Hello. I was never a JDubb, only a Bible student. There are two main questions I have. Let me preface that by saying that I do not believe the Bible is true, or the Word of God. I don't identify as an atheist, but sway more toward agnosticism (I know that I don't know a lot). I really like reading and listening to ex JDubbs because there is a lot of insight into post-JW-doctrine that can only be had by people who have been forced to study the Bible so much and who had the courage to come out of this authoritarian group.
First question is about "eating blood." This is what I think the "real" meaning is. The real meaning is not that a blood transfusion is the equivalent of "eating blood." The real meaning of "eating blood" is the Orthodox Jewish people are required to only eat Kosher meat. One method of making meat Kosher is letting it sit in Kosher salt and draining the blood. See link below. Any other interpretation than this obvious interpretation is just crazy to me! Can anyone argue this understanding that eating blood simply refers to Kosher meat? From article below: "Jewish law prohibits the consumption of the lifeblood of the animal." (See soaking, salting and labeling section in article below).
Making Kosher Meat - Grow & Behold (growandbehold.com)
The second question I have is, since everyone except Noah and his family was supposedly wiped out by the flood, didn't that wipe out all the people contaminated with Adam & Eve's sin? If so, how did all the wickedness start happening again? Why did Jesus have to come as a ransom for Adam & Eve's sin if everyone was killed in the flood? None of this makes any sense to me at all, so this is just one of many reasons I never became a JDubb. Incidentally, not all animals are considered "kosher." Does the Bible say anything about Noah saving kosher animals only? If so, why not? If anyone has any insight into these issues I would like to hear them. My understanding is that the Jewish Rabbis who wrote the OT envisioned a world where only Jewish people who followed the OT prescriptions would be "saved." And no, I don't believe the holocaust was "God's punishment" for "disobedience. Thanks.
Blood Transfusions & Flood, Questions from Bible student only
by Marbles 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Marbles
-
neat blue dog
1: The scriptures also say to "pour out" the blood when killing an animal because a life was taken. Blood transfusions don't take a life so the whole point is gone. Also, the law allowed selling unbled meat to non-Jews and eating blood if it wasn't possible not too, which also argues against JWs absolute interpretation. The bottom line is, the blood dogma is just one of many, many crazy ideas from Joseph Rutherford back in the day, including vaccines, aluminum cookware etc. but it's the only one they have no choice but to hold on to as so many people have died.
2: You answered your own question; Noah and his family survived, and they were of course descendants of Adam and Eve that were imperfect and died eventually, so sin was passed on as usual.
3: The scriptures say that Noah took in both clean and unclean animals, although this is an anachronism as the law detailing that had yet to be written centuries later.
-
Fisherman
My understanding is that the Jewish Rabbis who wrote the OT
Rabbis wrote the Mishnah and the Gemara not the OT.
The JW believe that the law covenant did not apply to Gentiles and further the same Mosaic law was abolished by the death of Jesus except the Noachide law pertaining to blood which preceded the law of Moses as stated in the Chumash. According to the “NT” command “Keep abstaining from blood,” JW believe this to mean that blood transfusions, eating blood or using some blood products such as those containing whole blood are forbidden. TD made an interesting rebuttal based on Pekuah Nephesh and God’s Law to Israel referring to the Torah: “ That you may LIVE by them. But this does not invalidate the command to Christians that they should abstain from blood as JW see it. According to today’s Pharisaic Judaism, any command can be broken to save a life except for murder, idolatry and adultery. JW believe that none of God’s commands can be broken including the one on blood as it applies to Christians even to “save a life”. TD argued that Jesus pointed to king David when he and his men ate the loaves of presentation which was not lawful to show his disciples did not sin by picking grain on the Sabbath. However, Jesus never said that this applied to making an allowance for Christians eating blood. Nor is it logical to conclude that.
Also, Karaite Jews reject the Talmudic interpretation of the OT as inspired or as the oral law. For example, they eat meat and dairy together.
-
Marbles
@Fisherman, okay, I had to Google all of that, and will research it. Thank God for Google! Like a new Renaissance.
-
joey jojo
In most western meat processing facilities, as far as I know, the animal is killed and then instantly has its throat cut to bleed it. Kosher and muslim cut the throat first and allow the animal to bleed to death. It's hard to watch and just another legacy of an ancient book that causes pointless suffering.
-
Fisherman
the animal is killed and then instantly has its throat cut to bleed it.
