by stay young and beautiful 58 Replies latest jw friends
Such a tragedy. Two children growing up without a mother because of a mistranslation. It does seem to imply that a transfusion wouldn't have helped her. But we will never know. After reading the article I found this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/790967.stm
Couldn't she, for her childrens sake, have taken the transfusion and afterwards repent and she would be re-instated? Or do most witnesses not realize this? Or is this old light?
This is OUTRAGEOUS! What a waste! Now, those precious babies will be motherless and the husband is left a widow. Sad, sad, sad.
On pg 17 of the WTS How Can Blood Save Your Life? pamphlet, it states: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Oh really, Witnesses?.....Obviously not.
There are people (non-JWs) who choose NOT to undergo certain treatments (chemo therapy, radical surgery, artificial breathing apparatus, blood transfusions, etc.), and that's their choice. But, the difference is they don't have a RELIGION TELLING THEM WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO!!
Although it does save lives, it also has killed a lot of people. I know two people who it killed, one was my aunt and another was my daughter's husbands grandma. There were many aids cases transmitted by blood transfusions. So not all cases of blood tranfussions are life saving. I agreed to have a blood transfussion when I had my TURP if it was needed. I guess the odds are that it could help in most circumstances.
Ken P.
Hello people of little faith,
Acts 15:28,29 - "Abstain from blood" because (Gen.9:3-6) Blood represents life. God said in Levi.17:11,12 to Israel "No soul of you must eat blood". This Sister may be dead today but by her actions, she has demonstrated that she loves God and followed his comandment of 'no blood' and because of this we are sure she will awaken back to life in the comming new world (John 3:16). If you are a believer, you will see her be reunited with her children. But being that non of you will see this, then you will never see such miracle. Instead you will see the wrath of he who you all have disobeyed.
-Aleman
Aleman - You are you right! What are all these people complaining about?! She only died, afterall! She only left her children motherless, afterall?!
Yet even the ancient Jews knew that there was NO Proscription to taking in blood in an emergency!
Perhaps a book publsihing company should NOT be permitted to print its own version of the Bible!
If blood transfusions were wrong, don't you think the Jewish people would know that or do you think that it is just the followers of a twisted, lying, corrupt book publishing company that have a monopoly on 'Truth'?
Hello people of little faith,
Acts 15:28,29 - "Abstain from blood" because (Gen.9:3-6) Blood represents life. God said in Levi.17:11,12 to Israel "No soul of you must eat blood". This Sister may be dead today but by her actions, she has demonstrated that she loves God and followed his comandment of 'no blood' and because of this we are sure she will awaken back to life in the comming new world (John 3:16). If you are a believer, you will see her be reunited with her children. But being that non of you will see this, then you will never see such miracle. Instead you will see the wrath of he who you all have disobeyed.
-Aleman
Keeping drinking that WTS ale, and be drunk in the lies of the Harlot herself buddy.
Not taking the transfusion and ending one's life as a result is a worthless sacrifice to Jehovah. It means nothing more to him than the acts of the Baal worshipers who would cuts themselves and offer up their children as an act of obedience and worship.
Hi there I hope you can help. I work on the features desk of a weekly women's magazine. Having read in the newspaper today the sad story of Emma Gough who died after refusing a blood transfusion, I am looking to find a British case study in their 20s, 30s or 40s who may have gone through a similar experience with a loved one. Ideally, we'd be looking for a woman who's lost her husband, but could also be a man who's lost his wife in this way, or a woman who's lost her sister, etc. We'd be willing to pay for the story, or give a donation. I need to find someone asap this week (5th Nov). If this sounds like you, or you know someone who might be interested, please contact [email protected]
The Watchtower has used three main Scripture references in support of their forbidding of blood transfusions. The first verse is Genesis 9:4. Here a command is given that refers to "the eating of blood", certainly not receiving transfusions. They teach is a law forbidding the eating of blood was given to Noah, that the law is for all mankind, and not just the Israelites. Noah is commanded not to eat flesh that still had the blood in it; Noah is told not to eat living animals, or animals not properly drained of blood. Animals were slaughtered and their blood was drained, insuring their death, and then the bled meat could be eaten. God's people were not to "eat flesh with it’s life, that is its blood." This scripture does not refer to the eating of blood alone, since the blood was to be poured out, and the flesh was to be eaten.
