by isaacaustin 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
There are alot of conjectures there. "Obviously" and "Surely"
However, the Law DID state that one eating blood would be killed. Keep reading in Leviticus
Lev 17:10 - " "Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood--I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people."
Actually CA, yes there was an exception to abstaining from blood. 1 Samuel 14:
31 That day, after the Israelites had struck down the Philistines from Mikmash to Aijalon, they were exhausted. 32 They pounced on the plunder and, taking sheep, cattle and calves, they butchered them on the ground and ate them, together with the blood. 33 Then someone said to Saul, “Look, the men are sinning against the Lord by eating meat that has blood in it.”
“You have broken faith,” he said. “Roll a large stone over here at once.” 34 Then he said, “Go out among the men and tell them, ‘Each of you bring me your cattle and sheep, and slaughter them here and eat them. Do not sin against the Lord by eating meat with blood still in it.’
It was a clear violation- eating of animal blood. The result?? They were told "Don't do it again."
Later in the account when Saul wanted to know why Israel was not being blessed and who was at fault, he or the Israelites it was revealed as him, not the Israelites who ate blood.
If you are simply going to ignore a very good question I am finished.
Thanks
I have rewritten it without any conjectures ..................
JW - If an Israelite discovered one of his flock had died he had a dilemma.
He couldn't leave it lying around but if he picked it up to bury it he became unclean "until the evening"and had to bathe and change his clothes.
It is impossible to bleed a cold dead carcass but what if he ate it anyway? Would that be a breach of the law to abstain from blood and result in "cutting off"?
Actually no. If he ate the unbled beast he had to bathe and change his clothes - that's it.
There is a very simple reason why it was a serious sin to kill an animal and eat it unbled but only a minor matter of uncleanness to eat the unbled flesh of an animal "already dead".
Do you know what that reason is?
‘If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches its carcass will be unclean till evening. Anyone who eats some of its carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening. - Lev. 11:39,40.
If you are simply going to ignore a very good question I am finished.
As a good Jehovah's Witness, I do not ignore very good questions! :-)
I was pointing out that if one ate blood it was not simply a matter of being unclean. If one ate blood Leviticus 17:10 says that they were to be cut off. Leviticus 11:39,40 does not mention blood at all. It mentions touching a dead carcass. But to say that the Israelite would not have the time to properly bleed it is reading into it. This principle would apply to anyone hunting for food. After they killed the animal and bled it, they would be unclean until the evening time.
So there are exceptions to Jehovah's rule of abstaining from blood? Can we find a single example of this in the Bible? Where did God EVERY allow for any type of blood to be ingested into the body in any form?
Two fallacies for the price of one!
I'm going to call 'Foul' because they've both been deconstructed now.
You can't invoke a partial predicate apart from the context that completes it as I've already explained.
You also can't link consumption and transfusion by retreating to more generic terms. Actually the use of the word, 'Ingest' above is incorrect. Foreign objects taken into the body are either ingested, aspirated, transplanted or transfused and there are important differences between all four. Using one when you mean another is deliberate misdirection
What 1Sam 14:31-35 DOES show is that even in emergency situations where we could die, we are not to eat blood. There are occasions where even when committing an act that required the death penalty by God, He showed mercy and love and did not punish people as they ought to be punished. These people should have been killed for eating the blood, but they were shown mercy.
Two fallacies for the price of one!
That's my job!!! I'm great at fallacies, ignoring questions, and answering questions that were not asked!
CA:
What 1Sam 14:31-35 DOES show is that even in emergency situations where we could die, we are not to eat blood. There are occasions where even when committing an act that required the death penalty by God, He showed mercy and love and did not punish people as they ought to be punished. These people should have been killed for eating the blood, but they were shown mercy.
My reply: It shows that it was done, and it was not the tragic happening the GB makes it out to be. The 1 Sam account is a clear violation of what the law was.
Of course, the WT interpretation has not scriptural backing.
You have claimed the blood laws predate the Law, and used Genesis 9. However a review of the account shows blood, in that particular account, is being used as a metaphor for life...not the physical material we know as blood.
As examination of the context of Acts 15 shows that is is referring back to the days of Israel and what a gentile living in the land at that time was expected to abide by, in referring to the guidelines of Leviticus.
That's my job!!!
LOL - I know.
Actually, there are JW's out there (Kidd, Furuli, etc.) who have invented their own arguments against transfusion without the more obvious errors of JW writers.
