About 3 Jehovah's Witnesses die daily earthwide from the unscriptural policy!
6000 years and they will all be dead, not bad.
Blood Transfusions are Biblically Supported
by allpoweredup 45 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
dh
-
Cicatrix
" Yet most normal identical twins transfuse whole blood to each other through a shared placenta and childrens' whole blood is sometimes found in mothers years after birth-- the approved arrangement by God using nature. "
I learned about this while studying midwifery a few years back, and it got me to wondering, too.
-
Bubbamar
DH - That was brilliant!! Maybe that's what the great tribulation(tm) really is!!
-
smiddy
I think this topic is due for a bump .
-
Lee Elder
In every case the Biblical context either states or implies that the prohibition is against the eating of blood. Eating allows the blood to be digested and used by the body as food. A blood transfusion is not "eating blood". No digestion takes place. Doctors do no prescribe blood products to treat malnutrition or hunger. End of conversation.
-
Fisherman
Given the Bible as God's Word, how can Acts 15:28,29 be invalidated when it burdens Christians to keep abstaining from blood? If a Christian puts a pint of blood into his body, how is such person abstaining?
In a question from readers article, the wt says this about using autologous blood:
"Rather than deciding solely on the basis of personal preference or some medical recommendation, each Christian ought to consider seriously what the Bible says. It is a matter between him and Jehovah." WT 2000 Oct 15. Copyrighted WBTS
-
cofty
how can Acts 15:28,29 be invalidated when it burdens Christians to keep abstaining from blood?
Acts 15 was a dispute about the application of the Law to Christians, therefore it has to be understood in the context of the Old Testament.
Blood was only sacred insofar as it represented a life that had been taken.
The Watchtower's prohibition on blood is based on a facile understanding of scripture.
-
Fisherman
Blood was only sacred insofar as it represented a life that had been taken.
That is a conclusion.
Your other remarks are also your conclusions. You can believe them if you like.
Under the law, blood could not be used or stored. It had to poured out.
-
cofty
It cannot be poured out if the animal is found "already dead". In that case it could be eaten - Lev.17:15
But we have had this conversation at length. You had nothing to say.
-
Fisherman
It cannot be poured out if the animal is found "already dead". In that case it could be eaten - Lev.17:15
And therefore you conclude that the Bible allows the storage and use of blood taken from living animals and humans? But you haven't shown that.
And all your linked article shows is that if an Israelite ate an animal found dead, he became unclean and was required to bathe ceremonially instead of facing the death penalty. Everything else you posted in your linked article are your conclusions as to why that was the case. And you can believe them if you like.