by jefferywhat 13 Replies latest watchtower medical
By the way, regarding 1 Sam 14:
Those men were in no life-threatening danger. They certainly had eaten in the morning, and were not starving to death.
More to the point, they were just supposed to take the time to bleed the animals, and therefore wait a few more minutes before eating the meat. Was has it to do with a life-or-death issue?
They were blamed for their negligence, that's all.
Dear Jeffery,
Looks like others have posted what you were probably looking for. Here is something I posted a while ago. Gives one food for thought.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/136144/1.ashx
Hello all..
OK, I have a question for any takers: Deuteronomy 14:21 says this:
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....I realise under the Mosaic law they were forbidden to eat unbled meat. So, it is obvious that this is why they could not eat a animal that they found that had died, say from natural causes. But why were they allowed to give it to a alien resident or a foreigner??? The Witnesses teach that they are still to obstain from blood today. And that this was not done away with with the Mosaic law. So my question is: Why would God encourage them to make a profit off of having someone else sin by eating blood?? Seems to me this could be a good reasoning point to show that it was a law for them at that time. I wonder if anyone else sees what point I am trying to make. Any takers??
Sincerely,
Lady Liberty
Lady Liberty:
I realise under the Mosaic law they were forbidden to eat unbled meat. So, it is obvious that this is why they could not eat a animal that they found that had died, say from natural causes.
Can you explain why you find it obvious that the flesh of animal found dead was forbidden because of the blood inside, and not because of the ceremonial impurity of corpses?
Only Israelites and proselites were under obligation to remain ceremonialy clean.
Nothing to do with the blood.
I knew I would get answers!!
All of the responses have been amazing, thank you all and I look forward to further advice.
I am currently pioneering, into my 12 year( smaal break in between) I find it interesting to talk the the R&F and make them think, dont worry I am very clever.
I bring up contentious issues but only those found in Questions from readers on the CD rom, I swear this method is the ultimate loop hole, people respect you for doing " extra personal study" and they let their guard down because its from the FDS!!
Anyway, I was talking to the group today about how twice the gb in the 1st century said to abstain from blood, but they put Blood, fornication and Things sacrificed to idols in the same sentence.
The GB now has upgraded the blood issue to fornication but forget that "things sacrificed to idols", according to Paul was a conscience matter. The reasoning is so inconsistent!!!
The response from everyone.........well we just dont get into those subjects because it seems unimportant!!!
AARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!
They dedicated their life to this and they dont care if it accurate or not!!
Why does the GN hang onto this so tightly? What are the politics involved here? Do they feel because the so call first century gb said it they do? Is it a case of "what they said"?
Lastly, with the scripture that says cut off, did that only apply if they did the killing and the eating, because if they didnt do the killing, you were not cut off for eating the meat.
Also, does anyone know the root meaning of the Hebrew expression "cut off", why was this not translated " certainly put to death"?
JW