The second and most convincing "proof text" that is used is found at Leviticus 17:10-16. Again, we find reference to the actual eating of the blood of animals. These verses are no way connected with transfusions between humans. Jehovah’s Witnesses point to this saying anyone who eats the blood of any flesh is to be "cut off." meaning being put to death. However, this is their unique misinterpretation of the passage. This text is also part of the Law and cannot be said to be applied to all of mankind. It is speaking directly to the offense of drinking blood. Because blood is at the heart of the Old Testament sacrificial system, and typified the blood of Christ, it carried a heavier penalty than eating unbled meat. In v. 15 we see the very mild penalty for eating unbled meat. The reason for the difference is that when an animal is killed by an Israelite he is to show his reverence for life and the atonement by pouring out the blood.
The law was for the Jews? In Deuteronomy 14:21, we find the Law on unbled flesh states, "You (Jews) shall not eat anything which dies of itself. You may give it to the alien who is in your town so that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner." We see that the law on eating unbled flesh and pouring out the blood applied ONLY to the Jews, since aliens and foreigners (Gentiles) were free to eat of it. It was in the context of the nation being separate and not do what the gentiles did around them.
What they forgot to take into account is Lev 3:17 You shall eat neither fat nor blood.'" So the prohibition is not just blood.
Leviticus 17:15-16 clearly shows that the punishment for violating this law on blood is to have one separated from the congregation for a short period of time. The law breaker must wash himself and his clothing and he will be unclean until evening, but then he will be clean (Leviticus 17:15-16). It is not an eternal punishment.
In Exodus 31 and Numbers 15:21, one finds that punishment for picking up stones (working) on the Sabbath was death. To work on the Sabbath was more serious than that of the drinking or eating of blood. in Samuel 14:31-32 records how the Israelites ate sheep, oxen, and calves "with their blood." Saul offered up a sacrifice to God, there was no punishment inflicted, and God went on the bless them.
Next is in Acts 15:20 says, "but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." V. 29 says, "that you abstain from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you do well.v.21, "For Moses, from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath." These verses point back to the Law of Moses in Leviticus 17:12 and 14, forbidding the eating of flesh with its blood in it. The abstaining from blood does in no way refer to receiving blood transfusions as the Watchtower's interpretation insinuates.
All of the prohibitions mentioned together here are concerned with the temple practices of the heathens, who in the idolatrous worship services that used animal blood in their rituals, and strangled animals during their ceremonies. As Christians we are not to participate but withdraw from such things. The Gentiles in their new found freedom were not seeing this in the way the Jewish brethren were. The command issued at the Acts 15 council to the church was on the behalf of the Jewish believers in the New Testament. The decree is a concession in view of the background of the "weaker brethren.' In 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 the 'stronger brother' is asked to restrict himself on the behalf of the 'weaker brother, so they may not stumble the weaker brother. Similarly in Acts 15, the Gentile believer is to restrict himself in respect for his Jewish brother's scruples regarding food laws. This principle regarding food laws is again repeated in Romans 14: where the apostle says, 'Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions." The same principle is used for eating meats sacrificed to idols, where the believer has the freedom to eat of it as long as it would not stumble the brethren.
When one turns to the Levitical Law, the context is not blood. The contextual meaning is sacrifice. The prohibition did apply to transfusions, even the most orthodox Jew, today from what I know, do not refuse blood transfusions on the basis of the Old Testament prohibitions, only the JW. The New Testament principle is this: Jesus asked the Pharisees, "Which of you shall have an donkey or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not go to pull him out on the sabbath day?" (Luke 14:5) The difference in Jesus example is that a life is being saved, even if it is only the life of an animal. To administer a blood transfusion to save a life is to endorse, or sustain, the preeminent value, which is life itself. The priority of the law is the sanctity of life. Jesus even used the example of David to prove this principle. David was permitted to eat the showbread, belonging only to the priest, in his time of need, he was not punished. (1 Sam. 21:6). The Bible's principle Jesus made clear in Mark 7:14 when He said, "Nothing that goes into a man from the outside can make him unclean." Therefore, no Jehovah’s Witnesses can become "unclean" by eating a blood product or receiving a transfusion. Not only does the Watchtower consider them unclean, but they are considered unworthy for eternal life. What manmade traditions do to punish sincere people who want to do what is right! If the blind lead the blind will they not both fall in a ditch?
ALEMAN - I know you have complete faith in what the Watchtower tell you is the correct interpretation of scripture "to abstain from blood". As they have been wrong about interpretations many times before ( their so-called New Light), it just might be worth considering that they are wrong about this very serious one too.
Maddie
The worshipers of Molech sacrificed their sons and daughters. (Jeremiah 32:35) The Watchtower Society does worse by sacrificing adults as well as children!
