How strong is our faith on this issue of the Blood?

by wannabe 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • wobble

    A teaching based on a totally false exegesis of Acts 15 too Hamsterbait.

    Nobody should put faith in the WT explanations of anything, that is putting faith in men who have been proved not only to be in error, but to be liars too.

  • TD


    First of all, you are anachronistically projecting pseudo scientific concepts into the text that the original audience could not possibly have understood and presenting them as the greater meaning of the Scripture. You are committing the fallacy of the invisible interpreter (Again)

    Second, you are failing to distinguish between literal and metaphorical usages of the word, 'Blood.' (Gen 9:5,6) Most animals don't have hands (Gen 9:5) and even with humans, hands are not the source of blood. 'Hands' in this case are a metaphor for instrumentality and 'Blood' is a metaphor for life. There is no lucid way to interpret God asking 'Blood' back from the 'Hands' of both man and beast except as a reference to 'Bloodguilt' or 'Lifedebt.' i.e. 'Blood on your hands.'

    Third: Erythrocytes in circulation carry no DNA. The differences in blood groups are the result of the presence or absence of surface antigens on the cell membranes. If you're going to make an issue over the protein structure on cell membranes, then as 'Hamsterbait' has already pointed out, both pre and post exposure innoculations and vaccines alter your blood more than this.

    Fourth: The idea that physical blood may not be altered is untenable unless you go back and start reading even more unstated stipulations and provisos into the text. Pregnancy permanently alters a woman's blood. A woman can still have fetal nucleated precursor cells in circulation more than forty years after her last pregnacy. Just the act of growing up permanently alters your blood. Fetal erythrocytes are different in structure and contain a different form of hemoblobin than those of an adult.

    Fifth: Your line of reasoning does not account for the fact that monochorionic twins, triplets ect. share a common placenta and blood supply in utero anymore than JW reasoning on blood does. If God is fundamentally opposed to the physical exchange of blood between two individuals, then why does it happen naturally?

    Sixth: Transfused blood is very transitory. Erythrocytes only last 90 to 120 days in circulation. When the membrane becomes damaged, they are destroyed in a process called erythrophagocytosis. They are gone after that.

    Seventh: You start jumping between a physical and ontological comparison again when you get onto the subject of race. Why should anyone believe that the type A, Kell and RH negative blood of a black man is different in God's sight than the same blood from a white man especially when you provide no scientific basis for that idea? Your reasoning smacks of racism.

Share this