đ„°đ«¶đ
Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"
by aqwsed12345 81 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Fisherman
English, of course, is not the language the bible was written it, which is why grammar and context are crucial.
I agree, my dear doctor but it is more complicated than grammar and context âas you know. But in this context of Acts, the prohibition is against eating blood whether in eating un-bled animals or as some product.
Interestingly the actual eating of blood from an un-bled animal is not so important to God because Christians werenât to go around getting kosher certifications, inquiring whether animals were bled or not âwhich inevitably would result in eating un-bled animals unknowingly. So, how could a Christian abstain from blood after unknowingly eating an un-bled animal when God does not require certification before eating? But according to the CS, itâs ok.
You have elegantly and invaluably shown in other posts the difference between digesting blood (eating) and a blood transfusion for medical purpose to perform bodily functions without being digested. Which is not the same as eating. However, the Bible forbids using blood other than for rituals.
Ive had minor surgery and IVs and I could taste the medicine.
-
Vanderhoven7
Taking in blood products in any form is wrong in God's eyes.
I wonder if Orthodox Jews would agree with you...especially those who store their own blood for later transfusions, or those who find cattle that have died in their fields overnight. Too late to bleed the animal so I guess they have to go through the ordeal of taking a shower in the evening.
When the blood comes out of the body, it needs to be disposed of. End of story.
Really, where did Peter say that in Acts 15???? I thought that was only for Jews who actually did the killing. You are adding to the word E.P.
-
EasyPrompt
"I wonder if Orthodox Jews would agree with you..."
Vanderhoven, Orthodox Jews are the same ones who still don't believe Jesus was the Messiah. Why would you look to them for advice on understanding the scriptures if they don't even know Jesus is God's Son?
"You are adding to the word E.P."
I have not added to the word, my friend - I have been quoting the same three words from Acts many times throughout this thread..."Abstain from blood."
-
Fisherman
I wonder if Orthodox Jews would agree with you?
So what? What makes â orthodox Jewsâ an authority except to other orthodox Jews? So, JW consider the gb an authority in what the Bible is saying about BT. But the logical argument is that since the gb have been wrong before on what a Bible verse means, could they also not be wrong about bloodâpossibly. And since the gb could be wrong about blood, then how could a person choose to die based on a Bible interpretation subject to error? Thatâs the logic presented by TD. JW, however, trust the gb and believe in their authority and Bible interpretation on blood.
âI wouldnât take blood if my life depended on it regardless of wt sanctions. I believe the scriptures forbid bt and I donât want someone elseâs blood mixed with mine running through my veins and I donât want to take the medical risk of infection and other possible complications. Notwithstanding that it is very repulsive and disgusting to me. But that is only my personal feelings about bt and ME.
-
TD
Fisherman,
JW, however, trust the gb and believe in their authority and Bible interpretation on blood.
This is going to be a long response and for that, I apologize in advance.
-----
In his 1898 novel, War Of The Worlds, H.G. Wells speculated that a highly evolved race would have developed past the need to eat food. These fictional beings, in fact, had no digestive organs of any sort:
"Entrails they had none. They did not eat, much less digest. Instead, they took the fresh, living blood of other creatures and injected it into their veinsâŠ..The physiological advantages of the practice of injection are undeniable, if one thinks of the tremendous waste of human time and energy occasioned by eating and the digestive process. Our bodies are half made up of glands and tubes and organs, occupied in turning heterogeneous food into blood."
Although an entertaining read, Wells had completely misunderstood the function of blood even by the science of his day. Injecting the "fresh living blood of other creatures" will not sustain any being of flesh and blood because blood is not the "food" upon which the body is sustained; it is only the transport mechanism.
Starting in 1944, (I can provide scans for anything and everything that follows) the JW parent organization began making negative comments about transfusion, but it was not until 1951 that they specifically stated the nature of their objection:
As everyone can see, JW leaders and policy makers were laboring under the exact same misconception as H.G. Wells. Blood, in their view was "nutrition" and transfusion was therefore an explicit violation of biblical prohibitions against eating it.
The 1953 edtion of the book Make Sure Of All Things (The brown one, not the green one) included this view as an official answer for believing Jehovah's Witnesses to give to outsiders.
You said that, "[JWs] trust the gb and believe in their authority and Bible interpretation on blood" to which I would point out that the entire doctrine was based upon a very outdated misconception.
-----
In 1958, serums, such as the diphtheria and tetanus antitoxins were allowed as conscience permits on the basis that they did not nourish the body.
"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."
