New Light

jefferywhat

I swear more new light is available here than in the corridors of the WTS.

In leviticus the israelites are instructed not to eat things strangled or already dead, but if they do, they are only unclean, not stoned to death.

So why has it been upgraded by the WTS to be this unforgivable sin?

I know I have put this forward rather lightly but im sure this has been discussed before and Im assuming someone had written to the WTS for an explanation, which I intend to do.

Any previous threads that could help/expand?

It bizzare ow you can go your whole life accepting all you hear, you only have to take half a step back and it changes everything.

Hope to get some feedback

JW

Abandoned

So why has it been upgraded by the WTS to be this unforgivable sin?

I think it might have something to do with the fact that the governing body of jehovah's witnesses are actually pharisaical hypocrites.

united states of nothing

Women who had a flow of blood were unclean as well...should they be dfed?

Gordy

In leviticus the israelites are instructed not to eat things strangled or already dead, but if they do, they are only unclean, not stoned to death.

Also an Israelite was allowed to sell such an animal to an "alien resident" (non-Jew). thus showing the prohibition on eating blood only applied to the Jews.

Yet the JW's use Gen 9 about Noah being told not to eat blood as being binding on ALL mankind they called it a "universal law"..

So by selling a dead animal with its blood to a non-Jew - would the Jew be breaking this "universal law".

Exterminator

Hi, Jefferywhat

The Governing Body and Writing department are aware of this problem, Deuteronomy 14:21, etc. A "Question for Readers" in a 1983 Watchtower addressed the question, but contained a gross mistake.

They don't care.

You may have a look at http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/115238/1.ashx regarding a letter to the WTS on the topic. Its author ended up before a judicial commitee, of course.

truthsetsonefree

This matter was another nail in the JW coffin for me. I recommend if you haven't already read it Ray Franz's In Search of Christian Freedom. It touches on the matter of the animal's being sold to non-Jews. That clearly shows that the monetary value of the animal was still important. It could not therefore have been the cardinal sin that WT claims it to be.

Isaac Carmignani

BluesBrother

The scripture account in 1 Sam.14 is relevant as well . I have posted up the WT response to the question of why blood eating soldiers of Israel were spared. I thought it fair to show the whole article. Still seems a double standard to me , and get their comment about not going to fanatical lengths!. In fact, can you think of any Bible charecter recorded as being "cut off" for eating non drained meat?

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

* w94 4/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

Questions From Readers

When Saul’s soldiers ate meat along with the blood, why were they not executed, since that was the punishment set out in God’s Law?

These men did violate God’s law on blood, but they may have been shown mercy because they had respect for blood, even though they should have been more diligent about showing such respect.

Consider the situation. The Israelites under King Saul and his son Jonathan were at war with the Philistines. At a point when "the men of Israel themselves were hard pressed" in battle, Saul rashly took an oath that his men should not eat until the enemy was defeated. (1 Samuel 14:24) Soon his oath created a problem.

His men were winning a hard-fought battle, but the strenuous effort was taking its toll. They were famished and exhausted. What did they do in that extreme situation? "The people began darting greedily at the spoil and taking sheep and cattle and calves and slaughtering them on the earth, and the people fell to eating along with the blood."—1 Samuel 14:32.

That was in violation of God’s law concerning blood, as some of Saul’s people told him, saying: "Look! The people are sinning against Jehovah by eating along with the blood." (1 Samuel 14:33) Yes, the Law said that when animals were slaughtered, the blood had to be drained before the meat was eaten. God did not demand taking fanatical measures to drain the blood. By taking reasonable steps of drainage, his servants could manifest respect for the significance of blood. (Deuteronomy 12:15, 16, 21-25) Animal blood could be used in a sacrificial way on the altar, but it was not to be eaten. Deliberate violation was punishable by death, for God’s people were told: "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."—Leviticus 17:10-14.

Were the soldiers of King Saul deliberately breaking the Law? Were they showing absolute disregard for the divine law on blood?—Compare Numbers 15:30.

