 we would be protected."02font02br
02br
00I think it's virtually impossible to know exactly, or even roughly, what is meant by that statement.0-

Muayad Jajo · Answer

1font00"00It would be almost biblical to think00 we would be protected."02font02br
02br
00I would read "biblical to think" in the context above as "superstitious to think". Don't you all think that this interpretation of the phrase would suit the caution which the speaker is recommending?0-

Davkett · Answer

0 01blockquote

01cite10Muayad Jajo12cite12br
10I would read "biblical to think" in the context above as "superstitious to think". 12br
12br
12blockquote

10Your interpretation may fit the context, but for a Bush Administration official to equate 01i00biblical02i00 with 01i00superstitious 02i00is to beg to be fired.0-

Muayad Jajo · Answer

0To Davkett,02br
02br
00That’s right. Thanks.02br
02br
00To Hly2004,02br
02br
00My apologies. Just ignore my suggestion.0-

biblical to think

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions