JW Science Quote (2-5)

by TD 29 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  TD

  In his 1898 novel, War Of The Worlds, H.G. Wells depicted the earth under attack by a race that had evolved past the need of eating to obtain nourishment. These beings, in fact, had no digestive organs of any sort:

  "Entrails they had none. They did not eat, much less digest. Instead, they took the fresh, living blood of other creatures and injected it into their veins…..The physiological advantages of the practice of injection are undeniable, if one thinks of the tremendous waste of human time and energy occasioned by eating and the digestive process. Our bodies are half made up of glands and tubes and organs, occupied in turning heterogeneous food into blood."

  Although an entertaining read, Wells had completely misunderstood the function of blood even by the science of his day. Injecting the "fresh living blood of other creatures" will not sustain any being of flesh and blood because blood is not the "food" upon which the body is sustained, it is only the transport mechanism.

  Well's idea reflected a centuries old misconception about blood that goes back at least to Galen in the 2nd century. This week's installment in the science quotes of "Celebrated JW scholars" concerns what is arguably the mother of all their science blunders. It will show with scans from their period literature that these "Celebrated scholars" conceived and formulated the prohibition against transfusion medicine based primarily on the same fallacious reasoning of H.G. Wells.

  Although there are passing references here and there, the very first direct condemnation of transfusion medicine ever to appear in JW literature is from the December 1, 1944 issue of The Watchtower, page 362:

  

  You can see that transfusion is directly linked with eating blood, but the basis for the link is not actually explained. A similar quote appears in the July 1, 1945 issue of The Watchtower on page 200.

  The September 22, 1949 issue of Awake! featured an entire article on the subject, but the reasoning was almost enitirely circular. Blood transfusion is unscriptural....because it is unscriptural. Oh, and it was practised by the ancient Egyptians; the enemies of God's people.....

  

  The December 1, 1949 issue of The Watchtower also spoke against transfusion. This time they actually stated a quasi-scientific justification for the link.

  

  Transfusion is claimed to be simply a more direct route to the blood stream than eating. Not surprisingly, these 1949 Watchtower and Awake! articles precipitated a flood of letters from within the Witness community and it became necessary to address the major points of dissent. The link between the eating of blood and the transfusion of blood was finally stated openly in the July 1, 1951 issue of The Watchtower on page 415:

  

  And there you have it. Transfusion is held to be exactly the same thing as intravenous feeding. The original 1953 edtion of the book Make Sure Of All Things included this view as an official answer for believing Jehovah's Witnesses to give to outsiders:

  

  As strange as it may seem, the JW prohibition against transfusion medicine originated from of all things, a premise also found in 19th century science fiction. "Celebrated JW scholars" had completely misunderstood the function of blood.
• 

  paul from cleveland

  TD, I don't see your point. All those scriptures in your post just say 'don't eat blood'. They don't say not to eat blood only if you view it as food but if you view it as medicine it's okay. Am I missing something?
• 

  TD

  Hi Paul,

  I did not quote any scriptures. --These "JW Science Quotes" are not about scriptural interpretation or views at all. They are about misunderstanding basic concepts in the physical sciences.

  Anyone claiming that OT prohibitions against eating blood would also apply to transfusion medicine must be able to demonstrate that transfusion is in some way equivalent to eating blood. Do you think they are the same? If so, how would you make the argument?

  Watchtower leaders and policy makers originally tried to make the argument that they were the same based on a misunderstanding of biology.

  From the time of the Roman physician, Claudius Galen it was thought that the food we eat was converted into blood and that blood itself was the food upon which our bodies are internally sustained. Anyone handicapped by this mistaken notion could easily draw the conclusion that prohibitions against eating blood would, by extension apply to transfusion as well.

  This is clearly what happened with Watchtower leaders and policy makers in the 1940's. They honestly thought that transfusion was a form of intravenous feeding and openly said so. The ban on transfusion medicine was born primarily out of a misunderstanding of science, not a misunderstanding of scripture.

