Question from Reader July 1 2005

by skyman 10 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  skyman

  Read the questions from readers page 27 of the July 1 Watchtower. It talks about blood.

  Dueteronomy 14:21 reads: "You must not eat any body already dead" Does that contradict Leviticus 11:40, which reads: "He who eats any of its body will wash his garments, and he must be un-clean until the eveing"?

  That is how the article starts out. It leaves the reader wondering what the Society is trying to actually say. It goes on and says "A person who transgressed the prohibition against eating the flesh of an animal found dead would be unclean in Jehovah's eyes and would have to undergo the proper procedure for cleansing. If he failed to cleanse himself properly, he would have to "answer fot his eror."

  If you had sex with your mate you was unclean untill evening.

  The article say's an Isreal might have violated that prohibition, "possibly by accident".... Accident my ass. I guess one could have fell down and the flesh of a dead animal just ACCIDENTLY jump into your mouth and you ACCIDENTALY swallowed it.

  This makes me wonder what are they are up to. It definitely takes the JW off guard because it does not state that the person would have to pay for breaking the so called blood prohibition with his life. There is a motive behind this article and I hope they trying to salt the JW minds to except some future changes in the blood transfusion law.
• 

  Joyzabel

  There is a motive behind this article and I hope they trying to salt the JW minds to except some future changes in the blood transfusion law.

  I agree.
• 

  blondie

  I wonder if they will discuss this hidden principle based on Deuteronomy 14:21?

  ***

  Rbi8 Deuteronomy 14:21 ***

  21

  "YOU must not eat any body [already] dead. To the alien resident who is inside your gates you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner, because you are a holy people to Jehovah your God.

  ***

  w64 11/15 pp. 682-683 Employment and Your Conscience ***

  They must bear the consequences of decisions made, in keeping with the principle at Galatians 6:5. Some doctors who are Jehovah?s witnesses have administered blood transfusions to persons of the world upon request. However, they do not do so in the case of one of Jehovah?s dedicated witnesses. In harmony with Deuteronomy 14:21, the administering of blood upon request to worldly persons is left to the Christian doctor?s own conscience. This is similar to the situation facing a Christian butcher or grocer who must decide whether he can conscientiously sell blood sausage to a worldly person.

  Or this reasoning:

  ***

  g82 12/22 p. 28 From Our Readers ***

  I have just read the article written by Edward George. Why did he not destroy his tobacco business instead of selling it? All he has done is move his sin to somebody else who may poison the people who smoke. Why was not that truth pointed out to him?

  D. R., England

  The

  article is a factual account of the problems faced by the writer as he began to grow in knowledge of Bible principles, and how he endeavored to solve them. Those teaching Edward George would not tell him what to do to solve his problems, but having shown him certain Bible principles would leave it up to him to work out matters according to the state of his conscience. Some persons might reason that since the business was legal there would be no harm in selling it to someone whose conscience would not be bothered by selling such products, even as there are plenty of people willing to purchase the products in good conscience. One might compare the situation to that referred to at Deuteronomy 14:21 where an Israelite was not to eat the flesh of an animal found dead, but he could sell it to a foreigner whose conscience was not under the same restrictions.?ED.
• 

  peacefulpete

  *** Rbi8 Deuteronomy 14:21 ***

  21

  "YOU must not eat any body [already] dead. To the alien resident who is inside your gates you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner, because you are a holy people to Jehovah your God.

  ***

  w64 11/15 pp. 682-683 Employment and Your Conscience ***

  They must bear the consequences of decisions made, in keeping with the principle at Galatians 6:5. Some doctors who are Jehovah?s witnesses have administered blood transfusions to persons of the world upon request. However, they do not do so in the case of one of Jehovah?s dedicated witnesses. In harmony with Deuteronomy 14:21, the administering of blood upon request to worldly persons is left to the Christian doctor?s own conscience. This is similar to the situation facing a Christian butcher or grocer who must decide whether he can conscientiously sell blood sausage to a worldly person."

  By accepting this logic I could have been a JW pimp. I sold the product but was not responsible for the decision of my clients to accept it. They have been dancing a legal and ethical tango for so long.
• 

  skyman

  This subject has been very personal to alot us us on this form. I took the Watchtower to my mom's today and she had the gall to get mad at me because of my question> Where is the Society headed in regard this article? She was so mad she left her home and left me there. So I wonder if it will have a similar effect on other witnesses that have been standing in the back ground defending the Society. Mom asked me please don't call my brother and ask him the same questions. I asked her why? She said because he will take it that I am trying to cause divisions. I'm going to pook alot of asses locally with the article boy is it going to be alot of fun.
• 

  peacefulpete

  BTW the prohibition to not eat dead animals had nothing to do with blood. It was an addition to the Holiness Code that emphasized conformity to standards, wholeness and despised ambiguity. The recently discussed animal prohibitions were prohibited because they defied the norms. Likewise eating a dead animal without killing it first apparently lacked continuity and disturbed the Priestly writer enough to lump it in with the eating of an animal that chewed chud but lacked the hooves of proper chud chewers and created a ambiguity that defied holiness as he defined it.
• 

  peacefulpete

  not new appraoach...Questions From Readers April 15, 1983
• 

  peacefulpete

  An additional comment from Ex.22:31: 31 And ye shall be holy men unto me: therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.

  Here the statement is that corses of dead animals should be fed to the animals. If the issue was blood then the WT has no basis for prohibiting the feeding of blood to pets! As we know they do even having insisted that pet owners be responsible! Gen 9:5 has been understood by commentators to say that blood was prohibited food for even beasts. If this is so then we have either a contradiction or the author/editors were not concerned with blood when prohibiting the eating of an animal found dead.
• 

  skyman

  Good reasoning the Watchtower has had us using reasoning that is not even there when using the scriptures as they were written.
• 

  ozziepost

  Very interesting. This thread is well worth a read.

  Well done.