Question: Why was it ok to sell unbled meat to a foriegner for them to eat? (page 4)

zack

Let's not leave out the economic damage that an animal who dies of itself would do to its owner. This was a rural agrarian culture and many of these families owned preciuos few animals. To deny a family the use of the animal--- whether as food or as money---- wasn't something God was willing to do. It all came back to what has already been said marvelously: man has to acknowledge God as the giver of life and he acknowledges this in Bible times through ceremony. God didn't seek to make things more difficult for people, but to give them a break. The WTS should give their followers the same break. These guys are evil.

choosing life

Because it was a part of the Mosaic law that did not apply to those not under the law.

That kind of blows their idea that the mandate is still in force that was given to Noah after God allowed him to slaughter and eat animals for the first time. The blood doctrine is totally nonsensible. Alice in Wonderland makes more sense to me.

shadow

kicky,

Question:
I am trying to understand Deut 14:21 and Lev 17:15.
It seems to me Lev 17:15 is referring to a case where someone (Jew or alien) in hunting finds an already dead animal...is this correct? His eating in this case merely resulted in uncleanness.?

(Leviticus 17:13-16) “‘As for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: “YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.” As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean. But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, he must then answer for his error.’”

Correct

Deut is talking about simply an animal that dies of natural courses- not in the course of hunting but perhaps an animal owned by a resident. In this case the Jew can not eat it but can sell it. Is this correct?

(Deuteronomy 14:21) “YOU must not eat any body [already] dead. To the alien resident who is inside your gates you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner, because you are a holy people to Jehovah your God

No, it’s the same scenario you suggested above about hunting. The Jew was not supposed to eat an animal that he owned if he discovered it had died. However, the penalty was to wash his garments and be unclean for the day. See Lev 11:39,40 below (a scripture that WT really does not like). Incidentally, this is the same requirement as for married couples having sex.

(Leviticus 11:39-40) “‘Now in case any beast that is YOURS for food should die, he who touches its dead body will be unclean until the evening. And he who eats any of its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening; and he who carries off its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening.

Here is one of the direct more WT answers on this scripture.

*** w54 4/1 223 Questions from Readers ***Questions from Readers
? How can we harmonize Deuteronomy 14:21 (NW), “You must not eat any dead body,” and Leviticus 11:40 (NW), “And he who eats any of its dead body will wash his garments and he must be unclean until the evening”?—D. H., Eire.
Actually, there is no disharmony between these two texts. One prohibits eating an animal that died of itself or was found dead, and the other shows the penalty for eating in violation of the prohibition. The mere fact that the eating of a dead body is forbidden does not mean that will never take place. The Law contained prohibitions of many things, but it also contained penalties for violating those prohibitions. The mere fact that a thing was prohibited did not of itself mean it would never be indulged in; hence penalties were set up to give force to the prohibitions. There were prohibitions against stealing, talebearing, adultery, murder, and many other sins of varying magnitude, and penalties of varying severity were fixed by the Law to guide Israel in dealing with violators. So it was in the matter of eating a dead body.

One month later they try to confuse the issue by saying eating the dead animal was done accidentally.

*** w54 5/1 286-7 Questions from Readers ***
If the hunter failed to bleed his game properly he was put to death, or “cut off.” To eat unbled game not only was prohibited to Israelites under the Law, but also is forbidden for Christians: “Keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things killed without draining their blood and from fornication.” (Acts 15:29; 21:25, NW) Immediately following the instruction to hunters to bleed their game and that to eat blood will mean their death, we read: “As for any soul that eats a dead body or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or a temporary resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening. Then he must be clean. But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, then he must answer for his iniquity.” (Lev. 17:15, 16, NW) A body that dies of itself or of wounds inflicted by another animal would not be properly drained of blood, and hence was not to be eaten. Penalty for deliberate violation of the commandment to eat no blood is death, but in the last-mentioned case guilt could be erased by a ceremony of purification, which indicates it was a case where the commandment was violated innocently, unknowingly, as might happen when someone purchased or bartered for meat, or when eating as a guest of someone else. Now, as in Israel’s day, one who violates the command concerning blood accidentally, without knowing it, not doing so deliberately, can gain forgiveness by repentance and avoiding a recurrence of the trespass.

Here are more recent comments from the Insight book.

*** it-2 217-9 Law ***
DIETARY AND SANITARY LAWS
No animal dying of itself or found dead could be eaten (because it was unclean and had not been properly bled) (De 14:21)
The body of a clean animal that died of itself made the one who carried it, touched it, or ate it unclean; the dead body of any unclean animal made the one who touched it unclean. Cleansing was required (Le 11:8, 11, 24-31, 36, 39, 40; 17:15, 16)

Narkissos

Excellent arguments on the JW front.

I'd just like to point out that there is a major difference between Deuteronomy 14:21 and Leviticus 17:15: Deuteronomy (more exactly, the specifically "deuteronomistic" texts in Deuteronomy) insists on unequal treatment of native and foreigner on the basis of its religious-ethnical exclusivism (cf. also Dt 15:3; 23:21), while Leviticus consistently prescribes equal treatment of all residents in the land (cf. also Lv 18:26; 19:33f; 24:22).

Mary

AlanF said: More like they pluck nonsense out of their asses, Mary, for all their teachings are worth.

You're right Alan........I made the change to reflect a more accurate location of where they get this crap from.

Mysterious

By that logic JWs should be able to give blood and just not accept a transfusion. Afterall it would only be religious foreigners who would be receiving it.

jaguarbass

So my question is: Why would God encourage them to make a profit off of having someone else sin by eating blood??

The bible was written by the Jewish people and along with any good qualities they may have those good qualities are overshadowed by the relization that they are a very greedy money hungry people.

AlanF

jaguarbass said:

: Why would God encourage them to make a profit off of having someone else sin by eating blood??

I think you yourself answered: the OT was written by the Jews, not by God. Narkissos' pointing out a rather different focus in Leviticus and Deuteronomy bears this out.

AlanF

gumby

Nothing to add except to give EVERYONE a big pat on the back for their awesome input on such an important subject.

This is one of the best threads I've seen as far as argumentation goes against the WTBTS on the blood issue.

Great job everyone!

Gumby

Mary

Thank you Brother Gumby. I say that you should include the points made here when you give your first (and last) Instruction talk.

Another argument that could be made about the whole blood issue, is that the Governing Body is guilty of taking part of 'Passive euthanasia' which is described as: "...withholding common treatments (such as antibiotics, drugs, or surgery)." While it is technically the Jehovah's Witness in question who claims they would rather die than accept a blood transfusion, in reality, the refusal of this 'common treatment' is at the behest of the Governing Body. Since you are taught that to accept a transfusion will cost you your family, friends, possible livelihood, public humiliation and your eternal salvation, the pressure to basically 'commit suicide' might seem preferable to some rather than lose the entire structure of their lives. Being surrounded by representatives of the Hospital Liaison Committee to make sure you don't cave is also another huge intimidation.

Ironic that Jack Kevorkian spent years in prison for helping terminally ill people with no hope of recovery, die a peaceful death, yet the goons who are at Brooklyn Bethel are allowed to stand by and watch their own people die, when there IS a treatment available.

Question: Why was it ok to sell unbled meat to a foriegner for them to eat?

Share this