  This misconception lived on for many years in JW literature. (Clear up into the 1970's) Watchtower writers thought that nutritional benefit was the litmus test against which medical procedures involving blood should be judged. Blood fractions were in fact first allowed in 1958 on the basis that they, "Did not nourish the body."
• 

  paul from cleveland

  TD, I know you didn't quote scriptures, I meant that I read the scriptures cited in the Watchtower quotes. Even if the Witnesses use the argument that we shouldn't eat blood because of it's nutritional benefits, the scriptures don't say that's the reason. The bible just says not to eat blood and doesn't give much of a reason other than, to God, it seems to represents the life of the animal. It must be holy to God somehow. The Witnesses may be wrong about the reason we shouldn't eat blood but the bible still seems pretty clear that we shouldn't do it. Given God's stated reason (not the Watchtower's), I don't see how transfusing it would be any different.
• 

  Farkel

  TD,

  Good topic. I noticed these quotes in that 1944 WT and they raise some interesting issues:

  "Not only as a descendant of Noah, but now also as one bound by God's law to Israel which incorporated the everlasting covenant regarding the santity of life-sustaining blood, the stranger was forbiddento eat or drink blood, whether by transfusion or by the mouth.

  This is also classic circular reasoning. I won't dispute the so-called "everlasting Noachian covernant", but rather Israel's law covenant. Jesus said Christians were no longer bound by that law. That is crystal clear. How then, can Christians "NOW also be bound by the law?" I know that the article asserted that the Noachian covenant was "incorporated" into the law covenant, but where's the proof that is the case? If it WAS the case, then it was PART of the old Law and thus became non-binding with Jesus, everlasting or not everlasting. It makes a lot more logical sense to assert that the two were separate covenants, one everlasting, the other temporary. It makes no logical sense that they were merged into one law and then Jesus came along and essentially said, "the law is no longer binding upon you, except the everlasting covenant part, which is now again removed from the law as it was before it was added to the law. Got all that, my disciples?"

  Second, this very strange statement: "the stranger was forbidden to eat or drink blood, whether by transfusion or by the mouth." Didn't know the "strangers" back then practiced blood transfusions! What did they use for needles, anyway? "Strangers" referred to in the Bible were never Jews, but outsiders." Thus, their argument applies not to Jews but to strangers! What kinda shit was Freddie boy smoking when he wrote that, anyway?

  "Even the touching and eating of a dead carcass not slain by man for needed food required him to undergo cleansing according to God's law."

  This is another strange comment. One was only required to undergo "cleansing according to God's law if one touched or ate a dead carcass NOT slain by man?" I guess it was ok to eat the guy for needed food if you killed him, then. But only in moderation, of course.

  What a pile of convoluted horseshit. But it's not funny in the least. Thousands and thousands of people have died for no reason because of this convoluted horseshit and the ones who promoted it are drenched in the blood guilt they have forced upon those who believed this horseshit and sacrificed their lives because of it.

  Farkel
• 

  TD

  Hi Paul,

  Given God's stated reason (not the Watchtower's), I don't see how transfusing it would be any different.

  From this, I would guess that you believe the equivalency between the consumption of blood and the transfusion of blood is moral rather than physical (?)

  If this is just a "gut feeling" that is not easily put into words, that's fine. Gut feelings are not entirely without merit at the individual level. But as a mandatory religious doctrine that include sanctions for non-compliance, the JW teaching on blood is not comparable to an individual gut feeling.

  The original JW objection to transfusion medicine was constructed as a classical Aristotelian three-point syllogism:

  A. The Bible forbids eating blood

  B. Transfusion is simply a more modern way to eat blood

  QED - The Bible forbids transfusion

  Premise A is true. Premise B is true only if it can be proven --Which is why an argument of equivalency becomes a necessity. JW literature started off with the idea that they were physically equivalent. Over the years, the argument has morphed into an equally flawed claim of moral equivalency.

  But regardless of whether this percieved equivalency is physical, moral, ontological or something else entirely, you couldn't reasonbly expect others to accept the idea that transfusion profanes or desecrates the sacredness of blood in the absence of a reasoned explanation. The burden of proof falls on the claimant
• 

  TD

  Farkel,

  Thanks! The 1944 article was entitled, "The Stranger's Right Maintained." At the time, they were teaching that the "Sojourners" or "Strangers" in Israel were a prophetic type for the "Jonadabs."

