Blood

by Blind_Of_Lies 32 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

TD

Maze,
We had this discussion almost exactly a year ago and nothing has changed since then. "Abstain" in English is an intransitive verb and can neither take a direct object nor transfer action from subject to object. If you don't understand what that means, let me try to help you out.
The fundamental meaning of the word, "Abstain" and its synonyms according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language is to "...keep or prevent oneself from doing or saying something.." "Abstain" negates action. "Doing" and "Saying" are acts.
"Abstain" does not negate objects. There is no such thing as negation of an object in grammar. What would it mean to abstain from sky? What would it mean to abstain from shrubbery? What would it mean to abstain from train? If you can't associate an action with the object, the phrase is meaningless.
It also states to abstain from things sacrificed to idols (noun) from things strangled (noun) and from fornication (noun) and to keep yourself from these things.
"Fornication" unlike the first three abstentions is the name of a finite act. (i.e. The act of illicit sex) and therefore has a verb form. I can easily state what it means to "Abstain from...fornication" as a finite negative simply by switching to the verb form of the word:
"Do not fornicate."
Without inserting any new words, can you express what it means to "Abstain from...blood" as a finite negative?
"Do not ______"
If you can't do it, then my observation stands. The other three abstentions are the names of physical objects and don't have verb forms that have anything to do with their noun form in context.
If you're going to add verbs or adjectives to Acts 15:29 you could just as well fill in the blanks with “to keep abstaining from intravenous blood use.”
WRONG - "Intravenous blood use" does not have contextual justification. The backdrop of the Decree and question under discussion was the extent to which Gentile converts needed to submit to the Law. Therefore the eating of blood as forbidden in the Law has explicit contextual support.
You keep objecting to this as if I'm making up something out of thin air that any student of the Bible should already know. Notice how the following translators completed the thought via interpolation:
"abstain from food that has been offered to idols, from tasting blood, from the flesh of animals that have been strangled, and from sexual vice." Moffat
"eat no food that has been offered to idols; eat no blood; eat no animal that has been strangled; and keep yourselves from immorality." TEV
"avoid what has been sacrificed to idols, tasting blood, eating the meat of what has been strangled and sexual immorality." Phillips
"You must not eat food that has been given to idols. You must not eat the meat of animals that are killed by choking. You must not taste blood. You must not commit adultery." The Bible in Worldwide English
The justification for the renderings above is openly stated even in JW literature. I'll quote a current (recent) source and an older source to show that this is nothing new:
"The decision then made was that circumcision was not required for Gentile believers but that they should keep free from idolatry, from eating and drinking of blood, and from sexual immorality. " Insight On The Scriptures Volume II p. 587.
"Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures, it is in connection with taking it as food and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden." The Watchtower September 15th 1958 p. 575
Further, if you are a JW (Which I very much doubt) I'm going to point out that it is disingenuous to object to interpolation when you well know that this is the only way to harmonize the Decree with Paul's counsel in 1 Corinthians. The abstention from "Things sacrificed to idols" is understood to be a prohibtion against the finite act of idolatry, not an unconditional prohibition against eating meat coming from a pagan temple.
Finally, I'm going to point out (again) that a comparison with alcohol is a false analogy. Blood is living tissue, not a simple compound that crosses any epethelial membrane. A transfusion of blood is for all intents and purposes, an organ transplant and this too has been openly acknowledged in JW literature.
thetrueone

It has little to do with the administrative position of Jehovah's Organization.
WOW there's a whopper of a lie, so then was the no blood doctrine administered and introduced by the flock themselves or the said and self identifying FDSL ?
How about the no organ transplant doctrine ?
Or how about the no vaccination doctrine ?
All of these self instituted doctrines were proclaimed by the WTS hierarchy and killed thousands, including many innocent children.
Those pretentious asshole charlatans in Brooklyn New York. !!!!
Oh I know MAZE is lying to protect the WTS. which he is a devote member of.
Lying for the organization is described as spiritual warfare.
You know MAZE as long as you are apart of this organization you too are blood guilty ... remember that !
Anony Mous

