In the topic of 'JWs and dairy Products' I was beginning to wonder why there were no guidlines in the Bible as to 'how long' and animal had to be bled for when it was killed. Was there a specific time mentioned in the Bible...or in the end, the fact that there was no specific time instructed, supposedly by God' must prove that the NO Blood sanction was just a symbolic gesture? It is totally IMPOSSIBLE to bleed every last drop of blood out of a creature, surely. The Jews were eating blood that was still in the veins all of the time, much as we do. Doesn't that help any JW or ex JW still wondering about whether there is anything to the JW blood ban?
How long were slaughtered animals to be bled for?
by Gill 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Gill
Also, what rules did they have about 'bleeding to death' all those poor little birds that Jehovah supposedly sent them in the wilderness? Or did they just not bother?
-
blondie
This might give some points.
***
w72 9/1 p. 544 Questions from Readers ***•
When meat is cut in the course of preparation for cooking, or when it is sliced after it has been cooked, a reddish fluid may run out of it. Is such meat suitable for eating by a Christian?—U.S.A.A Christian may eat meat only from animals that were drained of their blood at the time they were slaughtered. The Bible commands: "Keep abstaining . . . from blood and from things strangled."—Acts 15:29.
Of course, even the meat from properly bled animals may appear to be very red or may have red fluid on the surface. This is because bleeding does not remove every trace of blood from the animal. But God’s law does not require that every single drop of blood be removed. It simply states that the animal should be bled.
Then, too, there is extravascular fluid in the meat. This fluid may mix with traces of blood and take on a red color. The extravascular fluid filling the spaces between the cells is known as interstitial fluid and resembles blood plasma. But it is not blood and therefore does not come under the prohibition respecting blood. Hence the presence of a reddish fluid does not in itself make meat unsuitable for food. As long as an animal has been properly bled, its meat may Scripturally be used for food.
There may be times, however, when a Christian has reason to believe that an animal may not have been bled properly. If there is no way for him to get the facts, he may choose not to eat the meat and thus avoid disturbing his conscience. This is in harmony with the principle stated at Romans 14:23: "If he has doubts, he is already condemned if he eats."
***
w61 11/1 pp. 669-670 Questions from Readers ***•
How can one tell if meat purchased from a butcher or in some other market has been properly bled? Also, how can one tell if cold-meat loaves, pastry or preparations sold by druggists contain any blood or blood fractions?—A. R., U.S.A.This is of concern to God-fearing persons, because Jehovah God, in his law stated to Noah, which applies to all mankind, said: "Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat." (Gen. 9:3, 4) The first-century Christian governing body, too, being directed by God’s holy spirit, pointed out that it is necessary for Christians to ‘keep themselves free from blood.’—Acts 15:28, 29.
If the bleeding of butchered animals is not the regular practice in your locality, or you are not sure what is the customary handling of the matter where you live, the best way to find out if meat has been properly bled is to make personal inquiry. In most cases, even if the one who sells the meat does not personally do the slaughtering, he is acquainted with the men with whom he does business and he knows their practices or at least the laws that govern them. If he is confident that the meat is properly prepared, the Christian may feel free to use it. However, if the one selling the meat does not know, simply ask: "Who can give me the information? It is important to me for religious reasons." Then write a letter, if that is the only way to get in touch with the one who can answer your question. If for some reason one does not feel that he is being told the truth, he can always do business elsewhere, or he can buy live animals and arrange for the slaughtering himself, if he feels that is necessary.
Simply the fact that meat appears to be very red or even has red fluid on the surface does not mean that it has not been bled. There may remain in the meat some very small amounts of blood even after proper bleeding has been done. Then, too, the fluid that runs out of the meat may simply be interstitial fluid. The important thing is that respect has been shown for the sanctity of blood, regard has been shown for the principle of the sacredness of life. What God’s law requires is that the blood be drained from the animal when it is killed, not that the meat be soaked in some special preparation to draw out every trace of it.
In the case of other products, a similar procedure may be followed. If you have reason to believe that a certain product contains blood or a blood fraction, ask the one who sells it. If he does not know, write to the manufacturer. Sometimes labels show whether a blood fraction is used, but not always. For example, a label may say that a certain product contains albumin. Does that mean that it contains a blood fraction? Look up the word albumin in a good reference book, perhaps an encyclopedia in your local library or even a good dictionary. You will learn that albumin is found, not only in blood serum, but also in milk and eggs. The only way to find out the source of the albumin in the particular product in question is to make inquiry of those who prepare it. However, if the label says that certain tablets contain hemoglobin, similar checking will reveal that this is from blood; so a Christian knows, without asking, that he should avoid such a preparation. Clearly, these are matters that each individual can best check on locally.
