The Watchtower are Right About Blood... (page 16)

defender of truth

Fisherman said:
"The person became unclean as a result of violating the law. (He did not become ceremonially unclean. He became unclean.)"
....

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
"Neither shall ye make yourselves unclean.—But not only is it disgusting to eat these abominable creatures, but their carcases defile and debar him who comes in contact with them from entering into the sanctuary and from partaking of the sacrificial meal."

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible- Leviticus 11:43
"... that ye should be defiled thereby; in a ceremonial sense."
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/11-43.htm

The context of Leviticus 11:43 does seem to indicate it would make someone ceremonially unclean, so your statement does not seem to make any sense.

Assuming that you meant that anyone who ate these swarming creatures would be, not just ceremonially unclean, but also (at that time) unclean and loathsome in Gods eyes.. What of it?

The command in Exodus was a general instruction to not eat an animal's dead body, found torn apart by another animal. This could happen in or around Israelite dwelling places.
That is good hygiene, as SAHS pointed out.

The instruction to bathe in Leviticus 17:15 was after an animal had been found dead by someone specifically whilst they were hunting for food, according to the context.

And how does Leviticus 17:15 even relate to Leviticus 7:26?
Chapter 7 is clearly talking about animal sacrifices, animals killed and offered as sacrifices in Israelite dwelling places. (Anyone can read the chapter themselves and see that).

Without a clear explanation of your specific point relating to this topic, you are wasting space.
Please explain, and state your point clearly.

defender of truth

David Faucetton March 6, 2015 at 12:57 PM said:
" Lev. 7:26 says:
'You must not eat any blood in any places where you dwell.'
It would be highly unlikely that an Israelite would have unbled meat ‘in his dwelling’. [ see my footnote at the end of this post* ]

If he was in his dwelling there should be plenty of food, including bled meat, available to eat.

As noted Lev. 17:13 discusses the situation where someone is hunting, perhaps days away from his home.

[ https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+17%3A13-15&version=NIV ]

If he has been unsuccessful in killing an animal he might be in danger of starvation.
In that case if he came across an animal already dead he was allowed to eat it. Jehovah did not require an Israelite to starve to death just because he was unsuccessful as a hunter."

This comment was taken from the end of this article:
http://ajwrb.org/bible/questions-from-readers

To reiterate the point I am trying to make here: in a situation where life is in danger, or at least where the person needed to eat something,
even though the animal has obviously not been drained of blood and the hunter would be aware of that fact, it was allowed.

The hunter's first choice would undoubtedly be to make their own fresh kill, then drain the blood and pour it out to God. It would be safer, and would be in line with his religious beliefs.

But even God's Law clearly made an allowance for a person who needed to eat, who likely did not want to disobey the command made in the Law, but could do so when it was necessary.
Otherwise a hunter could starve to death.
Once he was back at home, the hunter could then make the decision to reject food that still had blood in it, because there were other options available.
His life was not in danger.

Can anyone see the comparison between this example and that of someone who NEEDS a blood transfusion in a life-or-death situation?

* Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
"in any of your dwellings;
this shows that this law is not to be restrained to creatures slain in sacrifice in the tabernacle, and to the blood of them, but to be understood of all such as were slain in their own houses for food, and the blood of them."

This is important to understand the context of the command at Leviticus 7:26.

Fisherman

EdenOne say: So, if there's such a distinction, what was the penalty for "uncleaness", not in the cerimonial sense?

In Lev 11:43, you were viewed as a loathsome thing (disgusting) in the eyes of God) and also to the whole nation. That is what the verse says. It was like being viewed as having having leprosy

Lev 11:40 seems to apply to accidental eating or touching of a dead (food type) animal, hence because it was not a deliberate act, God made a "ceremonial" provision to restore a clean state. But if someone did not follow the "ceremonial" steps to restore his cleanness:

Lev 19:20 “‘But the man who is unclean and who will not purify himself, that person must be cut off from the congregation, because he has defiled Jehovah’s sanctuary. The water for cleansing was not sprinkled on him, so he is unclean.