  The writing style is Franz, but the wild allegory smacks of Rutherford era thinking. The only proof the article offers in support of the idea that the Law was binding was the allegory itself. --As you point out, entirely circular.

  The little quip about transfusion was not even necessary to the article, but looking back, it does suggest that the wheels were already turning in Freddy's head. The point of the article was that the Jonadabs should be allowed to offer prayer at meetings, give talks, conduct Bible studies etc. even if there were anointed it the audience.
• 

  paul from cleveland

  If transfusions are okay then why isn't it okay to take the blood in through your mouth? What difference does it make which orafice you use? Are transfusions okay because you skip the digestive system? What is it specifically about your mouth that makes it wrong to take in blood this way? Also, doesn't the bible say that the blood is supposed to poured out onto the ground? To me, the burden of proof would lie on the person claiming there is somehow a difference.
• 

  Aeiouy

  @ Paul from Cleveland

  This is how I understand the issue. And I'm pulling quotes from jwfacts.com as I feel their research is very comprehensive:

  The consumption of blood cells is not an issue in the Bible, as meat could be eaten despite containing blood. The issue was respect for the sanctity of life. Though Biblical laws on blood changed over time, showing respect for life never has. Is refusing blood in a life or death situation showing such respect? It is interesting to examine the scriptural development.

  Genesis 9:4 "Only flesh with its soul - its blood - YOU must not eat."

  This command is about respect for animal life during the ritual of slaughter. This does not state that blood could not be eaten. In its strict Hebrew wording, it means that an animal should not have flesh torn off it for food, whilst the animal is still alive. In general, it is understood to mean that out of respect for the life of an animal, it was to be bled when being killed for food; a command against eating things strangled.

  The Watchtower uses this as a key scripture to show that blood transfusions must not be used, attempting to apply it to the consumption of blood - human blood. Neither point is made in this scripture. Even the Watchtower originally recognised that Genesis 9:4 did not apply to eating blood, as shown in the following article that attempted to prove that vaccinations were wrong.

  "All reasonable minds must conclude that it was not the eating of the blood that God objected to, but it was bringing the blood of the beast in contact with the blood of man." Golden Age 1931 February 4 p.294

  There is one occasion that on the surface may appear to complicate the issue on blood, and is the key scripture used by the Watchtower Society to justify its stance. At Acts 15:21 it is recorded that the Apostles and Older Men gave a decree to "abstain from blood". At first glance this may be taken to imply that the Mosaic Law was to continue applying to Christians in regard to consumption of blood. This is how Jehovah's Witnesses currently understand this scripture and is their predominate support for refusing blood transfusions.
  
  Acts 15:21 does not apply to blood transfusions when understood in its historical and religious setting. It is not understood by the majority of Christian religions to be a binding command, nor was it understood as such by Pastor Russell. As already shown, the Noahide law on blood did not forbid eating blood, but was about showing respect when killing an animal. Blood transfusions do not involve taking life.

  @Paul

  So the way I understand it, is when this law was made it had a direct correlation to the taking of a life, and showing respect for that life taken. It wasn't the eating that was wrong, it was the disrespect shown for a DEAD animal. As the JWFacts website stated, blood transfusions do not involve the taking of a life. Therefore, the scripture does not apply to transfusions. You have to look at why the law was made, not just what it said. It had absolutely nothing to do with the physical digesting of the blood. Simply the respect shown for a dead animal.

  Of course, this is only if you believe the bible is god's word. And again, just the way I understand it. Wouldn't be an issue if everyone thought the same way.

  Aeiouy

  Quotes taken from www.jwfacts.com
• 

  paul from cleveland

  The issue was respect for the sanctity of life. Though Biblical laws on blood changed over time, showing respect for life never has. Is refusing blood in a life or death situation showing such respect?

  Aeiouy, This argument seems to make the most sense to me. Thank you.