•
How can we harmonize the Scriptural counsel, "Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of your conscience" (1 Cor. 10:25), with the advice recently contained in The Watchtower, to make reasonable inquiry at places where one buys meat to be sure that it has been properly bled? (The Watchtower, September 15, 1961, page 557)—N. Q., U.S.A.Both of these statements of counsel must be viewed in their context. First Corinthians, chapter 10, contains a discussion concerning foods that have been offered to idols. It points out that Christians cannot "become sharers with the demons" by participating in religious ceremonies in which the worshiper shares a meal in common with some demon god. (1 Cor. 10:18-21) In fact, it would be wrong for the Christian to eat the meat anywhere if he ate it "as something sacrificed to an idol," that is, with any feeling of reverence for the idol. (1 Cor. 8:7) So it was to protect Christians from idolatry that the command was given to "keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols." (Acts 15:29) However, the offering of food to an idol does not bring about any change in the meat itself that would make it unfit for use. So if part of an animal that was offered in sacrifice were sold in a meat market it would be just as good as any other meat. Certainly a Christian would never ask for this meat in preference to other meat, feeling that it was "holy meat," but, on the other hand, he was not under obligation to make inquiry to find out if the source of supply was a religious temple or a regular slaughterhouse. So the point under discussion in 1 Corinthians 10:25 was the purchasing of meat in a market that obtained some of its supplies from a religious temple.
Christians are also commanded to abstain "from blood and what is strangled." (Acts 21:25) The Scriptures do indicate that one may eat meat but that he must not do it as an act of idolatry; however, nowhere does the Bible say that believers may eat blood under any circumstances. Furthermore, the prohibition on the consumption of blood is directed, not only to those who do their own slaughtering, but to all "the believers." Therefore those believers who do not do their own slaughtering may have to make inquiry to find an acceptable source of supply if they want to eat meat. If you know from your own experience or from inquiry that it is customary in your locality to drain the blood from butchered animals and from fowl killed for food, and you are doing business with a reliable person, then it may not be necessary to ask further specific questions on the matter when meat is purchased. However, one who purchases meat from worldly persons in those communities where Caesar’s laws do not specify that blood must be drained from slaughtered animals would not be able to avoid eating "blood and what is strangled" without making inquiry.
So the points of counsel are harmonious and are in agreement with the rest of the Word of God.
-
cosmic
I'm not positive about sheep and goats, but I once watched a Venezualan rancher prepare a cow for barbeque. I expected him to shoot the animal in the head, or, at the very least, club it in the head. But he had a thing that resembled a huge hypodermic needle ( although it was a min of 2 cm in diameter) that he jabbed into an artery in the cows neck ( I assume it was comparable with a human's carotid) and it took about 7 minutes for the thing to bleed to death, as the blood simply squirted out onto the ground. The animal was then hung up and butchered for the roasting. I don't know how much actual blood was left in the animals circulatory system, but I don't think there was very much. Assuming that the Israelites followed the same procedure (or approximated it) I don't think there was a lot of worry about any blood left in a sheep either. Whereas, if the animal was "strangled" (I would not want to be the clown trying to strangle a cow) I could see that a lot of blood would be left. Why would someone strangle an animal for food? Was this a common practice?
-
tetrapod.sapien
i need some blood, some nights.
ts
-
peacefulpete
Why would someone strangle an animal for food? Was this a common practice?
Many commentators understand the reference to 'things strangled' as a prohibition of eating meat of animals offered as sacrifice through strangulation, a common Roman practice, therefore making it a amplification of the expression "things sacrificed to idols". It is difficult to be dogmatic about what the issue that the writer of Acts was trying to address, whether the Jewish blood prohibition or the idol worship connection. What is clear is that he was trying to bridge the growing Gentile Church with the Jewish Church through a compromise, "because Moses is yet read aloud in the synagoues".
-
LittleToe
I'm getting a real kick out of the mental image of a butcher attempting to strangle a prize heifer with his bare hands - ROFL
-
MerryMagdalene
You would...
~Merry
-
Leolaia
Both of these statements of counsel must be viewed in their context. First Corinthians, chapter 10, contains a discussion concerning foods that have been offered to idols. It points out that Christians cannot "become sharers with the demons" by participating in religious ceremonies in which the worshiper shares a meal in common with some demon god. (1 Cor. 10:18-21) In fact, it would be wrong for the Christian to eat the meat anywhere if he ate it "as something sacrificed to an idol," that is, with any feeling of reverence for the idol. (1 Cor. 8:7) So it was to protect Christians from idolatry that the command was given to "keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols." (Acts 15:29) However, the offering of food to an idol does not bring about any change in the meat itself that would make it unfit for use. So if part of an animal that was offered in sacrifice were sold in a meat market it would be just as good as any other meat. Certainly a Christian would never ask for this meat in preference to other meat, feeling that it was "holy meat," but, on the other hand, he was not under obligation to make inquiry to find out if the source of supply was a religious temple or a regular slaughterhouse. So the point under discussion in 1 Corinthians 10:25 was the purchasing of meat in a market that obtained some of its supplies from a religious temple.
Which totally avoids the problem posed by the text. They forget that the pagans did not bleed the animals sacrificed in temple rituals.
-
peacefulpete
I saw that too leolaia, note the line at the end:
However, one who purchases meat from worldly persons in those communities where Caesar’s laws do not specify that blood must be drained from slaughtered animals would not be able to avoid eating "blood and what is strangled" without making inquiry.
LOL So as to make their attempt at harmonization not completely meaningless they must imply that Roman law at the time of Paul required animals slaughtered be drained of blood.