Don't use logic or bible texts on Maze or he will stop responding to the thread (I have 2 outstanding threads Maze). As usual, Maze quotes out of context bible scriptures and uses Watchtower publications to support his viewpoint. Maze should investigate what the Bible really has to say in context of the era and the belief systems back then instead of believing the Watchtower fables that first century Christians were adherents of the F&DS calling themselves "Jehovah's Witnesses" who went from door to door with the scrolls in hand.
doubtful

I could care less what Paul of Tarsus or some group of old guys in Jerusalem said about health prohibitions 2,000 years ago. Yet, even if I did, this biblical passage would not deter me from accepting a blood transfusion. The bible says to not eat/drink blood.
Is injecting blood intravaneously the same thing as eating it? They both amount to "consuming" it, I suppose. Yet, consider the following analogy often employed by the WT.
If a doctor told you to abstain from drinking alcohol, you wouldn't be complying if instead of drinking it, you started to run it through your veins. It ends up being the same thing.
Yet the above is a faulty analogy! Alcohol is a food, which enters your blood stream, is metabolized, and digested! Blood, when swallowed from a cup, will most likely be sent through your digestive system and into your stomach. Blood given intravaneously is not used by the body as food. It is not metabolized. It is assimilated and used as blood!
Eating blood showed a lack of respect for the sanctity of life. It was all about the symbolic value of blood. Drinking the blood of an animal or another human being showed a gross lack of respect for the life of that living creature, being that the life was "in the blood" and the life itself belonged to God.
On the other hand, using blood to PRESERVE life is something completely different. Denying yourself the life-saving use of blood amounts to a gross disrespect for life itself.
Maze

The fundamental meaning of the word, "Abstain" and its synonyms according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language is to "...keep or prevent oneself from doing or saying something.." "Abstain" negates action. "Doing" and "Saying" are acts.
"Abstain" does not negate objects. There is no such thing as negation of an object in grammar. What would it mean to abstain from sky? What would it mean to abstain from shrubbery? What would it mean to abstain from train? If you can't associate an action with the object, the phrase is meaningless.
TD, you're overcomplicating a very simple directive from the Bible.
“What would it mean to abstain from train?”
This is clearly the improper use of English and makes little sense. What we're dealing with are not objects that can't be taken into the human body, like a "train." We're dealing with substances that can be taken into the physical body either by ingestion or injection and thus implies an implicit meaning. Abstaining from blood is a valid use of the English language as “abstaining from alcohol” from the article I posted is grammatically correct. You can dissect grammar to distort an author's intended meaning in a number of instances.
"Fornication" unlike the first three abstentions is the name of a finite act. (i.e. The act of illicit sex) and therefore has a verb form. I can easily state what it means to "Abstain from...fornication" as a finite negative simply by switching to the verb form of the word:
"Do not fornicate."
Without inserting any new words, can you express what it means to "Abstain from...blood" as a finite negative?
"Do not ______"
If you can't do it, then my observation stands. The other three abstentions are the names of physical objects and don't have verb forms that have anything to do with their noun form in context.
Changing fornication to fornicate changes a noun to a verb. Both fornication and the taking other people's blood into the body denotes an action. Just because the latter (abstaining from blood) requires a few more words to describe the action doesn't mean anything.
WRONG - "Intravenous blood use" does not have contextual justification. The backdrop of the Decree and question under discussion was the extent to which Gentile converts needed to submit to the Law. Therefore the eating of blood as forbidden in the Law has explicit contextual support.
You keep objecting to this as if I'm making up something out of thin air that any student of the Bible should already know. Notice how the following translators completed the thought via interpolation:
"abstain from food that has been offered to idols, from tasting blood, from the flesh of animals that have been strangled, and from sexual vice." Moffat
"eat no food that has been offered to idols; eat no blood; eat no animal that has been strangled; and keep yourselves from immorality." TEV
"avoid what has been sacrificed to idols, tasting blood, eating the meat of what has been strangled and sexual immorality." Phillips
"You must not eat food that has been given to idols. You must not eat the meat of animals that are killed by choking. You must not tast blood. You must not commit adultery." The Bible in Worldwide English
The justification for the renderings above is openly stated even in JW literature. I'll quote a current (recent) source and an older source to show that this is nothing new:
"The decision then made was that circumcision was not required for Gentile believers but that they should keep free from idolatry, from eating and drinking of blood, and from sexual immorality. " Insight On The Scriptures Volume II p. 587.
"Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures, it is in connection with taking it as food and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden." The Watchtower September 15th 1958 p. 575
Blood transfusions were not a part of contemporary society when the Bible was written.

rs p. 106 Drugs

Does the Bible actually forbid the use of drugs for pleasure?

It does not name such substances as heroin, cocaine, LSD, PCP (angel dust), marijuana, and tobacco. But it does provide needed guidelines so that we can know what to do and what to avoid in order to please God. Similarly, the Bible does not say that it is wrong to use a gun to kill someone, but it does forbid murder.

The guidelines are crystal clear regarding the proper use of blood.
Finally, I'm going to point out (again) that a comparison with alcohol is a false analogy. Blood is living tissue, not a simple compound that crosses any epethelial membrane. A transfusion of blood is for all intents and purposes, an organ transplant and this too has been openly acknowledged in JW literature.
The point of that analogy was to demonstrate that a directive to abstain from alcohol is no different than abstaining from blood. The author’s intended meaning doesn't allow for the substance to be injected into a person's veins in either instance.

Organ transplants and blood transfusions are not natural procedures accepted by the human body. Those who receive blood from another person face risks essentially similar to those undergoing an organ transplant. Immune responses tend to reject foreign tissue. In some cases, blood transfusions can actually prevent the activation of natural immune responses. Such immunosuppression leaves the patient vulnerable to postoperative infections and to viruses that had previously been inactive.
Maze

Don't use logic or bible texts on Maze or he will stop responding to the thread (I have 2 outstanding threads Maze). As usual, Maze quotes out of context bible scriptures and uses Watchtower publications to support his viewpoint.
First of all buck-o, this is what you did, not me. I don't have time to address every post someone directs at me unless you want to pay me more than my secular work does. I have another life that takes priority.
thetrueone

Trying to correctly define an accurate definition of abstain as it was used in those scriptures is kind of redundant.
What is more important is......
The guidelines are crystal clear regarding the proper use of blood.
Yes in the contents of how blood was used in that era and within that civilization.
The bible is also crystal clear on human sacrifice ( abstain from making a human sacrifice to the lord ) there !
and how Jesus of course instructed all who wish to gain his approval in caring for the weak and sick amoung us.
Willing to refuse a BT when it is suggested that it would save a person's life is a form of self-induced suicide or making a human sacrifice.
pirata

I believe the main reason for instituting the Blood Prohibition (among other things) in Acts 15:28,29, was to keep peace with Gentiles and Jews. The circumcision issue was threatening a schism in the 1st Century Congregation and a compromise needed to be made. More details here under the heading in my post "the reason for 'necessary things' in the 1st Century":
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/209596/1/Can-You-Explain-This-Blood
PS. Welcome to the forum, blind_of_lies!
TD

