Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine

by jgnat 317 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Earnest

  cofty,

  My initial reaction to reading Leviticus 11:39,40 (with the background knowledge that I have that blood was forbidden to them as food) was that this was probably written to exclude eating any part of the animal, even if there was no blood involved, as that would be unclean.

  I did a bit of research as I was not entirely happy with this explanation and found that John Wesley , in his Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, commented on verse 40 and said

  40. He that eateth - Unwittingly, for if he did it knowingly, it was a presumptuous sin against an express law, Deut. xiv. 21, and therefore punished with cutting off.

  I also found that the Jewish commentators agreed with this.

  Maimonides says, in the Mishneh Torah (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 6:1) :

  One who eats an olive's worth of blood intentionally is cut off from his people. One who eats it accidentally brings a sin-offering.

  Rashi uses this measurement and explains 11:40 as meaning

  "Why does the Torah say 'one who eats'? To set a minimum measure for one who carries and one who touches, being a size of an olive."

  This seems to me a more likely meaning of the verse, that if you eat such an animal not knowing its origin and then discovered its origin you must be considered unclean until the evening. I think Witnesses take a similar view to eating meat that you subsequently find had not been bled.

  I remember an incident when I was pioneering in a rural area some years ago and a buck sprang out in front of our car and we hit it. My partner stopped the car, sprang out and cut the poor animals neck and I had the unenviable task of holding it out the window while the blood drained as we drove home. Needless to say that was the end of field service that day.

  I think I should add that while I did describe myself as one of Jehovah's witnesses, the use of a lower case 'w' was deliberate as I am part of the old school who do not view myself as part of a religion but simply consider it a matter of faith. So while djeggnog seems to speak of and for the religion I am not claiming the same for myself.
• 

  cofty

  Earnest, that is the interpretation that the watchtower uses to try to hide their embarrassment; it does not hold up to scrutiny at all.

  There is no hint whatsoever in the context that accidental eating of meat found "already dead" was being referred to. You could not possibly read that out of the verse. The options that are considered in these verses are either disposing of the dead animal or eating it. No accidents are involved and the consequences are identical - temporary uncleanness.

  If it is about an accidental action why were the priests specifically prohibited from eating meat found "already dead"? If it was sin for the rank and file there would be no need to tell the priests they were also under that law. All the instructions to the priests involve rules that are in additional to those imposed on the rest of the nation because of their particular need for cleanness.

  If it was about the accidental eating of animals found "already dead" why did Moses later suggest the alternative solution of selling the carcass to a foreigner who was not under the restrictions of cleanness?

  I'm afraid your response does not begin to address the points in my argument. You have simply found a couple of references that support the borgs position and ignored the big picture of why they are mistaken.

  A fuller version of my point is here
• 

  cofty

  I think I should just add something that might be causing confusion.

  You are right that blood is not the issue at Lev11:38,39. It is eating OR touching any part of the dead carcass that causes uncleanness.

  However - it is not possible to bleed an animal found "already dead" if it is to be eaten it has to be eaten unbled, and yet this was not a crime under The Law, it was simply a matter of cleanness, and that not for anything to do with blood but for contact with the carcass.

  My argument is that blood is not inherently sacred, it is only sacred in-so-far as it represents a life that has been taken.

  For this same reason blood that had been let from live animals had no sacrificial value.

  Every reference to blood in the bible, including Acts 15, makes perfect sense in this context.
• 

  pirata

  @cofty, great thread on jwsupportforum. I came to a similar conclusion after gathering and tying together every single verse in the bible that talks about blood and animal meat;

  After reading through all the articles written in the Watchtower on Blood, the reasoning was all over the map as to why one must abstain from blood transfusions (Acts 15:28,29 a reiteration of Noah's laws, eating, organ transplants, cannibalism, sustaining one's life, the donor's personality being transferred to the recipient's, the kidney and heart containing emotions that would be transferred in an organ transplant, fractions okay, fractions not okay); I got the impression that all manner of reasoning was being used to prop up a previous decision, instead of a conclusion being drawn from a fresh analysis of all the relevant scriptures.
• 

  cofty

  Pirata I am sure that anybody who took the time to start afresh and do a thorough review of everything the bible says about blood would come to the same conclusion as we have.

  Blood is not intrinsically sacred - its only symbolically sacred insofar as it represents a life that has been deliberately taken. It was a symbol of returning the life to god. I believe that by starting at Lev.11:38,39 any reasonable JW could be helped to see that, at that the very least, there is insufficient grounds to risk your life or your child's life on the society being correct.

  Only an imbecile like Rutherford would have made the sort of blunder that the borg is now obliged to defend at all costs.
• 

  sabastious

  There may be many things that make the Society look bad to some folks, but for the most part, people fault Jehovah's Witnesses for the decisions they make for themselves and their own children in their refusal to accept blood transfusions. Very few people fault the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society for the decisions that Jehovah's Witnesses make in this regard. You may one of the few people that faults the Society, but I can assure you, hardly anyone thinks the fault for the position that Jehovah's Witnesses take regarding blood transfusions lies with the Society.

  You present yourself as a man of logic here, but I fail to see the logic in the above quote.

  You are giving undue logical weight to the amount of "people" who agree with with your argument (in this case being that responsibility lies with the individual and not the WTS, in regards to refusal of treatment). A large amount of people eat at McDonalds on a regular basis and would swear it's the best thing since sliced grapes, does that mean they have good food?

  Why are you resorting to such rudimentary arguments? You've been arguing for so long your words seem tired to me.

  -Sab
• 

  pirata

  Only an imbecile like Rutherford would have made the sort of blunder that the borg is now obliged to defend at all costs.

  The 4 Presidents book gave the impression that Rutherford was opposed to banning blood transfusions, and it wasn't till after his death that Knorr was convinced to ban them. The very first article opposing blood transfusions was in 1945 (3 years after Rutherfords death in 1942).
• 

  cofty

  Thanks for that clarification Pirata.

  I am not trying to resurrect an old and tired thread by the way, just responding to a recent reply from Earnest.