However this rationale, if taken to its logical conclusion, would have brought the doctrine crashing down, as transfusion does not nourish the body in any form.
You said that, "[JWs] trust the gb and believe in their authority and Bible interpretation on blood" to which I would ask how can you trust an organization that has made errors this basic and fundamental to the discussion.
-----
In 1961, the JW's resorted to outright dishonesty in an effort to shore up the original argument. This occurred via a misrepresentation of an obscure medical text:
"It is of no consequence that the blood is taken into the body through the veins instead of the mouth. Nor does the claim by some that it is not the same as intravenous feeding carry weight. The fact is that it nourishes or sustains the life of the body. In harmony with this is a statement in the book Hemorrhage and Transfusion, by George W. Crile, A.M., M.D., who quotes a letter from Denys, French physician and early researcher in the field of transfusions. It says: "In performing transfusion it is nothing else than nourishing by a shorter road than ordinaryÂthat is to say, placing in the veins blood all made in place of taking food which only turns to blood after several changes."
Hemorrhage and Transfusion, published in 1909, was an outdated and hard to find medical textbook even in 1961. (I found a copy at the library of the Cleveland Clinic, which Crile had founded.)
The quote in question appears in chapter VII, A Brief History Of Transfusion and reads, in context:
"In the same year [1667] Denys of Montpellier, wrote concerning experiments which he performed on animals. He followed Lower's method in a general way except that he did not withdraw enough blood from the donor to cause death. He also tried transfusion from three calves to three dogs with success in each case. In a letter to M. de Montmore he describes two transfusions which he made on patients. His idea was that "In practicing transfusion one can only imitate the example of nature which, in order to nourish the fetus in the uterus of the mother, makes a continuous transfusion of the blood of the mother into the body of the infant through the umbilical vein. In performing transfusion it is nothing else than nourishing by a shorter road than ordinary--that is to say, placing in the veins blood all made in place of taking food which only turns to blood after several changes"
As you can see, Crile was not agreeing with the humorous level of ignorance he had found in a 17th century paper, but was simply providing a narrative of the history of transfusion.
In chapter XIII, A General Review Of The More Modern Theories And Practices Of Transfusion, Crile demolishes the outdated idea that transfusion nourishes the body, so there can be no question that he emphatically disagreed with Denys.
You said that, "[JWs] trust the gb and believe in their authority and Bible interpretation on blood" to which I would ask how you can trust a leadership that has not been honest with you. (I can give other examples)
-----
What followed for the JW's was a period of confusion. Conflicting statements on the acceptability of post-exposure vaccines and serums can be found in 1961, 63, and 64. JW's faced with medical dilemmas had to write the parent organization on the acceptability of specific treatments as there was not a clear, consistent rationale in JW literature.
Finally, in June of 1982, a new explanation was offered. Blood components were classified as either "major" or "minor." However the policy that the JW's enforced did not consistently follow their own reasoning. The only basis the JW's ever offered for the major/minor division was raw percentage of blood volume for each respective component.
Platelets which comprises roughly 2/10ths of 1 percent of your blood volume were forbidden while albumin which comprises slightly more than 10 times as much (2.2%) was allowed. Not one of the components of plasma was forbidden yet plasma as such (these components suspended in water) were forbidden.
You said that, "[JWs] trust the gb and believe in their authority and Bible interpretation on blood" to which I would again ask how can you trust an organization that has made errors this basic and fundamental to the discussion.
-----In June of 1990 the 1982 rationale was replaced. Blood components were now divided on the basis of transference across the placental barrier during pregnancy. The same divisions remained. This (IMHO) was one of their better and more honest attempts at interpretation as it put God back into the equation via an appeal to natural consequence.
However this rationale was not technically viable either. Just two years later, in 1992 a female lab tech who had donated a blood specimen for analysis was found to have "Y" DNA circulating in her blood stream. Researchers were puzzled until it was disclosed that she was 6 weeks pregnant. The source of the "Y" DNA was her unborn son.
Cells in the blood of the fetus including fetal nucleated red blood cells, were crossing the placental barrier. Other studies detected fetal erythroblasts, trophoblasts, granulocytes and lymphocytes in the maternal blood. Since then it has been demonstrated that a woman can still have fetal blood cells in her blood stream more than 40 years after her last pregnancy.
You said that, "[JWs] trust the gb and believe in their authority and Bible interpretation on blood" to which I would repeat the same question.
-----
In June of 2000, the 1990 rationale for the allowance of some blood components was replaced. Blood components are now classified as either "primary" or "secondary." Like the other three explanations, this one is flawed.
