... 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.
Straight from the revised New World translation, if you are a Jehovah's Witness reading this thread.. 1 Samuel 14:32
"So the people began rushing greedily at the spoil, and they took sheep and cattle and calves and slaughtered them on the ground, and they ate the meat along with the blood."
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-samuel/14/
... 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.
Fisherman said earlier:
"... Regarding blood, show me one verse where God allowed Israel to eat blood. Unbled meat sometimes, but never blood."
Ok. 1 Samuel 14:32.
They ate blood.
Nobody was punished or cut off from their people.
Neither God or his anointed one ordered anyone to be killed or punished.
Yet the men knew exactly what they were doing.
Don't try and tell me it was 'not intentional'.
This was clearly an example of animal blood being eaten deliberately, instead of being poured out.
See all of the translations and cross-references for this verse here:
http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/14-32.htm
... 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.
... 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.
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.
... 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.
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.
... 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.
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.
... 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.
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?
... 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.
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?
... 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.
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.
... 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.