Being unclean is not a penalty, it is a condition. Imagine someone having a communicable infectious disease, or someone that stunk like filth. For whatever reasons, when a person became unclean under the Mosaic law, there were requirements that had to be met to restore his cleanness.

tired now,

Fisherman

defender of truth says: commentary again

I have responded to your previous post. Now I am having a dialogue with Eden and Cofty. Please do not charge me with contempt on this thread. You should not be arbitrator and advocate at the same time, sir.

compare Leviticus 17:10-12 with Lev17:15

There was a difference between eating blood and eating unbled meat. The penalty for eating blood under the Mosaic Law was death.(period no question mark)

Sometimes, unbled meat could be eaten. But blood could never be eaten. I have nothing more to say on this topic for now.

EdenOne

Being unclean is not a penalty, it is a condition. Imagine someone having a communicable infectious disease, or someone that stunk like filth. For whatever reasons, when a person became unclean under the Mosaic law, there were requirements that had to be met to restore his cleanness.

Anyone can see that a law, in order to be enforced, needs some sort of deterrent value to be effective. Without such deterrent value - punishment for violating the law - the purpsose of the law, which is to prevent crimes or actions that offend the society or offend God, is devoided of meaning. You are still to produce evidence that "unclean" is any different than "cerimonially unclean" when it comes to the practical consequences of violating the precepts of the Law.

Plus, you need to justify the desproportionate penalty for eating blood (death) and the penalty for eating unbled meat from an animal found dead in the fields (uncleaness).

Eden

Fisherman

To be viewed by everyone and by God as filth is not a deterrent for eating a hawk?

Eden, if you ate an owl or a rat or a pig, showing contempt for God's law. You could not just wash and everything would be ok. These animals sometimes carried disease too. There was a reason why God did not allow eating them. Also, if you made it a habit to eat owl lets say, you could not just wash every time you did it and expect God and the community to say it was ok. There were no medical doctors back then either. One exposure was enough and you could contaminate the whole nation. Eating a dead food type animal was different to God, he made restoration provisions. I showed you the text. That is my view.

Regarding blood, show me one verse where God allowed Israel to eat blood. Unbled meat sometimes, but never blood.

defender of truth

Fisherman:

"Regarding blood, show me one verse where God allowed Israel to eat blood. Unbled meat sometimes, but never blood."

It was established in the Original Post that we can accept that God did not allow Israel to eat blood, only unbled meat at times. If that is the only thing you can say on this subject though, that's fine...

Going back to the point Cofty was making in the first place, can you show me one verse where God required blood to be poured out (on the ground or on an altar), except for a situation where a life had been taken by someone?

Laika

Hi all (good thread). Re: Acts, the context is the important thing. If you had a serious illness and your doctor told you to abstain from alcohol you would understand this means drinking it and that you can still use deodorant containing alcohol. If you had a skin problem and a dermatologist told you to abstain from alcohol you would know you can still have a glass of red wine.
The point is that it's not possible to actually 'abstain from blood' (think about it) you can only abstain from an action relating to blood, the verse in Acts is about the action of eating or drinking it, not transfusions.

cofty

Still don't have time yet to respond but I will shortly.

Thank you DOT.

Being unclean was not a crime in any sense. The many ordinary things that resulted in a person being unclean have already been explained.

Fisherman - Your challenge is to show that having sex with your own wife was a sin. If you can do that you have a point. Otherwise you don't.

The crime was to neglect to observe the purification ritual.

Later...

Finkelstein

To the ancient Hebrews blood had significant sacredness to it, later on when Christ appeared human life had significant sacredness. The healing and caring for the sick is part of Christ's greatest commandment.

So what are people who identify themselves as Christians hold more relevance and acceptance in their dedication

in their faith to Christ ?

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

Share this