Posts by defender of truth

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

defender of truth

William Draper-
No, I'm afraid he did not plan on killing his son for that at all.
It was for an unrelated matter to do with his son eating honey, not due to the soldiers eating blood.
(1 Samuel 14:43
Then Saul said to Jonathan, “Tell me what you have done.”
So Jonathan told him, “I tasted a little honey with the end of my staff. And now I must die!”)

Here is the account in question:

1 Samuel 14:31
That day, after the Israelites had struck down the Philistines from Mikmash to Aijalon, they were exhausted.

32 They pounced on the plunder and, taking sheep, cattle and calves, they butchered them on the ground and ate them, together with the blood.

33 Then someone said to Saul, “Look, the men are sinning against the Lord by eating meat that has blood in it.”
“You have broken faith,” he said. “Roll a large stone over here at once.”

34 Then he said, “Go out among the men and tell them, ‘Each of you bring me your cattle and sheep, and slaughter them here and eat them. Do not sin against the Lord by eating meat with blood still in it.’”
So everyone brought his ox that night and slaughtered it there.

....

Interesting point regarding these verses here:
[talking about the comments from the Watchtower's blood brochure]

"Is it reasonable to refer to a group of hungry soldiers as an emergency? This seems like simply an attempt to associate the account with modern medical emergencies requiring blood transfusions. Who of us would equate a life or death medical crisis to a band of hungry soldiers?"

"On the other hand, what this Bible story does teach us is quite interesting. Note what happens to these hungry soldiers who in an “emergency” chose to “sustain their lives” by “eating along with the blood?”...

"That is the entire consequence of their actions. They received a verbal reprimand."

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

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

defender of truth

Fisherman said :"I do not understand Cofty's point that you are referring to. Explain"
This is from the very first post of this thread. I knew you hadn't read the whole thread..
Food
When an Israelite killed an animal for food he was required to acknowledge that it's life belonged to god. By pouring out it's blood on the ground the life of the animal was symbolically returned to the life-giver.
Sacrifice
The principle behind all of the sacrifices under the Law was vicarious punishment. The penitent was acknowledging that they deserved to die for their sins, but god was willing to accept the life of an animal in his place. The blood that was poured out on the altar represented the life of the sacrificial animal being offered to god.
In both cases blood was only sacred once a life had been taken.
If an Israelite farmer found an animal "already dead" he was free to eat it with impunity. - Lev.11:38,39. Once an animal has been dead for more than a few minutes it is physically impossible to bleed it, so under these circumstances the Law is giving permission to eat unbled meat.
If an Israelite was to bleed an animal without killing it - as the Maasai do - and take the blood to the altar, the blood would have no sacrificial value for the simple reason that no life had been taken.

This is the important detail that the Watchtower have overlooked.
Blood is not intrinsically sacred; it is only sacred insofar as it represents a life that has been taken.

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

defender of truth

Fisherman said: "But the person who does something deliberately, whether he is native-born or a foreign resident, is blaspheming Jehovah and must be cut off from among his people..."

"That goes for an Israelite intentionally eating a dead or torn animal"

You must be asserting that Leviticus 17:15 involved a hunter unintentionally eating a dead or torn animal, then? Otherwise you are not making any sense.

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

defender of truth

Here it is again:

"Going back to the point Cofty was making in the first place, can you show me one verse where God required blood to be poured out (on the ground or on an altar), except for a situation where a life had been taken by someone?"

To be clear..

A life was always taken, whether on the altar or elsewhere, before the blood was poured out. It had no value except that it represented the life of the animal being taken.

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

defender of truth

Sorry Fisherman, you failed the challenge.

The animal was killed on the altar, then the blood was poured on the altar.

The situation was that of a sacrifice, and someone had to kill it before any of it's blood was to be poured out.

Life taken - Blood poured out.

Would you like to try again?

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

defender of truth

Fisherman:

"Regarding blood, show me one verse where God allowed Israel to eat blood. Unbled meat sometimes, but never blood."

It was established in the Original Post that we can accept that God did not allow Israel to eat blood, only unbled meat at times. If that is the only thing you can say on this subject though, that's fine...

Going back to the point Cofty was making in the first place, can you show me one verse where God required blood to be poured out (on the ground or on an altar), except for a situation where a life had been taken by someone?

