The Watchtower are Right About Blood... (page 9)

Finkelstein

Since everyone of the JWS and IBSA leaders, starting from C T Russell were pseudo bible scholars including Knorr and F Franz, the ones who were responsible for creating the No Blood transfusion doctrine, from that acknowledgment is it any wonder they came out with the most weakest and irrational bible interpretations ?

These were the two men who came up with the 1975 scam by the way .

Ignorant men with the self avowed notion of being selectively chosen by God is only going to result in a folly of problematic trouble, especially when they profess their ignorance through a publishing company which they own and run.

Jonathan Drake

Those sort of JWs are beyond help.
That should not make us feel as if all attempts to make some of them question their beliefs are in vain.
This forum is a testimony to the fact that thousands of JWs have already done so.

Thats true, when I read that message I couldn't believe it though. I don't remember ever hearing that growing up. I think this is a gradual introduction. It might be that over time these such witnesses are going to be the majority. I hope not.

defender of truth

Sorry Cofty, but I'm just re-posting this for the benefit of lurkers.

The following points from articles on Ajwrb.org may help to support your argument (bold is mine for emphasis):

"Leviticus 17:15 illustrates that an Israelite could even eat a unbled animal if necessary, and if he had not taken the life. The result was nothing more than ceremonial uncleanness that required bathing."

http://ajwrb.org/bible/new-light-on-blood

..................

" Clearly blood was sacred. By pouring it out upon the ground and covering it, an Israelite hunter showed his respect for the life he had taken by divine permission...

A logical question at this point would be: “What is the significance of the blood?” Is there something special in it, some mystical property? This question can be answered by considering what the law has to say about animals that died of natural causes or perhaps were killed by a predator.

“As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening ; and he must be clean.

16 But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, he must then answer for his error. Leviticus 17:15-16

" If we reason on all of this it becomes evident that the blood itself was not holy...

Blood running through the veins of a living creature represents life, and if someone took a life, he had to pour out the blood and give it back to God.

In the case of an animal that died of itself, no human had taken a life, and this requirement could be waived."

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

( I strongly recommend that anyone viewing this thread take a look at these pages, especially if you are still a believing Jehovah's Witness. Your LIFE, or even the lives of your children, may depend on it one day. )

FayeDunaway

For me this issue is so simple. Blood is sacred because it represents life. Life is so sacred we should do anything to save it. Including using blood to save life. This is actually the most respectful way we could treat blood, to use it to save life. it's what blood is for, to preserve life.

If you take a life, you are blood guilty. If you let someone die because they need blood, you are blood guilty.

The biblical 'pouring out blood' was about killing animals and eating them. It was disrespectful to eat the blood, it was not considering the life that you had taken to eat that animal. It has nothing to do with how blood is used today to save lives. It is disrespectful to let someone die and not use the lifesaving gift of blood.

it is the simple-mindedness of JW doctrine to take these scriptures and not only over-apply them but not understand the principle behind them.

pressman

Jonathan Drake, I meant that god allowed christians he was contacted with to misinterpret it because they are humans. What i am really saying is that no man who was not communicating with god directly would be able to change the scriptures which is what a lot of people would have us believe. How do we know they used the moon and sun to assert the earth was a sphere. They could not see the earth from a far. it was really the bible that let people know that information. If you really think about it, it all makes sense that god would give them that info. and since humans have got away from god since then, its logical that they would create lies about the bible to claim its false. The truth of the bible is obvious to anyone willing to fairly investigate it. it is uniquely self-consistent and extraordinarily authentic. It has changed the lives of millions of people who have placed their faith in Christ. it has been confirmed countless times by archaeology and other sciences. it possesses divine insight into the nature of the universe and has made correct predictions about distant future events with perfect accuracy. when christians read the Bible, we cannot help but recognize the voice of their creator. the proof of the bible is that unless its truth is presupposed, we couldn’t prove anything at all.

pressman

wizzstick, if anyone changed it, it was through the lord god. I don't think that is even true about leaving out an entire pslam book. What psalms? The first psalms or the second one? Even though I don't believe it is true, i would like your input on the matter. also may i ask what the hebrew word chug has to do with anything? the circle of the earth from the bible is the best proof that it is true. If you cannot see that you are blind. May i also ask you how can you refute the holy book when prophecies are still being fulfilled to this very day? when interpreted honestly, accurately and without any preconceived notions proves the Biblical account. no other legitimate viewpoint exists because the only alternative to the truth is a lie. this is why the god's scriptures is true. im indifferent about the end of times though because i believe based on what is written and said that it is meant for then not now and i believe scalps of fear for the end is what has failed most purposed religion. all the visions of daniel were figurative to me and my church and they help us all to learn to be nice people and care for our fellow man. this is why I got out of the jw religion, it does not constitute the true message of the bible.

pressman

Faye dunaway, great words. That is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I like that you kept it simple and that is how you would have to do to get a witness to understand. there are some witnesses that can see the falseness of the blood doctrine by way of what you said or something along those lines. But you have to be shrewd to get it to the ones who will listen. keeping it real and simple is the best way.

pressman

the Fink, just because some archaeologists made up stuff does not mean the bible is false and that is was made by power driven people. It was made out of love from god. I suppose you have not read the tower of babel through because you will see why we speak different languages today. the scientific methods on creation are all false and nothing but assumptions just like jehovahs witness claims of people who are not one of them.

pressman

I misinterpreted the original post. i was wrong because i thought acknowledging that blood is crucial to life was siding with what the witnesses believe. Now i realize it is true thanks to faye.

cofty

Pressman - This topic assumes for the sake of argument that the bible is inspired of a deity.

It isn't but we can debate that on another thread. Stay on topic.

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

Share this