How Would You Prove That Abstaining From Blood Is Not Prohibiting Transfusions?

by minimus 53 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  tenyearsafter

  The whole blood issue becomes so lost in the argument that after a while you can't see the forest for the trees!

  Reniaa...there is no doubt that the prohibition on blood in both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures refers to DIETARY restrictions...to make the jump to medical use is illogical. Though there are medical risks to using blood, that is not a rationale for abstaining from blood. Having surgery is also a risk...would you decline that? IV administration of blood has no connection to eating blood! As has been pointed out before, if you were "fed" via IV only, you would starve to death...IV administration supports circulatory volume and oxygenation. As Jamie points out, if you only were given blood via IV you would definitely starve to death! To equate it with eating is total nonsense.

  I like how Moggy put it...to simplify Acts 15 with the WT explanation misses the entire point of the scripture.
• 

  minimus

  JWs are such hypocrites. They justify accepting some blood components from a donor but forbid a JW from providing the exact same service.

  They will accept vaccinations which contain blood components but tell you that accepting plasma is against God's law.

  They eat meat. They are not eating bloodless meat. They certainly are accepting meat and blood , so they are not truly abstaining from blood. Jehovah's Witnesses are a walking contradiction!
• 

  tenyearsafter

  I agree minimus...there are so many inconsistencies in the whole blood argument...eating meat, accepting blood fractions and transplants (no such thing as a bloodless donor organ!). Though I can see some logic (minimally!) in certain WT arguments for neutrality, not being involved in politics and certain doctrinal issues, the blood argument is too far fetched for even a very broad thinking individual to accept! Unless you are willing to completely suspend rational thinking and logic you are hard pressed to defend it, much less die for it!
• 

  isaacaustin

  LOL like usual, once shot down the wannabes run and are AWOL
• 

  tenyearsafter

  And...I don't accept the argument that blood fractions and transplants are a conscience issue...what a cop out!
• 

  tenyearsafter

  Amen to that Isaac!
• 

  Joshnaz

  My mom (a fanatic JW) used to eat rare steak all the time. As a kid we were learning about blood transfusions. When I saw all the blood comming from the steak I remember saying, "ewe! look at all the blood. My mom refused to acknowledge what it really was and said, "No. Its juice." I never knew there was a thing called steak juice, but as a 5 year old what else was I to believe.

  After years of being out of the ORG, and being disowned by my family. I recently started to come in contact with my family again. I had dinner with my sister. (also a fanatic JW) She order steak. (rare) She said, "the bloodier the better." I couldn't help but think what a hippocrit she was, but I didn't say anything. It was the first time in 10 years I was able to talk to my sister.

  JWS are so backwards they'll die before they recieve proper medical treatment, but still eat blood just as the bible teaches not to. I guess its OK if you believe that the blood is juice, but what if you just say that the transfusion bag attached to your I.V. is juice. I Guess that would be OK too!
• 

  Finally-Free

  Leviticus 3:17

  17 “‘It is a statute to time indefinite for YOUR generations, in all YOUR dwelling places:YOU must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’”

  Q. Why do JWs make such a stink over blood but don't say a word about eating fat?

  A. Because they are f*cking hypocrites.

  W
• 

  TD

  ML,

  Something you said piqued my interest:

  What does "apecho" translated as "abstain" mean? Is it purely a dietary term involving the ingesting of fluids into the body? The fact that it is used with "idolatry" and "fornication" shows that it has a range of meanings extending to conditions beyond the human digestive system. For this reason several mainline conservative scholars believe that "abstaining from blood" takes in, not only the need to refrain from taking into the body but to avoid any contact with blood whatever. Thus abstaining from blood can, using "abstaining from idolatry" as a locus, mean also "abstaining from spilling blood.

  In modern Greek, the infinitive middle form is a negation of action nearly identical in use and function to the English, "Abstain." For example, if I wanted to say:

  abstain from wine = apechete apo to krasi

  abstain from milk = apechete apo to gala

  abstain from blood = apechete apo to haima

  abstain from paint = apechete apo to chroma

  abstain from murder = apecheta apo te dolophonia

  etc. etc...

  "Abstain" is overwhelmingly preferred by English Bible translators of all stripes for the ancient form, apechesthai, for the exact same reason. It's usage in literature is nearly identical:

  ..kardias te apechesthai kai kuamon.. = abstain from [eating] heart and beans (Suda, Pythagorus 3124)

  ..apechesthai twn sarkikwn = "abstain from carnal desires" (1 Peter 2:11)

  ..apechesthai brwmatwn.. = "abstain[ing] from food (1 Timothy 4:3)

  ..apechesthai ai apo kakon.. = "to abstain from evil" (Job 28:28 LXX)

  ..apechesthai twn allotriwn = abstain from [what is] another's (Aristotle)

  ..phonon t'apechesthai = abstain from murder (Orpheus)

  Therefore I'm intrigued by the idea of the expression having a range of meanings other than simple negation. I'm even more intrigued that a scholar would believe that the implicitness of the negated action would be carte blanche for any interpolation.
• 

  Tuesday

  I don't wanna open a can of worms here, but, how safe are blood transfusions and, truly, are they the only alternatice available ?

  Does anyone know how many lives have been saved due to blood transfusions and how many lives have suffered ( healthy wise) due to them?

  I believe that the statistic is 1 in 500,000 blood transfusions have a complication. Now that's just complication, the number gets MUCH greater for a disease to be contracted, the blood to be rejected, etc. These are simply complications which in itself is pretty low, complications could mean that the blood transfusion doesn't effect the blood loss enough.

  I'm pretty sure I got that stat from the Red Cross website. There are alternatives to blood transfusions, the problem lies in that they are not always on hand like blood would be. If you're having an operation and they can secure an alternative before your scheduled surgery that's all well and good but in emergency situations it's sometimes not an option.

  All this will probably be a moot point in the years to come as synthetic blood has been created in a lab from stem cells, this will not be real blood but will act as it, it will not carry any sort of diseases and will be catered to the person receiving the blood specifically. This blood transfusion doctrine will really just be something to look back on with sadness at all the lost lives.

  Reniaa, interpretation is always up to debate with any scripture. The fact hers doesn't agree with yours doesn't mean yours is right. Unless you want to give us some ancient greek knowledge on the translation, but first could you give us your qualifications on it? Where did you study ancient Greek, from what professor who had studied it, what institution? What original manuscripts have you personally read and when? If you're basing it off of translations cited by the Watchtower, that is second hand knowledge and just as apt to be mis-quoted and taken out of context as anything else.