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

defender of truth

David Faucetton March 6, 2015 at 12:57 PM said:
" Lev. 7:26 says:
'You must not eat any blood in any places where you dwell.'
It would be highly unlikely that an Israelite would have unbled meat ‘in his dwelling’. [ see my footnote at the end of this post* ]

If he was in his dwelling there should be plenty of food, including bled meat, available to eat.

As noted Lev. 17:13 discusses the situation where someone is hunting, perhaps days away from his home.

[ https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+17%3A13-15&version=NIV ]

If he has been unsuccessful in killing an animal he might be in danger of starvation.
In that case if he came across an animal already dead he was allowed to eat it. Jehovah did not require an Israelite to starve to death just because he was unsuccessful as a hunter."

This comment was taken from the end of this article:
http://ajwrb.org/bible/questions-from-readers

To reiterate the point I am trying to make here: in a situation where life is in danger, or at least where the person needed to eat something,
even though the animal has obviously not been drained of blood and the hunter would be aware of that fact, it was allowed.

The hunter's first choice would undoubtedly be to make their own fresh kill, then drain the blood and pour it out to God. It would be safer, and would be in line with his religious beliefs.

But even God's Law clearly made an allowance for a person who needed to eat, who likely did not want to disobey the command made in the Law, but could do so when it was necessary.
Otherwise a hunter could starve to death.
Once he was back at home, the hunter could then make the decision to reject food that still had blood in it, because there were other options available.
His life was not in danger.

Can anyone see the comparison between this example and that of someone who NEEDS a blood transfusion in a life-or-death situation?

* Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
"in any of your dwellings;
this shows that this law is not to be restrained to creatures slain in sacrifice in the tabernacle, and to the blood of them, but to be understood of all such as were slain in their own houses for food, and the blood of them."

This is important to understand the context of the command at Leviticus 7:26.

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

defender of truth

Fisherman said:
"The person became unclean as a result of violating the law. (He did not become ceremonially unclean. He became unclean.)"
....

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
"Neither shall ye make yourselves unclean.—But not only is it disgusting to eat these abominable creatures, but their carcases defile and debar him who comes in contact with them from entering into the sanctuary and from partaking of the sacrificial meal."

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible- Leviticus 11:43
"... that ye should be defiled thereby; in a ceremonial sense."
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/11-43.htm

The context of Leviticus 11:43 does seem to indicate it would make someone ceremonially unclean, so your statement does not seem to make any sense.

Assuming that you meant that anyone who ate these swarming creatures would be, not just ceremonially unclean, but also (at that time) unclean and loathsome in Gods eyes.. What of it?

The command in Exodus was a general instruction to not eat an animal's dead body, found torn apart by another animal. This could happen in or around Israelite dwelling places.
That is good hygiene, as SAHS pointed out.

The instruction to bathe in Leviticus 17:15 was after an animal had been found dead by someone specifically whilst they were hunting for food, according to the context.

And how does Leviticus 17:15 even relate to Leviticus 7:26?
Chapter 7 is clearly talking about animal sacrifices, animals killed and offered as sacrifices in Israelite dwelling places. (Anyone can read the chapter themselves and see that).

Without a clear explanation of your specific point relating to this topic, you are wasting space.
Please explain, and state your point clearly.

68

Help needed: Written material regarding shunning of DF'd and DA'd individuals

by EdenOne in

i would like this to become a permanent thread, because i think there are grounds - at least in europe - to take this matter up to the european court of human rights.

not sure we'll ever get there, but one must start somewhere.

objective: force, by legal means, the watchtower society and the jehovah's witnesses to stop the practice of shunning ex-jehovah's witnesses, on grounds that it constitutes a violation of human rights.. what is needed: all written material ever published by the watchtower society, especially since 1940's, concerning the practice of shunning.

defender of truth

Edenone, you might find this interesting, at least some of the wording. I recommend that you sign it anyway.

https://www.change.org/p/launch-an-investigation-to-determine-if-jehovah-s-witnesses-have-a-right-to-use-coercion-forms-of-mental-torture-to-force-its-members-not-to-leave

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

defender of truth

Fisherman said:

"Seems that everyone agrees that based on the Bible it was not ok for Noah or Israel to eat blood from living or dead animals?"

No, not everyone agrees. Have you read the whole thread?

Ok, I'll repost this post of mine from page 8..

"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

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

"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