by truthsearcher 9 Replies latest watchtower medical
Is there any evidence that blood transfusion was attempted in ancient history--ie ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome? Could it be that the Bible does refer to these practices in the "abstain from blood" passages?
Arming myself for my HLC meeting, any help or suggestions are appreciated.
TS
No, blood-letting was what was practiced in antiquity, removing "excess blood" to cure diseases....
Bloodletting is one of the oldest medical practices, having been practiced among diverse ancient peoples, including the Mesopotamians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Mayans, and the Aztecs. In Greece, bloodletting was in use around the time of Hippocrates, who mentions bloodletting but in general relied on dietary techniques. Erastistratus, however, theorized that many diseases were caused by plethoras, or overabundances, in the blood, and advised that these plethoras be treated, initially, by exercise, sweating, reduced food intake, and vomiting. Herophilus advocated bloodletting. Archagathus, one of the first Greek physicians to practice in Rome, practiced bloodletting extensively and gained a most sanguinary reputation.The popularity of bloodletting in Greece was reinforced by the ideas of Galen, after he discovered the veins and arteries were filled with blood, not air as was commonly believed at the time. There were two key concepts in his system of bloodletting. The first was that blood was created and then used up, it did not circulate and so it could 'stagnate' in the extremities. The second was that humoral balance was the basis of illness or health, the four humours being blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile, relating to the four Greek classical elements of air, water, earth and fire. Galen believed that blood was the dominant humour and the one in most need of control. In order to balance the humours, a physician would either remove 'excess' blood (plethora) from the patient or give them an emetic to induce vomiting, or a diuretic to induce urination.
Truthseeker
Sorry to ask you on this thread, but are you on an HLC? Just curious... Thanks
Could it be that the Bible does refer to these practices in the "abstain from blood" passages?
No.
"Blood" was not mentioned in an open or general context. "Blood" was not the topic of conversation in the story. The necessity (Or lack thereof) for Gentile converts to follow the Law was the topic. Therefore the reference to blood is subordinate to that context.
The Law forbade the eating of blood -- Acts 15 & 21 reference only that prohibition --period, end of discussion.
Sorry to ask you on this thread, but are you on an HLC? Just curious... Thanks
No AllTime Jeff, but I expect to be meeting with the local HLC elder so he can explain the blood policy to me since I am so "confused" about it. I was led to believe that some old WT material had indicated that the ancients had tried out some crude form of transfusion. Does anyone know of any documentation? It sounds preposterous to me, but you know the WT will grasp at anything...
TS
It is estimated that one hundred jws die every year around the globe for the simply reason of not taking an transfusion, an awful shame in a human sense.
Does it not seem scripturally correct to heal somebody when they are sick, Jesus did it when he came upon a sick person.
The bible says to respect life as if it was your own and Jesus's greatest commandment above all was to love one another !
Walk in his foot steps if you are to please God and so on..........
I hardly think by taking in blood from another person in an effort to heal them would be displeasing to god in a biblical sense, you can still respect the
sacredness of blood in it's meaning and give blood to heal and at the same time keep true to biblical guidelines.
The abstaining law was handed down to the people then at a time when the religious leaders thought the people were disrespecting the use of it.
Perhaps they were drinking it, and there is written history to support that. Perhaps they were dying their cloths with it or even painting with it,
but given the human social mindset at that particular time of history one can only imagine.
The WTS will never change their policy on blood transfusions and I mean never. All jw's know by now that many of their chosen flock have perished due to not taking a transfusion.
If this was to change abruptly the damaging effect would be too weakening to their power structure and they certaintly wouldn't take a chance at that.
The jws obviously forgot the inportance of the sacredness of life which was stressed even more from Jesus Christ !
Corruption follows power.......
I thought I'd resurrect this thread as I found some interesting information about this very topic, when I was doing research on my project. It seems that blood transfusions were known in the ancient world after all:
"Blood transfusion makes its entreé - The idea of using blood from a healthy person to transfer youth and vitality to an old or sick one is very ancient. It existed in Egyptian medicine as early as two thousand years before Christ. Similar speculations are found in classical antiquity, as with Ovid: Draw only the swords and quick, the changed blood drains from his body - I fill his veins with the younger...”-----The Illustrated History of Surgery, by Knut Haeger, 1988, 1990ed., p. 135
If this practice was known in Egypt "two thousand years before Christ", then the Israelites would have been familiar with this practice by the Egyptians when they were enslaved in Egypt (assuming the story of the Exodus is true). So that of course begs the question: If the practice of transferring blood from one human being to another was known in the ancient world, and if Jehovah wanted a ban on this practice in ancient times, then why is there no scriptural reference to a "blood transfusion" found anywhere in the bible?
I think this is something that ALL Witnesses need to be made aware of: blood transfusions were known back then----there's just no mention of them in the bible.
Whereas they may have tried, they could not have succeeded - an impossibility. The types of blood were not understood until the advent of biology technologies not introduced into mainstream science until the last century. ie, if you were to place AB type blood into someone needing A, they would die very quickly - probably quicker than the reason they needed blood to begin with. It causes Agglutination. Therefore it cannot have been a common practice used back then.
Whereas they may have tried, they could not have succeeded - an impossibility. The types of blood were not understood until the advent of biology technologies not introduced into mainstream science until the last century. ie, if you were to place AB type blood into someone needing A, they would die very quickly - probably quicker than the reason they needed blood to begin with. It causes Agglutination. Therefore it cannot have been a common practice used back then.
You're right---they didn't know about the different blood types and I'm sure people died in their attempt to do it. That is not in dispute. The point I was making is that the transfusing of blood from one human to another was practiced (or at least attempted) in ancient times, yet the bible makes no mention of lumping this practice in with eating animal blood. It therefore stands to reason that the Society's ban on blood transfusions based soley on the scriptures saying "you must not eat" the blood, should not be applied to blood transfusions amongst humans.
None of that really matters anyway. Here is why (((TODAY))) the WT Society is flat-out WRONG ON BLOOD!
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/150613/1.ashx
