The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty 556 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    SAethydd, saying that I am wrong does not make it so.

    (Deuteronomy 14:21) 21 “You must not eat any animal that was found dead. You may give it to the foreign resident who is inside your cities, and he may eat it, or it may be sold to a foreigner. For you are a holy people to Jehovah your God.. . .
    It was forbidden for an Israelite or a Ger (proselyte) to eat a dead animal. Non proselyte "foreigners" could use dead animals.

    Why sell it then and not eat it? Because the law forbade Israel and the Ger from eating dead animals! But cofty posted that the Israelite could it with impunity. Imagine that!

    Cofty's theory is wrong.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to the foreigner residing in any of your towns, and they may eat it, or you may sell it to any other foreigner. But you are a people holy to the Lord your God. - Deut. 14:21

    Of the five verses you referred to this is the only one that is interesting. The context is Moses' restating of the law following the wilderness years. This was 40 years after Leviticus. Most of Deuteronomy is copy-paste of Leviticus but there are some interesting differences and comments. Nothing that Moses says contradicts Leviticus but he does admonish the nation to be holy.

    There were many ordinary things that resulted in uncleanness. Menstruation, skin disease, having sex with your wife, giving birth, burying a dead animal, eating an animal found already dead and more. None of these things were a crime or a sin but some were more avoidable than others. Moses identifies eating an animal found already dead as something that can reasonably be avoided in the interests of holiness.

    Notice Moses' new instruction - "sell it to a foreigner". If the blood of an animal found already dead was sacred then this would be a very strange instruction. If the blood represented the life of the dead beast then it must be buried with the animal returning it to god.

    Moses' instruction here is perfectly consistent with Lev.11 and Lev.17. The blood of an animal found already dead has no sacred significance since nobody took the life and therefore nobody can return it to god. The only issue is that eating the animal makes the person temporarily unclean. Leviticus gives permission to eat the animal with the proviso that the Israelite must bathe and change their garments. Forty years later Moses goes further and admonishes them to void unnecessary uncleanness and sell the carcass to a foreigner who was not under the law.

    Blood was sacred insofar as it represented a life that had been taken by a human. If an animal died then its blood was of no significance. The only issue was the uncleanness that resulted from handling it or eating it. Uncleanness was not a sin but was to be avoided as far as practical. The only crime was to ignore the provision for cleansing.

    Perhaps the Watchtower should issue new orders that it is necessary to have a bath and put on clean pyjamas after a blood transfusion.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    There's something fishy about this thread.

    (sorry, couldn't help myself )

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    Why did the law state: "You must not eat any animal that was found dead."

    That is not clear enough for cofty.

    Ask any religious Jew today.

    Go back and change the nonsense you posted in your OP.

  • cofty
    cofty

    As I have explained three times it had everything to do with avoiding temporary uncleanness and nothing to do with blood.

    Have even bothered to read my detailed response?

    You have still made no attempt to explain Lev.17

    Why?

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    The Bible does not state conditions for Lev 17 only the provision for restoration if a native or foreigner ate a dead animal or one torn by a beast.

    Why would such a person do that or how could he do that when the law forbade it? The Bible does not say. The Bible does say in Numbers that doing something ( that was forbidden) deliberately was a capital offense.

    ( I posted something yesterday that did not post through so if that posts in the future it is after this dialogue.)

    Something that may be a factor and needs to be considered is the definition of foreigner. Some foreignors where proselytes and some were not. Proselyte foreigners were under the law same as Israel and were forbidden to eat dead animals same as Israel. So when the scripture states to sell dead animals to foreigners it means non proselyte ones. And the ceremonial wash only applies to Israel and proselyte foreigners. The goyim were not under the law.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    under these circumstances the Law is giving PERMISSION to eat unbled meat.

    If an Israelite farmer found an animal "already dead" he was free to eat it with IMPUNITY..

    3 accusers report to a judge of ancient Israel that cofty is going around eating dead animals and teaching Israel that doing so is not a violation of the Law. What will happen to cofty?

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman
    Especially when you are clearly wrong? Do you get a kick out of a half-dozen people telling you that you're wrong?

    Saying that I am wrong does not make it so. Please show me wrong.

  • cofty
    cofty
    Why would such a person do that or how could he do that when the law forbade it?

    As I have explained multiple times the Law did not forbid it.

    The only verse you can point to to try to support your assertion is Deut.14:21 but I have fully explained the context of that verse.

    You have still to make any attempt to explain why both Lev.11 and Lev.17 makes a clear distinction between eating an unbled animal that has been killed and one that was found dead. One was a crime, the other a temporary inconvenience.

    But there is one other important point you also need to explain. Moses' admonition to sell a dead animal to a foreigner was not given until 40 years after the law recorded in Leviticus.

    If eating an unbled animal found dead was a crime as you assert, why did it take god four decades to mention that?

  • cofty
    cofty

    Just to be clear because I know how good you are at missing the point. For the first 40 years after the Law was given the following three texts were the ONLY references to eating an animal found already dead.

    If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches its carcass will be unclean till evening. Anyone who eats some of its carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening.
    Lev.11:39,40

    Anyone, whether native-born or foreigner, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then they will be clean.
    Lev.17:13-15

    Direct Aaron and his sons to deal carefully with the sacred donations of the people of Israel, which they dedicate to me, so that they may not profane my holy name; I am the Lord. Say to them: ... That which died or was torn by wild animals he shall not eat, becoming unclean by it.
    Lev.22:2,8

    For four decades these were god's only instructions regarding eating an unbled animal found dead.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit