My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT

by cofty 203 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Vidiot

  Excellent effort on Cofty's part, but in the long run, it's - IMO - kind of academic.

  The blood ban was never really about interpreting the scriptures correctly.

  It was about staying in the headlines (and - rumor has it - partly influenced by the privately held prejudices of certain WT higher-ups), held onto by true believers who couldn't accept that their "God-appointed" leaders could be wrong, and reinforced by a Legal Dept. who were and still are terrified of a tsunami of wrongful-death lawsuits.
• 

  Schnufti

  This is absolute gold. Thank you so much.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Cofty's perspective is well founded and logical.
  

  The sacredness of blood is held in place by Orthodox Jews to this day in their Kosher butchering of animals for eating consumption. This original law was created mostly upon the eating of blood as a dietary prohibition.

  This inherent sacredness was also devised from the ending of life itself and how life was given to all living things including animals from God.

  Could this held to sacredness be sustained in the process of a medical blood transfusion for health reasons and intent ?
  

  Logically and realistically yes for there is no death of life involving from the giver or either to the receiver in this medical procedure.
  
• 

  cofty

  This original law was created mostly upon the eating of blood as a dietary prohibition

  I disagree for reasons I offer in detail in the OP and here...
  
  
• 

  Finkelstein

  The atonement is also a relevant part Cofty should have mentioned that.
  
• 

  cofty

  I discussed the sacrificial value of blood in the OP.

  I decided the atonement would have been an unnecessary diversion.
• 

  cobweb

  I read this post a while back but the points made resurfaced in my mind. It is an excellent post.

  The point about the eating of dead animals being treated differently to that of live ones under the old law - that dead animals could not be drained of blood - yet eating them caused only temporary ritual uncleanness - its such a logical argument for blood transfusions not being wrong, particularly as they save life which is what blood is supposed to represent - and I have never heard it expressed before. I suppose the logic of it would not make a fundamental difference to a JW mind but it does make such good sense to anyone who is thinking for themselves.
• 

  cofty

  Thank you Cobweb. I genuinely believe this line of reasoning is unassailable. A more succinct version is here...

  Imagine if the GB published something like this as "new light".
  

  If it wasn't for the possible legal consequences....
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  Just picked this up: Deuteronomy 14:21 says: “You must not eat any animal that was found dead.” Yet, Leviticus 11:40 reads: “He who eats any of its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening.” Similarly, Leviticus 17:15, 16 says: “If anyone, whether a native or a foreigner, eats an animal found dead or one torn by a wild animal, he must then wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; then he will be clean. But if he does not wash them and does not bathe himself, he will answer for his error.” Is there any contradiction or discrepancies here? No. The verses explain themselves in context. The first text repeats the prohibition against eating an animal found dead, perhaps one that was killed by wild beasts. (Exodus 22:31; Leviticus 22:8) The next two explains what an Israelite might have done if he violated that prohibition, possibly by accident.The fact that something was prohibited by the Law did not mean that the prohibition would not at some time be ignored. For example, there were laws against stealing, murder, bearing false witness, and so forth. At the same time, there were penalties for breaking those divinely given laws. Such penalties gave force to the laws and showed how serious they were A person who transgressed the prohibition against eating the flesh of an animal found dead would be unclean in Jehovah’s eyes and would have to undergo the proper procedure for cleansing. If he failed to cleanse himself properly, he would have to “answer for his error.”​—Leviticus 17:15, 16. Clearly, those verses are not giving permission to eat a dead animal. They are like the sign that says: It's definitely not posted to give authorization for people who need to test their eyesight!
• 

  peacefulpete

  Vander....The Deuteronomists were repeating/revising the Levitical code. Thats why it's called Deuteronomy "2nd law'. They made many alterations. The point Coffy was making is the Leviticus passage makes no distinction between merely touching and eating a carcass, the ritual uncleanness was due the contact with death. The Deuteronomists prohibited Jews alone from eating it, without mentioning a ritual remedy. Perhaps ironically the Leviticus code does not differentiate the foreigner from the Jew in regards eating found dead animals but the Deuteronomists did by allowing the sale of found dead animals for food to nonIsraelites living among them.

  Leviticus 11:40
  Whoever eats from the carcass must wash his clothes and will be unclean until evening, and anyone who picks up the carcass must wash his clothes and will be unclean until evening.
  
  Leviticus 17:15
  And any person, whether native or foreigner, who eats anything found dead or mauled by wild beasts must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean until evening; then he will be clean.

  **Contrast the Deuteronomist who was much more concerned about Jews only:

  Deuteronomy 14:21
  You are not to eat any carcass; you may give it to the foreigner residing within your gates, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a holy people belonging to the LORD your God.
  

  Leviticus 7:24
  

  The fat of an animal found dead or mauled by wild beasts may be used for any other purpose, but you must not eat it.

  (No mention of avoiding the carcass because of uncleaness)