by YoursChelbie 12 Replies latest jw friends
Which is/was more of an offense: Giving blood, or receiving blood?
In Deuteronomy 14:21 we find that the Law on unbled flesh states:Any Jew could give unbled meat to a stranger or even sell it! There was no penalty for either of these actions. YC
"Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien
As for the Lev 17: 14, 15
The Watchtower teaching that "cut off" implies death for eating animal blood is an obvious attempt to take the verse out of context. A dead person certainly cannot wash his clothes (as verse 15 indicates he must do.)
the phrase "cut off" here clearly does not mean death but rather the state of being unclean and removed from the clean members of the Jewish community. This is evident by verse 15 where the person eating an unbled animals is instructed to wash his garments.
YC[There are] two ways in which (the Hewbrew word) "karath’(cut off) is used.
It is used 54 times in the context of killing. That obviously fits the implication of destruction. But the word is also used over 30 times of being "cut off from his people". As we consider some of these verses where "karath" is used we shall see that destruction was not what was meant, or implied.
For Example:
Numbers 19:13. "That person must be cut off from ". In the next sentence we are told that his "uncleanness remains on him".
Obviously, he must remain alive if his uncleanness remains on him.
The scriptures quoted above show that "karath" does not always imply destruction or consumption. To be sure, "karath" does, in some contexts, imply destruction, but not in all. Therefore, because there are so many passages where "karath" does not imply destruction, we may not automatically assume that "karath" always implies destruction.
Leviticus 11:39-40 “Now in case any beast that is YOURS for food should die, he who touches its dead body will be unclean until the evening. And he who eats any of its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening; and he who carries off its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening ”. Here the bible was talking to the average Israelite under Mosaic Law and bible mentions the eating of the dead un-bled animal as Ho Hum no big deal .
So it is all Bull shit as far as the Society's biblical claims against blood transfusions
Insight On the Scriptures Vol 1 pages 345, paragraph 6
“At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowances was made for selling to an alien resident or a foreigner an animal that had died of itself or that had been torn by a beast. Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of animals that a person slaughtered for food. {Compare Le 17:14-16} The Israelites, as well as alien residents who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant, were obligated to live up to the lofty requirements of that Law. People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Gen 9:3,4 but those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to that requirement than were foreigners and alien residents who had not became worshipers of Jehovah.” Notice those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard regards blood.