We need not conclude so. The record says that they were ‘slaughtering the animals ontheearth and eating along with the blood.’ So they may have been making some attempt to drain the blood. (Deuteronomy 15:23) Yet, in their exhausted, famished state, they did not hang up the slaughtered carcasses and allow adequate time for normal blood drainage. They slaughtered the sheep and cattle "on the earth," which could retard drainage. And they quickly cut meat from carcasses that might have been lying in blood. Hence, even if they had in mind obeying God’s law, they did not follow through in proper ways nor to an adequate extent.

The result was that "the people fell to eating along with the blood," which was sinful. Saul recognized this and ordered that a large stone be rolled to him. He commanded the soldiers: "Bring near to me, each one of you, his bull and, each one, his sheep, and you must do the slaughtering in this place and the eating, and you must not sin against Jehovah by eating along with the blood." (1 Samuel 14:33, 34) The guilty soldiers obeyed, and "Saul proceeded to build an altar to Jehovah."—1 Samuel 14:35.

Slaughtering animals on the stone probably effected adequate blood drainage. Meat from the animals would be eaten away from where the slaughtering occurred. Saul may have used some of the drained blood on the altar in seeking God’s mercy toward those who had sinned. Jehovah extended mercy, apparently because he knew what attempts the soldiers had made even though they were very tired and hungry. God may also have taken into account that Saul’s rash oath had pressed his men into that desperate situation.

This account does show that an emergency situation is no excuse for disregarding divine law. It should also help us see the need for careful thought before taking an oath, for a rash vow can cause problems for us personally and for others.—Ecclesiastes 5:4-6.

VanillaMocha73

Exterminator: What is the mistake please? I found the article 4/15/83. It looks like a lot of doublespeak....

skyking

jefferywhat If you do not have my research about blood you will find it worth the read. I call it my Blood letter. This information has been respossible for many people leaving the borg. I have had CO's go over the information and agree the Society is wrong on blood. I have seven different Elder go into depth with me over this letter. Every person more matter how brain washed that has taken the time to go over this letter on blood has admitted to me the Society is wrong.

PM me if you would like a copy. That goes for anyone the reads this, the letter has been posted here several time and several hundred on the this board has a personal copy.

Glod bless your open minded search for the truth.

Exterminator

Hi, VM73

Just read this sentence:

Further, if guilt resulted only if blood was from a creature killed by man, then Deuteronomy 14:21 and Exodus 22:31 would not have forbidden Israelites to eat unbled flesh from animals that were not killed by men.

Actually, if "guilt resulted only if blood was from a creature killed by man," then Deuteronomy 14:21 and Exodus 22:31 would have forbidden Israelites to eat that flesh anyway, because of the ceremonial impurity of corpses.

At the core of the article is a complete confusion between the prohibition against blood and the ceremonial impurity of corpses. The quoted passages of Deuteronomy 14:21, Leviticus 17:15, Exodus 22:31 and Leviticus 5:2 are all about the impurity of corpses.

How about this:

Now let us carefully examine Leviticus 17:10. It says that no “man of the house of Israel or some alien resident” should eat blood. Was that because the animal had been killed by a human and so the blood had to be returned to God? To claim such is to read into the verse more than it says.

The next verse, Leviticus 17:11 says that the blood has been put on the altar. Is it "reading into the verse more than it says" to assume that Israelites couldn't pour blood from a live animal on the altar?

I find it incredible that the author can tell others that they read into verses more that they say, and fail to see how much he does it himself, when reading the blood prohibition into verses that merely declare corpses unclean.

Look at the general tone of the article, too. Scornful, aggressive. The way it calls to obedience. I met its author after a lot of insistence, and spent 30 minutes respectfuly directing his attention to the problem. He was just as nervous as when writing his article, and kept looking at his watch. He then warned me against falling into apostasy.

That's at least something he was right about.

New Light

Share this