by skyking 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The reply to the letter was "DO NOT SHARE THIS INFORMATION TO OTHERS"
At this point I knew the Governing Body knew the truth. Which made them murderers.
Dear Skyking,
OMG!!!! If I didn't know better I wouldn't believe it!! But I DO!!!! HOLYCOW!!!! Thank you so much for filling us in on the whole story!! You should write a book!! UNFREAKING BELIEVABLE!!! (((HUGS)) to you as you have obviously been through the wringer!!
All I can say is WOW!!!!
Sincerely,
Lady Liberty
I have it on good authority that this original research is not skyking's. He is copying the hard work of others, some who can no longer speak for themselves. It is unethical to take this work as your own, skyking, and it dishonors the memory of the hard workers that came before you.
For those of you wondering how I can make such a strong claim, here are some links for your review.
Skyking's website, jwbloodreview.org goes up July of 2000
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/560/4468/post.ashx#4468
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/560/1.ashx
Original researcher's advice on letter writing to the Society
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/1567/21016/post.ashx#21016
Blood discussion
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/265/1.ashx
jwbloodreview.org as it appeared Aug 2000 to Aug of 2002
http://web.archive.org/web/*/jwbloodreview.org
Reader beware.
jgnat,
Thanks for those links.
Lilly
To flesh out what Jgnat has said:
There is nothing wrong with using the reasoning and arguments formulated by others especially those you respect and admire. I've borrowed heavily from the research of Alan Feuerbacher, Leolaia and Narkissos myself.
However this is the umpteenth time I've seen this argument presented as unattributed original research . This is the umpteenth time I've seen this argument presented as something AJWRB or for that matter, the JW parent organization itself would not know about except for Skyman / Skyking.
The truth is this argument originated in Bethel itself in the mid 1990's and was the work of two anonymous Bethel elders. By the year 2000, it was already a source of considerable consternation at JW headquarters and AJWRB has known about it from the very beginning. (c.1997)
During the late 1990's, many of us who were active in pushing for reform on blood were asked to read and critique this argument in written form. It was then presented on Pro-JW discussion boards so that the Hal Flemmings and Al Kidds of the JW movement could take their best shot at knocking it down.
When he was confident that the argument was bullet-proof, "Friend" (A Bethel elder and someone of note at JW headquarters) published it on the web during the years 2000 to 2002. This website (Now defunct) was called jwbloodreview.org. It is still around in archived form here:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/jwbloodreview.org
There are many people who can corroborate this. "Friend" was known personally to Farkel, Marvin Shilmer, Maximus, and Alan Feuerbacher to name a few.
To be fair, it's possible that Skyman / Skyking "Reinvented the wheel." That is to say, he independently and on his own, discovered an argument against JW blood policy that was all over the internet at the time he did his research. Stranger things have happened.
The reader can judge the probability of this themself: (Original research in black, Skyman / Skyking in red)
For instance, was Noah prohibited from using blood for its pigmentation properties, maybe for artwork? Was Noah prohibited from feeding such blood to animals?
Man had no other requirements on blood given to him at Gen. 9:4 except, that he must not eat the flesh with its blood. He could use the blood for fertilizing the ground, as paint, or even animal feed.
As recorded at Genesis 9:3, 4 God prohibited man from eating blood from animals he killed for food. Because animals found dead had not been killed by man for food, the Noachian prohibition did not apply, even though such flesh contained its full measure of blood.
The act of killing was not charged to him if he found the body. If he killed it, Jehovah demanded that he acknowledge the life of that animal by pouring the blood on the ground.
That indicates that Genesis 9:1-17 was not a case of God instituting some special sacredness regarding blood, but rather God, by decree, was instilling His view of the sacredness of life. Life was the sacred issue addressed to Noah, not blood.
This showed it’s not the blood itself, nor was it the act of eating the blood that God was addressing. He was instilling into man what was important, not the blood nor the eating of blood but Jehovah’s High regard for life. This is the key, God regards life higher than he does blood.
The Mosaic Law obligated Israel (and those taking up worship with Israel) to conform to special standards that were consistent with the Noachian Law, but which went well beyond it. The Mosaic Law did not, and does not, apply to mankind in general.
People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Gen 9:3,4 but those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to that requirement than were foreigners and alien residents who had not became worshipers of Jehovah." Notice those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard regards blood.
We therefore conclude that this part of the Noachian Law applied only to blood obtained from animals killed for food. This is a key point because according to the Society's understanding of the Bible, and in particular Paul's writings, Christians are not bound by the Mosaic Law. Therefore, Christians are not obliged to adhere to requirements of the Mosaic Law-a law that contained standards higher than the Noachian Law-for that would be a returning to the Mosaic Law.
We can see that the law Jehovah gave Noah was not equal to, or the same as, the law he gave to Israel. Under the Mosaic Law, blood was more restrictive for Israel than of the rest of the earth. Defining the law on blood given to Israel, and making it apply to the rest of mankind is unworkable in the scriptures.
Again we see where the requirements regarding blood were higher for those under the Mosaic Law than for others. (See Leviticus 17:10) The Society, too, teaches that those under the Mosaic Law were held to a higher standard regarding blood than were others: From Insight on the Scriptures, page 345:......
There are two different worlds here. , The one under the Law of Israel and the rest of the world that’s not under it. This is clearly stated in the Insight On the Scriptures Vol 1 pages 345, paragraph 6.......
I beleive this is a thread worth resurrecting for newbies and lurkers,and the rest of us.
smiddy
Indeed, good thread.
Wow!!!! I'm glad to have read this!!!!