Under this rationale fractions of any primary component are allowed as conscience permits, but the problem here is that cooking fractionates the primary components. The blood cells are ruptured by the heat and cease to exist as formed elements (i.e. primary components.) This rationale would lead to the conclusion that it's okay to eat blood as long as you cook it thoroughly, which is not at all what JW's actually teach.
You said that, "[JWs] trust the gb and believe in their authority and Bible interpretation on blood" to which I would repeat the same question.
-----
On the rolling green hills of Pennsylvania, there is a tiny grave; a casualty to a view on gamma globulin which the JW's have not taught for more than 50 years. (IgG is the basis of a all post-exposure vaccines today) JW's today would opine that this was the parent's choice and that nobody twisted their arm, when in fact, the JW organization was teaching at the time that children who were given a blood product and died would not receive a resurrection.
Throughout all of this, the JW parent organization has never once admitted they were wrong, or shown anything remotely resembling contrition for the human cost of their mistakes
You said that, "[JWs] trust the gb and believe in their authority and Bible interpretation on blood" to which I would ask how you can trust an organization that takes zero responsibility and will happily throw grieving parents under the bus.
-
TD
EasyPrompt
I have been quoting the same three words from Acts many times throughout this thread..."Abstain from blood."
--And I have pointed out over and over now that the statement was not made in an open context as you imply.
Worse, it's not even grammatically complete apart from the context in which it appears.
I doubt very much if you would allow scripture to be taken out of context on any other topic, so your repetition here is puzzling indeed.
-
EasyPrompt
@TD, I bet you must hate the Pidgin Bible translation...
Acts 15:20
"Instead, make we write to dem, con tell dem sey make dem komot hand from food wey pipo give to idols, from anyhow-sex, or di meat of animals wey dem choke, and from blood."
https://pidginbible.com/2022/06/18/acts-chapter-15/
Or how about this one...
"...but instead, make wi rite leta go give dem sey, make dem nor chop food wey dem sakrifice give juju and make dem nor sleep with who dem nor marry, animal wey dem kill and di blood nor tosh groun, make dem nor chop or drink en blood."
https://www.bible.com/bible/2516/ACT.15.PCM
đ
(I ain't as concerned 'bout grammar as I am about substance.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJr9SSJKkII
Jehovah's personality hasn't changed. Since the beginning, He has made clear how He feels about blood and those who disrespect it, whether that disrespect is shown by those who murder others (as in Cain's case) or by those who show a lack of concern for safety (as in the one who fails to put a parapet around the roof) or by those who fail to protect the sheep. "I will ask back their blood."
Blood is sacred. It doesn't matter whether you "say it" with proper grammar or not. The message is the same.
"Abstain from blood."
-
Rattigan350
@easyprompt said
""Abstain from blood."
It's not complicated."
And it is not God's law.
They applied the word 'abstain' to all 4 things as a convenience.
They didn't expand the scope of God's law as the apostles did not have the authority to do such. The Apostles and Older men were not functioning as a Governing Body. They were functioning as a court. The job of a court is to state what the law is, not what it should be.
God's Law on blood is as stated in Gen 9:4.
-
TD
EasyPrompt
(I ain't as concerned 'bout grammar as I am about substance.)
Even if we forget about the grammar of one of the most grammatically precise languages, the meaning is still driven by the context:
"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."
James Moffatt
"eat no food that has been offered to idols; eat no blood; eat no animal that has been strangled; and keep yourselves from immorality."
Today's English Version
"avoid what has been sacrificed to idols, tasting blood, eating the meat of what has been strangled and sexual immorality."
Phillip's Modern English
"You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or eating the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality."
New Living Translation
"abstain from eating food offered to idols and from unbled meat of strangled animals and of course from fornication."
The Living Bible
"Do only what is necessary by keeping away from food sacrificed to false gods, from eating bloody meat, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual sins."
God's Word Bible
âBut you should not eat anything offered to idols. You should not eat any meat that still has the blood in it or any meat of any animal that has been strangled. You must also not commit any terrible sexual sins."
Contemporary English Version
"That you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from [tasting] blood and from [eating the meat of animals] that have been strangled and from sexual impurity."
The Amplified Bible
"You are to keep away from everything that has been given to gods. Do not eat blood or meat from animals that have been killed in ways against the Law. Keep away from sex sins"
New Life Version
"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. If you keep away from these things, you will do well. Goodbye."
The Bible in Worldwide English
I almost get the impression you believe the meaning is entirely subjective, in which case, there would be nothing to discuss.