The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty 556 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Finkelstein

  The JWS intermingling with the old Hebraic law of abstaining from blood, goes onto the ridiculous on many levels.

  Cofty pointed one important aspect by noting that the blood becomes sacred only upon the death of an animal.

  Blood transfusions as their applied into medical practice does not come from a dead person or animal so this law becomes irrelevant..

  The most strident Orthodox Jews understand this in their practice of Kosher killing of animals for consumption.

  If blood was derived from a dead person or animal, then this law would become more relevant.
• 

  cofty

  This is not just an intellectual debate. The lives of children are at stake.

  The onus is 100% on JWs and JW sympathisers to show beyond all doubt that allowing a child to die rather than permit a blood transfusion is clearly demanded in scripture.

  The fact that an Israelite could eat the unbled flesh on an animal "found already dead" should make it impossible to reach such a conclusion with a clear conscience. At the very least any honest person would have to admit there may be more to the question of blood than they had previously thought.

  Resorting to ridiculous excuses like saying the verse was talking about "inadvertently" eating a dead animal, and approving of risking a child's life on that basis, is shameful.
• 

  Fisherman

  He who eats

  You presume too much from these 3 words.
  
• 

  LisaRose

  Why does this fear of bloodguilt not affect their decision to allow a child to die?

  Beccause dying by refusing a blood transfusion is rewarded with praise by Watchtower, while using blood to save a life is still disparaged. They have tried to give an out by allowing fractions, but people have been taught to fear and loath transfusions for years, they will not always adopt more lenient guidelines out of irrational fear. They have also effectively taught people to fear making indecent decisions based on their own conscience, instead looking to the Watchtower for decide for them.

  I believe they really don't have a problem with using blood but are afraid to admit they were wrong, they would rather see people continue to die. Talk about blood guilt!
  
• 

  EdenOne

  Surely there is a difference between eating unbled meat from an animal found already dead and that of an animal killed by the man. The difference lies not in the blood itself but in the act of taking a life. The animal whose life was intentionally taken by a human should be bled before being eaten, because that blood was symbolic of taking a life, an act that only God can rightfully do. That's why to intentionally eat the blood off unbled meat from a slaughtered animal was punished with death, while eating from the unbled carcass of an animal found already dead resulted in uncleaness. The difference isn't in the blood itself, but in the fact that it represents life - not life in general, but a life TAKEN in a forcefully way by a human.

  The case of Jonathan and his men is interesting because it demonstrated a gray area - just how much time should one wait after slaughtering an animal before one could assume it had bled enough to be considered kosher? Some, like Saul, thought not enough time had passed. Others had a more liberal approach, interpreting the Law in a way that letting some blood to be poured into the ground was enough to respect the spirit of the Law. Eventually this interpretation prevailed, and Jonathan and his men not only weren't executed, no mention is made that they became "unclean".

  Eden
• 

  cofty

  You presume too much from these 3 words.

  I am accepting their most obvious meaning.

  You are willing to do anything to avoid a clear statement of scripture that contradicts your beliefs.

  "And if any animal which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until evening. He who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening. He also who carries its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening". - Lev.11:38,39
  
• 

  defender of truth

  William Draper-
  No, I'm afraid he did not plan on killing his son for that at all.
  It was for an unrelated matter to do with his son eating honey, not due to the soldiers eating blood.
  (1 Samuel 14:43
  Then Saul said to Jonathan, “Tell me what you have done.”
  So Jonathan told him, “I tasted a little honey with the end of my staff. And now I must die!”)
  
  Here is the account in question:

  
  1 Samuel 14:31
  That day, after the Israelites had struck down the Philistines from Mikmash to Aijalon, they were exhausted.

  
  32 They pounced on the plunder and, taking sheep, cattle and calves, they butchered them on the ground and ate them, together with the blood.
  
  

  33 Then someone said to Saul, “Look, the men are sinning against the Lord by eating meat that has blood in it.”
  “You have broken faith,” he said. “Roll a large stone over here at once.”
  
  

  34 Then he said, “Go out among the men and tell them, ‘Each of you bring me your cattle and sheep, and slaughter them here and eat them. Do not sin against the Lord by eating meat with blood still in it.’”
  So everyone brought his ox that night and slaughtered it there.
  
  ....
  
  Interesting point regarding these verses here:
  [talking about the comments from the Watchtower's blood brochure]

  "Is it reasonable to refer to a group of hungry soldiers as an emergency? This seems like simply an attempt to associate the account with modern medical emergencies requiring blood transfusions. Who of us would equate a life or death medical crisis to a band of hungry soldiers?"

  
  "On the other hand, what this Bible story does teach us is quite interesting. Note what happens to these hungry soldiers who in an “emergency” chose to “sustain their lives” by “eating along with the blood?”...

  
  "That is the entire consequence of their actions. They received a verbal reprimand."
  

  http://ajwrb.org/bible/blood-and-the-mosaic-law
• 

  defender of truth

  Fisherman said earlier:
  "... Regarding blood, show me one verse where God allowed Israel to eat blood. Unbled meat sometimes, but never blood."
  
  Ok. 1 Samuel 14:32.

  They ate blood.

  Nobody was punished or cut off from their people.
  Neither God or his anointed one ordered anyone to be killed or punished.
  Yet the men knew exactly what they were doing.
  Don't try and tell me it was 'not intentional'.
  
  This was clearly an example of animal blood being eaten deliberately, instead of being poured out.
  See all of the translations and cross-references for this verse here:
  http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/14-32.htm
• 

  defender of truth

  Straight from the revised New World translation, if you are a Jehovah's Witness reading this thread.. 1 Samuel 14:32

  "So the people began rushing greedily at the spoil, and they took sheep and cattle and calves and slaughtered them on the ground, and they ate the meat along with the blood."
  

  http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-samuel/14/
  
• 

  Finkelstein

  F Franz and N Knorr were the ones responsible for creating this doctrine , which the JWS have been tripping over themselves for over 70 years, from absolute no fractions of blood, to yes to fractions are approved. This one doctrine alone be these men in 1945 has contributed to the deaths of thousands of people, many including children and new borns.
  

  The real problem which has persisted since C T Russell's days as the President, was that (all) these men were not academically trained bible theologians, they learned their understanding of bible theology from people such as C T Russell. Nevertheless they purposed certain doctrines which were devised without a lot of critical understanding of the bible. Unfortunately these were the men that the organization had placed and positioned as its top leading bible theologians.
  

  At the time of introducing this doctrine, it was stated by these men that infusing blood from another person would essentially place the givers evil personality characteristics to the person who would be receiving the blood.
  

  kind of tells where these men's heads were at doesn't it ?