Thought I need to post this about blood transfusions for new ones

by skyking 6 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • skyking

    A little history blood was my first epithony that something was wrong. Some posters might know who I am, I use to post under a different name but my logon information was lost my hard drive went bad and I went to high speed and joined a new email account. I did not post for quit some time but could not stand only reading.

    For all the new ones. I have some information on blood that I have made. Three different CO's and eight different Elders have went over this information with me and every single one has told me I am correct but I need to wait on Jehovah. One flat quit after reading the information, One put his head between his legs and cried. One has all but quit and I hear he is no longer an Elder and goes to meeting only occasionally. All because of my blood letter. Below is only about 1/3 of the information PM me I will send any who asks all the information. Enjoy, please read so all doubt can be removed from you which frees ones mind.

    Man at Gen. 9:4 was told to respect blood, he must not eat the flesh with its blood. Notice flesh with its blood it does not say you can not eat blood. Besides he could use the blood for fertilizing the ground, as paint, or even animal feed. To show this point clearly we need only to look too the scriptures. At Duet. 14:21 it states "You must not eat any body [already] dead. To the alien resident you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner." There in Israel’s mist was the man of the nations, this foreigner represented the rest of mankind that Jehovah gave the command to at Gen: 9:4. Noah was instructed not to eat the blood of an animal that was to be eaten. This showed it’s not the blood itself, nor was it the act of eating the blood that God was addressing. He was instilling into man what was important, not the blood nor the eating of blood but Jehovah’s High regard for life. This is the key, God regards life higher than he does blood. This point can be proven clearly from the bible at Lev. 17:15 read "As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or a alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until evening; and he must be clean." Here God says even the NATIVE could eat an animal that he personally did not kill and he knew that this animal had not been bled, and not be in violation of god’s law on blood. {A native, is a person that was clearly under the Mosaic Law and bound by it} How can this be? A Native, an Israelite eating un-bled meat? If eating blood was in violation of god’s law on blood which we all know it was, how could we explain this verse? If Jehovah did not make an exception to the rule how can this be explained? If we truly know Jehovah, and understand his high regards for life it is very easy to understand. Look at Duet. 14:21 it is clear here that Jehovah told Israel not eat a body already dead. Then why would he change it at Lev. 17:15? Here it states a native{person under the Mosaic Law} could eat an animal not bled and not be put to death. Why? His only sin is one of touching a dead animal and then he became unclean. He did not violate God’s law on blood here or Jehovah would have put the sinner to death. His only sin here was one of touching a dead animal. {The Law’s requirement for touching a dead animal is he became unclean by the act of touching a dead body}. Since he touched a dead body he was unclean until evening and he had to wash in water. Look at Leviticus 11:39-40 read "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". Also look at Lev. 17:15 Jehovah gave Israel away out of death. If there was a famine in the land or drought… and one happened upon a dead animal, the eating of that animal could literally have meant saving the life of that person and his family. If though he personally killed the animal and he did not drain the blood on the ground Jehovah would have killed this man for violating the law on blood why There are two different worlds here. , The one under the Law of Israel and the rest of the world that’s not under it. Because, he did the killing. The act of killing was not charged to him if he found the body. This is clearly stated in the 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. I would like to ask a question here. Could an alien resident break other Laws, stealing, dealing treacherously with his fellow man and get away with it? No, because he was under the legal Laws of Israel, not the Mosaic Law given to the Israelites.

    The Bible clearly recognizes the fact that before Christ’s death, two different laws on blood were in effect. One for the world of mankind. [The laws given to Noah at Gen 9:4] The other for his people Israel. Do we have two different laws today? No. Since the Law given to Noah still applies, and the Mosaic Law, the more ridged Mosaic Law is not binding on us. There were two different laws regarding blood. We aer no longer under the law given to the nation of Israel only that given to Noah and the foreigner could eat blood as long as he did not do the killing. Even the Israelite if eating the animal meant his life. Acts 15: 17-20. It clearly say’s "abstain from blood". Lets take a closer look. First we have to recognize the fact that this statement was given in harmony with the older men of Jerusalem on their decision over circumcision. This was a volatile time in the first century church. If you look closely, you will notice the bible does not state that the Mosaic Law on blood was still binding. But the law of Noah was to be kept. "Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God," Jehovah was not giving the nations a new command at Acts 15: The new converts came under the same law that had been in place for thousands of years they were to abstain from things polluted by idols, fornication from things strangled and blood. All of these laws were in effect before Jehovah gave Israel the Mosaic Law. Is this not the very reason we concluded that circumcision is not binding on us? Remember the Golden calf; remember Joseph and the wife of Potiphar remember the law on blood given to Noah? God did not ask anything more than these necessary things to keep doing.

    So let us pretend for a moment that the Law on blood is still exactly the same today as it was for the Israelites. Would it mean that Christians today should die in order to keep the law on abstaining from blood? Jehovah at Lev 17:15,16 made an exception and this exception was allowed during difficult times when their very lives were at stake. Heb 6:18 say’s "It is impossible for God to lie" Isaiah 55:8 say’s "For the thoughts of you people are not my thoughts". By dieing, are we not saying, "Jehovah, you had no reason to given your Israel a way out of death over your law on blood." There is no way we can ignore what Jehovah has penned in his Bible, it is clear HE gave Israel the right to choose life.

  • skyking

    I have had several PM's already if you really want information you can use on JW's regarding blood this is it. To many people assume the JW's are correct from the bible, nothing could be further from the truth.

  • moomanchu

    I liked your concluding paragraph

  • Zico

    BTTT - It's a very good letter.

  • greendawn

    Surprise surprise even the religious Jews who consider themselves under the Mosaic law do not prohibit blood transfusions, to them saving lives is above any law, and it's common sense really here you save a life without losing or even harming another life.

    The JWs are more legalistic and Pharisaic than the modern Jews.

  • jimbo

    Skyking thank you for sending me the information. WOW this is something. I can see why the CO's and the ELDERS acted the way you say. Have you sent this in formation to the Society or JW's for Blood Reform?

  • skyking

    Jimbo you are welcome.

    Yes I have sent the letter to the Society actually I have not but an Elder from Seattle Washington did. He he received a letter back from the Society in response that told him not to discuss the information with others.

    A lady the from AJWRB has contacted me and is using the information. I believe you were referring to the site "Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood" link they are using the information, giving it out to people when they contact AJWRB for help.

Share this