I was doing some light reading today and saw the word "abstain" within a dictionary. This was the definition of the word abstain;
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abstain
1. To refrain from something by one's own choice
2. To refrain from voting
That's very interesting. Growing up as a Jehovah's Witness, I remember countless talks given by elders, ministerial servants that discussed the word "abstain" and "abstaining". I distinctly remember the information given about the word abstain and it clearly wasn't the same definition as given in the above dictionary.
"Abstain means that you must run away from", "get as far away from as possible", "have nothing to do with". Those are just a few of the phrases that I remember.
If abstain means that we have a choice in the matter of having/not having a blood transfusion, why are the WBTS so dead set against it? And secondly, can you post your comments on what you remember being told what the word abstain meant?
Before I go, I would also like to add that the phrase "we command you to" or "you must" abstain from blood, doesn't make any sense whatsoever, for if you are commanded to make a choice, then it stops being a choice and evolves into a task. If "task" was what the bible writer meant, why didn't he use it? Do you agree with this line of thought?
Kind regards
RAB
"Abstain from blood"
by God_Delusion 12 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
God_Delusion
-
angel eyes
Maybe the original word used for abstaining had a complete different meaning, which i would guess is the case, but abstaining is prberbly the nearest we could get to use a word as similar??? Just an idea
-
Olin Moyles Ghost
The whole JW blood issue is a classic example of the WTS picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to take literally. Allow me to explain.
Witnesses proudly state that they follow the Bible's clear command to COMPLETELY abstain from blood. To them, this includes completely abstaining from transfusions of whole blood or its four "major components."
But when it comes to other Bible commands that are phrased similarly, the Witnesses are more circumspect. Take for example, the equally clear command at 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: " let the women keep silent in the congregations , for i t is not permitted for them to speak , but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says. If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation ." (NWT, bold font added by me).
Here, Paul clearly commands women to keep silent in the congregation. Does the WTS teach that this means women must keep COMPLETELY silent? No. For the WTS allows women to give certain parts, demonstrations, and comments.
So, why does the WTS take one of Paul's commands (blood) to mean COMPLETE abstinence, but another of Paul's commands (silence of women in church) to be more flexible? It's just another example of the pick-and-choose theology of the WTS.
-
sacolton
Consider the example made by Daniel during his Babylonian captivity ... he REFUSED to eat the pagan food under any condition. He and his friends requested fruits, vegetables and nuts. He ABSTAINED from the pagan food.
Now, had he been a Jehovah's Witness, he would have ate a fraction of the pagan food and considered it okay with Jehovah.
If the blood issue was ever a means of losing ones salvation, Jesus would have made it very clear himself. He never brought it up. As a matter of fact, Jesus stated just the opposite considering anything we ingest:
“Hear me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.... Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?” (Mark 7:1-5, 14-19; RSV)
-
GapingMouth
I don't know why you were doing some light reading in the Dictionary, lol, but I can tell you the Zebra did it!
The Greek word used in the NWT I am told is ΑΠΟΧΗ αποχη and being as Greek is my second language and I use it every day can say I've heard the word used at "Apokries", which is kind of like a Greek halloween I guess, but isn't Halloween. I have heard it said "αποχη απο κρεασ" which is like saying "goodbye to meat" (as some fast). I don't think it's right to say it means "refrain" but its more in line with the greek word επιλογη which means "choice".
-
OnTheWayOut
Using a dictionary to show JW's how they misuse words doesn't really affect them.
If it did, certainly their misapplication of "generation" would be fatal to their movement.
-
sir82
Grammatically, "abstain from blood" doesn't even make sense.
You can only "abstain" from a verb, from doing something. You can't "abstain" from a noun.
If someone tells you to "abstain from telephones", what the heck does that mean? Don't call anyone? Don't buy one? Don't touch one?
Given the immediately preceding phrase "abstain from food sacrificed to idols", it's pretty clear the writer intended to convey the idea of abstaining from eating blood.