In non religious slaughterhouses, hopefully the animal is stunned so that it doesn’t feel pain and then bled. In the US, for example, cattle is shot in the head through the brain with an air piston device. In Bible times, however, there were no modern stunning methods. All they had was a knife and cutting the cartoid artery with a sharp knife rendered the animal unconscious before it was aware of it as it bled to death. That was the most humane method at that time.
Today, for production line slaughtering in religious slaughterhouses that is very time consuming so they use another method to secure the neck so they can cut it, which causes pain to the animal as the animal is struggling.—Romans 8:22 But the Jewish slaughterhouses, I believe, have a higher standard for healthy animals and I believe they sell below standard animals to gov inspected meat plants.
Another way to look at this is that being killed is painful any way. Making it less painful, the animal still suffers.
-
Fisherman
Marbles,
Your questions can be answer from various theological perspectives and schools of thought. But understanding such answers and the reasons is not so easy to understand. For example, Talmudic Judaism teaches that angels don’t have free will in-spite of Rashi’s commentary on Gen 6:2. Rashi offers 2 explanations for benihaelohim. Talmudic Judaism prefers one because that is the same explanation Ramban uses in his commentary when he refers to Rashi—but even so, Rashi’s hated explanation for the verse is nonetheless still valid. Therefore, Talmudic Judaism concludes that Satan is a holy angel doing his job as prosecutor in God’s Court— sort of speak. And that evil comes from God even though He is holy—imagine that. Therefore, some Rabbi’s have commented that the holocaust came from God—imagine that. Christianity teaches that Satan is the source of evil although God sometimes allows evil to happen to his servants.
Talmudic Jews base their logic on the premise that the oral law us inspired. The Talmud stands on its own merit and cannot be debunked even with Tanakh whereas the Christian Scriptures depend on the OT and integrates itself with the OT.
For example, the Tannaim comment that the only sin king David committed relating to Uriah was not consulting with the sanhedrin and that king David did not murder Uriah. It uses sophistry in my opinion to argue that Uriah had slighted the king authorizing the king to execute Uriah and that during war married women became divorced from their husbands authorizing king david to sleep with Uriah’s wife in-spite of what Nathan told King David about his sin. Christianity though, refers to Bathsheba as the wife of Uriah. The christian scriptures interpret the OT based on context, literary device of the ot, teachings of Jesus whereas the Talmud interprets the Bible as an authority regardless of context and text implications.
-
TonusOH
The story makes it seem that David raped Bathsheba. I doubt that she had the option of refusing his summons, or may have feared for her life if she turned down the king. And she couldn't have been a willing participant, or god would have rendered judgment upon her for adultery. Either god conveniently let her slide on that (an action that directly led to her husband's murder), or she was innocent of any wrongdoing.
It's a chilling story, when you consider that the people who paid with their lives were the innocent husband and the innocent infant, who was stricken with a deadly malady in order to punish David (who, unlike his unfortunate child, had the opportunity to repent and avoid a death sentence). Plus, his pairing with Bathsheba leads to the birth of Solomon, a great king who also loses his way (but not before becoming part of the lineage that leads to the birth of Jesus... at least in Matthew's gospel).
-
Fisherman
The story makes it seem that David raped Bathsheba.
Thank you for bringing attention to Bathsheba’s role. David was convicted of murder and adultery not rape. So there needed to be a willingness or submission on her part regardless of her reasons. However, in the illustration that Nathan gave representing David’s actions, Bathsheba is pictured as a female lamb that king david killed which mitigates Bathsheba’s role. Another thing that needs to be considered is that there was no insidious scheme by Bathsheba or either of them that caused them to sin. It was circumstantial.
God’s justice is better than human’s because God is the standard for good so Uriah is no exception to someone that God allowed to be murdered like with Cain, Jesus, Steven and others. There is case law in the Bible where God executed the offspring of sinners such as in the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Amalek and others. If there is one thing David had learned from reading God’s law was that his conduct would affect the life of his offspring. So David was to blame for the death of his adulterine son.
-
waton
the opportunity to repent and avoid a death sentence
tOH, there was no relief through repentance under the law, as Paul pointed out.
it was the might of the army that shielded the kingly adulterer, murderer. and now wt favoured.***
he lived to kill tens of thousand more innocents, big mistake. cleans the earth right away.
*** they can argue, if the sins of david, (putting the ark on a cart) and all, can be forgiven, they, wt are forgiven too, as future kings. no matter what they do.