Maze,
This [abstain from train] is clearly the improper use of English and makes little sense.
--Which is exactly the point. Complete propositions in English require a transfer of action between subject and object. "Abstain" negates action. "Train" is not an action. Therefore, "Abstain from train" is not a complete thought because there is no transfer of action. Presenting it as such would be ungrammatical
What we're dealing with are not objects that can't be taken into the human body, like a "train."
I could just as easily have illustrated this point of grammar with objects than could be swallowed. It doesn't matter. "Abstain from pill" when invoked as an independant construction is grammatically incomplete for the same reason that "Abstain from train" is.
We're dealing with substances that can be taken into the physical body either by ingestion or injection and thus implies an implicit meaning.
You're equivocating via "Ingestion" and "Injection." Similarity does not imply equality. If you want to provide an argument of either physical or moral or maybe even ontological equivalency between the consumption of blood and the transfusion of blood, I would be interested in hearing it. I will point out though that this would be an entirely different argument than the idea that the Biblical prohibitions on blood are stated in terms broad enough to directly include transfusion
Abstaining from blood is a valid use of the English language as “abstaining from alcohol” from the article I posted is grammatically correct.
Wrong, wrong wrong. First of all, "Abstain from alcohol" was not invoked as an independent construction in your reference. It appeared as a dependant phrase in a sentence. Big difference.
More importantly, when the context is clearly understood, we may casually think and express ourselves in those terms, but that doesn't change the rules of grammar. You seem to think that grammar is purely a matter of your own subjective perception. --If it makes sense to you, then it must be grammatical. If it doesn't make sense to you, then it must be incorrect.
The reality is the phrase, "Abstain from alcohol" is incomplete and therefore utterly dependent upon the context in which it is spoken. For example:
A woman's obstetrician says, "Pregnant women should abstain from alcohol throughout all three trimesters."
A man's dermatologist says, "Persons with sensitive skin should scrupulously abstain from alcohol."
Even though both doctors have said, "Abstain from alcohol" they aren't talking about the same action. The obstetrician is talking about the consumption of alcoholic beverages. The dematologist is talking about the topical application of alcohol.
The specificity of the context limits the scope of the prohibition. There is nothing in what the dermatologist has said that would prohibit the man from drinking beverages containing alcohol. Conversely, there is nothing in what the obstetrician has said that would prohibit the woman from using cosmetics containing alcohol on her skin.
The situation is no different with the Apostolic Decree. The specificity of the context limits the scope of the prohibition. In context, it is a specific prohibition against eating blood as your own parent organization openly acknowledges. (I've already given references) Ripping the phrase away from its context for the express purpose of broadening the prohibition and forcing a comment out of the Bible that is alien to it's historical and cultural context should be beneath any Christian.
This is not a criticism of JW's in general. The JW's on this board should know by now that I always, always call your information desk before jumping in on this board. The information desk at Patterson will candidly state that the prohibition on transfusion is an interpretation based on the Bible.
You can dissect grammar to distort an author's intended meaning in a number of instances.
You certainly can. In this case, some JW's (Not all) are taking advantage of the awkward, incomplete English which is an inherent limitation of literal translations.
The guidelines are crystal clear regarding the proper use of blood.
There is not one single, solitary place in the Bible where blood is mentioned outside of a clear situational context. If you think the Bible at any point makes general statements regarding the use of blood, then please present them. I'm all ears.
Changing fornication to fornicate changes a noun to a verb.
No kidding. You have to switch from the noun form to the verb form to have a grammatically complete construction, which is the whole point here. That's what I've been telling you for the last year. If you're going to object to this then I'm going to point out (yet again) that JW literature routinely paraphrases the abstention from "things sacrificed to idols" as "Abstain from idolatry."
Both fornication and the taking other people's blood into the body denotes an action.
More equivocation. Again, similarity does not imply equality. Drinking a glass of water and drowning at the bottom of a lake can both be described as "Taking in water" but there's a world of difference between taking water into your lungs and taking water into your stomach.
The method of egress into the body does affect the morality of the procedure. Again, if you actually are a JW, you have no business objecting to this distinction, because your parent organization recognizes this in all other organ and tissue tranplant scenarios.
Just because the latter (abstaining from blood) requires a few more words to describe the action doesn't mean anything.
Oh for crying out loud! WHAT ACTION??? There is no action. I've taken great pains to explain that. ANY action you provide would be an interpolation and the only legitimate interpolations are what the context will directly support.
The context will not support an abstention from the transfusion of blood. This doesn't mean that transfusion may not be wrong for the same reason or reasons that eating blood is wrong, but it does mean that the Biblical prohibitions on blood are not stated in terms broad enough to explicitly include transfusion.
Anony Mous

@Maze:
Jesus healed on the Sabbath even though he was expressly forbidden to do such thing in the law of Moses. He could've waited until the next day and healed those people. Why did he not do so?
Likewise in the law of Moses it says to abstain from the eating of blood. If Jesus would've thought that blood would save somebody's life, would he not have used it?
What was the point in Jesus giving his blood for our life if we are just going to throw our life away whenever we get seriously sick or get in an accident. You do not condone suicide do you? Yet, some people have committed suicide by not allowing necessary medical treatment that was proven to have helped (there are no alternatives in the case of eg. massive blood loss).
The things Paul wrote was to abstain from blood and get circumcised where your conscience obliged you to so they didn't upset the weak-of-faith Jewish-Christian community. Paul also said to abstain from the eating of things sacrificed to idols but not to inquire about it when the same meat was sold on markets. This was done to help the weak-of-faith and those that were easily stumbled, not as a rule to be held in the strictest. If all you could afford was used meat, you shouldn't have to die of hunger just to satisfy those that are easily stumbled.

Blood

Share this