Applying Genesis Laws to Blood Transfusions appears to be ridiculous!

by Terry 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  Deuteronomy 14:21

  New International Version (NIV)

  21 Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to the foreigner residing in any of your towns, and they may eat it, or you may sell it to any other foreigner.

  In Deuteronomy 14:21, God allowed the Jews to sell unbled animals found already dead to be used as food by "alien residents" and "foreigners."

  The Noachian Law, but not the Mosaic Law, applied to these people, since they were part of mankind as a whole, but not part of Israel.

  The distinction is between animals that humans had killed for food, which were covered by the Noachian Law, and those which had been found already dead, which were not covered by the Noachian Law.

  Had they been covered, using them for food would have been prohibited by God in the Mosaic Law.

  It is inconceivable that God would explicitly permit the Jews to sell to non-Jews a food item he had long ago prohibited to all mankind simply so that Jews could make a little money.

  The conclusion, therefore, is that God's injunction to Noah in Genesis 9:4 did not prohibit mankind from eating already-dead, unbled animals, but commanded mankind to show respect for God's creation of life by pouring out the blood of animals *that men had specifically killed for food*.

  Thus, applying either Genesis 9:4, or Acts 15 which is based on the Mosaic Law, to blood transfusions, is ridiculous.

  Comments?
• 

  problemaddict

  Ummmm. Here is my question. What makes them not under the Mosaic law, but somehow under the Noachian law? I think that particular assumption might be a big jump.
• 

  Terry

  Gentiles were never under the Law of Moses.

  If they became converts the Noachian Law applied.
• 

  blondie

  BOTH SIDES OF THEIR MOUTH

  *** w04 9/15 p. 26 par. 2 Highlights From the Book of Deuteronomy ***

  14:21—Why could the Israelites give to an alien resident or sell to a foreigner an unbled dead animal that they themselves would not eat? In the Bible, the term “alien resident” could refer to a non-Israelite who became a proselyte or to a settler who lived by basic laws of the land but who did not become a worshiper of Jehovah. A foreigner and an alien resident who did not become proselytes were not under the Law and could use unbled dead animals in various ways. The Israelites were permitted to give or sell such animals to them. The proselyte, on the other hand, was bound by the Law covenant. As indicated at Leviticus 17:10, such a person was forbidden to eat the blood of an animal.

  *** it-1 p. 345 Blood ***

  At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowance was made for selling to an alien resident or a foreigner an animal that had died of itself or that had been torn by a beast. Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of animals that a person slaughtered for food. (Compare Le 17:14-16.) The Israelites, as well as alien residents who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant, were obligated to live up to the lofty requirements of that Law. People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Genesis 9:3, 4, but those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to that requirement than were foreigners and alien residents who had not become worshipers of Jehovah.

  *** lv chap. 7 p. 75 par. 4 Do You Value Life as God Does? ***

  After the Noachian Flood, God gave humans permission to eat the flesh of animals but not the blood. God stated: “Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat. And, besides that, your blood of your souls shall I ask back.” (Genesis 9:4, 5) This command applies to all of Noah’s descendants right down to our day.
• 

  Terry

  In bleeding the animal there was probably half still inside!

  You hung it upside down and did the best you could. But, what remained inside was a whole lot more blood

  than you'd find in a forbidden candy bar or blood sausage! Silly GB Pharisees!
• 

  Finkelstein

  Interesting and different view point Terry

  There's no question to the suggestion that the ancient Hebrews thought blood from all animals including humans

  had an appealing element of sacredness to it.

  Most likely occurring out the observing fact that when blood flowed out of animals, life abruptly stopped, from that perceived acknowledgment

  blood had to have some sacred spiritual evoking powers.

  This is similar in observances from other civilizations and religious spiritual ideologies separate from the ancient Hebrews.
• 

  problemaddict

  I see. So essentially when someone lived as an alien resident, they still were not under the mosaic law. The Noachian creed did however apply. Is there anything in WT pub's that would make that understanding from a JW perspective clear?

  Blondies quote above I don't seem to understand. Difference between law and law covenent? Proelyte and foreigner/alien resident? Was a proselyte a full foreign convert?

  A foreigner and an alien resident who did not become proselytes were not under the Law and could use unbled dead animals in various ways. The Israelites were permitted to give or sell such animals to them. The proselyte, on the other hand, was bound by the Law covenant. As indicated at Leviticus 17:10, such a person was forbidden to eat the blood of an animal.
• 

  Terry

  When you join the club you enter into a contract.

  A proselyte agrees to the contract and to abide by the rules.

  If you are passing through and do not want to join the club you are not under the rules of the club.

  The Law is the rules.

  The Law Covenant is the bipartisan contract to obey those rules.

  The Blessing and the Malediction promises reward if the rules are followed and a curse on you and your descendents if you break the rules.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  If for no other reason, applying Genesis statements of blood to blood transfusion is absurd for this reason:

  Ancients practiced various methods of blood transplantation as therapeutic for a range of diseases and ailments yet nothing in Genesis remotely suggests the practice of blood transplantation for medicinal remedy was wrong. Of the various means of practicing blood transplantation the only method spoken of prohibitively is that of eating blood. If God wanted ancient humans to abstain from other methods of blood transplantation he failed to make the point.

  See:

  - Ancient Blood Transplantation, and Noah available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2010/01/ancient-blood-transplantation-and-noah.html

  - Historical Medicinal Uses of Blood available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2010/01/historical-medicinal-uses-of-blood.html

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  In Deuteronomy 14:21, God allowed the Jews to sell unbled animals found already dead to be used as food by "alien residents" and "foreigners."

  Right.

  This meant worshippers of God like Job and Cornelius were free to buy unbled meat dead of itself as a provision of food from God.

  Marvin Shilmer