And as anyone with the intelligence of gravel or above can tell you, eating is not the same as transfusing.
If someone does think they are equivalent, ask them this: If a man were starving to death and admitted to a hospital, would a liver transplant help his condition? How about a kidney transplant?
Blood is an organ, just as the kidneys, liver, etc. are - the WT has admitted as much in print. A blood transfusion is an organ transplant. The WT allows any sort of organ transplant to its members - but somehow draws the line at transplanting the organ named "blood".
Of course this information is readily available to them, yet they persist in playing their "these fractions but not those fractions" games, resulting in the needless deaths of hundreds if not thousands of JWS.
-
TD
There's a lot of legitimate criticism that can be leveled at the NWT, but I think it actually does a very good job of capturing the infinitive use of the middle voice at Acts 15:29:
"to keep abstaining from...."
The Decree was not a statement of anything new, it was a continuation of existing prohibitions. --You are to continue to abstain from these things.
Of course, when it comes to transfusion medicine, the Witnesses need to pretend that the Decree was not just a reiteration of the existing prohibitions against eating blood, but was actually an expansion upon them. In this instance, their own translation is not good enough for them and they use the phrase, "Abstain from blood" as an independent construction.
But in line with what Sir82 said above, when the English word, "Abstain" is used in connection with an object or thing, the phrase by itself is neither grammatically nor semantically complete. For it to be complete, the reader must deduce the prohibited act or acts based upon the surrounding context.
Here's a simple example to illustrate this:
A man's dermatologist tells him, "Persons with sensitive skin should abstain from alcohol."
A woman's obstetrician tells her, "Pregnant women should abstain from alcohol."
Even though both doctors have used the phrase, "Abstain from alcohol," they clearly are not talking about the same thing. In the context of pregnancy, abstaining from alcohol means not drinking beverages which contain it. In the context of sensitive skin, abstaining from alcohol means not applying preparations containing it directly to the skin.
The man and woman have both been told entirely different things. There is nothing stopping the woman from using cosmetics containing alcohol and there is nothing preventing the man from drinking beverages containing it. Similarly, abstaining from eating blood has absolutely nothing to do with transfusing blood unless the two are equivalent acts.
In ancient Greek, the grammar is not the same; we're dealing with an infinitive (Apechesthai) instead of an intransitive verb, (Abstain) but the idiomatic content of the phrase is virtually identical to the English, "Abstain" and for this reason, English translators of all stripes overwhelmingly prefer that word:
..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)
As with English, we have a dependency on the surrounding context when the prohibited act or acts are not specifically named. (e.g. The first example from Pythagorus above is specific to the act of eating.)
Grammar may sound complicated, but there's a very easy way to test this. Consider the following two phrases:
"Abstain from fornication"
"Abstain from blood"
Without inserting any new words, I can easily state an abstention from fornication as a finite negative because fornication is the name of an act and therefore has a verb form:
"Do not fornicate."
But we obviously can't do the same thing with an abstention from blood.
"Do not _____"
And that is the problem with the JW "Abstain" argument. In context, the phrase is specific to the act of eating blood and is not relevant to transfusion. Out of context, the phrase is incomplete and invoking it as an independent construction is ungrammatical.
-
God_Delusion
I think only GapingMouth has fully understood what it is I am implying.
I know all about JW's and blood/blood fractions and the like, I was one for 30 years unfortunately. What I am saying is that the word in the Greek Testament "Abstain", means "Choice". Even the Greek text, which GapingMouth so graciously explained, means "Choice".
Therefore, we are asked to make a choice, a decision if you will, on whether or not to take blood. So, why does the WBTS disfellowship those that have blood transufusions? After all, if we abstain from blood, then we are making the choice to either have a transfusion or not.
Regards
RAB
-
God_Delusion
Cheers TD, your comment was spot on.
Regards
RAB