The Watchtower are Right About Blood... (page 15)

Fisherman

Defender of truth says:

http://ajwrb.org/bible/new-light-on-blood

http://ajwrb.org/bible/blood-and-the-mosaic-law

in support of his commentaries as if his references were authorities. They are commentary supporting his commentary.

"Leviticus 17:15 illustrates that an Israelite could even eat a unbled animal if necessary, and if he had not taken the life. The result was nothing more than ceremonial uncleanness that required bathing."

"If anyone, whether a native or a foreigner, eats an animal found dead or one torn by a wild animal, he must then wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; then he will be clean"-Lev17:15

The scripture does not say that he could even eat a dead animal if necessary as if God so decreed, It says if he ate a dead animal or an animal killed bay a wild beast, it would result in uncleanness. He was unclean! He had done something wrong. The scripture shows God's provision to restore cleanness To say that: "the result was nothing more than ceremonial uncleanness.." unveils a disrespect for violating God's law, trivializes the law that commands Israel to be Holy, and shows a lack of appreciation for God's merciful provision to restore a clean standing before Him.

cofty

He was unclean! He had done something wrong - Fisherman

You are mistaken. If he buried the animal he was unclean. If he went home and had sex with his wife he was unclean. When a woman had her period she was unclean. When your wife gave birth to your children she was declared unclean. If your mother or father died and you took care of them for burial you were unclean.

There was absolutely nothing sinful about being ceremonially unclean.

Your understanding of OT law is woefully lacking.

Fisherman - Are you an active JW? I'm just curious, it's not an accusation.

Fisherman

You are mistaken.

No, I am not.  “You should prove yourselves holy people to me, and you must not eat the flesh of anything in the field that has been torn by a wild animal. You should throw it to the dogs.-Ex 22:31 It was wrong to eat animals that were dead from being torn in the field because God commanded that they must not be eaten.

EdenOne

There is an obvious contradiction between Leviticus 17:15 and Exodus 22:31, don't you agree? After all, what kind of God would command something in such imperative terms (Exodus) and then later, and without recanting from the previous command, concedes that such command may be violated with just a minor defilement of the flesh (Leviticus). Is Yahweh uncertain about it? Or did Moses got it wrong from God in one of the books? Or could it be that there were in fact different scribes with different agendas writing these books in different times?

Eden

SAHS

Even if, say, hypothetically, we were somehow today still legally bound under the ancient Mosaic Law . . . (not that I’m a fan or even a believer of it – I’ve thoroughly moved on from the JW “religion,” or any other religion for that matter, at least in my mind and figurative heart, being as I am a born-in and currently still a stuck-in – but I’m just playing the imagination, thought experiment game for this particular moment) . . . if we had to live under that Mosaic Law today, with all the technicalities and nuances encompassing whatever equivalency there would be in relation to current contemporary applications (i.e., blood transfusion procedures in emergency medical intervention), then in the unfortunate event of either a close family member of mine or of myself being in a serious accident or sudden acute illness scenario and requiring an emergency lifesaving blood transfusion, . . . well, . . . I would much prefer either that close family member or myself (as the case may be) to be considered what could rightly amount to being ceremonially “unclean until the evening” (or at worst, perhaps deemed relatively light “brazen conduct”) rather than having my whole family berieved for the rest of their whole lives due to an untimely and completely unnecessary death because of the ridiculous and illogical interpretation of scriptural theology contrived by a man-made, arrogant, disingenuous, and self-serving cult operating under the premise of a “religion,” and supposedly the one-and-only true one at that!

SAHS

“EdenOne”: “There is an obvious contradiction between Leviticus 17:15 and Exodus 22:31, don't you agree? After all, what kind of God would command something in such imperative terms (Exodus) and then later, and without recanting from the previous command, concedes that such command may be violated with just a minor defilement of the flesh (Leviticus).”

That’s quite an interesting point. The only thing I can think of is perhaps the verse at Exodus 22:31, which may pertain more to the conditions of traveling through a hot desert and which comes before Leviticus in the Old Testament Pentateuch, focuses more on the aspect of physical cleanliness and health, insofar as an animal found already killed by another beast could potentially have been dead long enough to become ridden with toxic bacteria and become rancid (i.e., serious food poisoning). This could be along the similar line of the command not to eat a communal meal left over by “the third day”: “5 “‘Now if you offer a communion sacrifice to Jehovah,+ you should sacrifice it in such a way that you gain approval for yourselves.+ 6 It should be eaten on the day of your sacrifice and on the next day, but what is left over until the third day should be burned in the fire.+ 7 If, though, any of it is eaten on the third day, it is an offensive thing that will not be accepted with approval. 8 The one eating it will answer for his error because he has profaned a holy thing of Jehovah, and that person* must be cut off*from his people.” – Leviticus 19:5-8.

On the other hand, the verse at Leviticus 17:15 possibly was more oriented towards the legalistic, ceremonial angle, as regards the idea of “uncleanness,” than any considerations of eating meat that had possibly gone rotten.

Fisherman

EdenOne Says:There is an obvious contradiction between Leviticus 17:15 and Exodus 22:31

Not at all. I invite you to read Leviticus 11:1-47. Verse 46-47 summarizes it. This is the law about the animals, the flying creatures, every living creature that moves through the waters, and concerning every creature that swarms on the earth,  in order to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten." Lev 11:46-47. Notice this example in Lev verse 43 showing the consequences of violating one of these laws:  "Do not make yourselves loathsome by means of any swarming creature, and do not defile yourselves and become unclean by them."-Lev 11:43. The person became unclean as a result of violating the law. (He did not become ceremonially unclean. He became unclean.) There is no provision shown in the quoted verse to restore a person's cleanness. Now notice verse 40:  "Whoever eats any of its dead body should wash his garments, and he will be unclean until the evening".-Lev 11:40 The consequences of violating God's law in this case was the same, uncleanness (not ceremonial uncleanness), however, in this particular case, God made a provision for restoration.

 "You must not eat any blood in any of your dwelling places, whether that of birds or that of animals.  Anyone who eats any blood must be cut off from his people.’” Lev 7:26-27 The consequences of eating blood was death.

Having sex with your wife is not a sin.

I will explain this evening.

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

Share this