... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
For forty years after permission was given in Lev.17
Lev. 17 speaks about restoration not about permission. You conclude permission is implied. The text does not say permission, cofty does.
Ex 22:31 You should prove yourselves holy people to me, and you must not eat the flesh of anything in the field that has been torn by a wild animal....
The Law of Moses is clear forbidding Israel from eating animals found dead and those torn by wild animals -except for cofty.
Cofty's commentary is swill!
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
How can you eat an animal unless it's dead?
dead vs slaughtered
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
Crazyguy, the law did not prohibit drinking milk or having sex with your wife or a woman giving birth to a child. The law forbade Israel from eating dead animals. The provision for restoration in Lev 17 does not invalidate the prohibition. Notice in Deut 14 :21; it says of the foreign resident: "..he may eat.." referring to the dead animal. On the other hand, the same scripture states that Israel was forbidden to eat dead animals. It dos not say that Israel may eat them. Cofty denys this fact. Cofty reads his conclusions about things but does not read the Bible text.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
Crazyguy, saying something does not make it so.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
Law vs cofty's commentary
"..ahhh there is he rub"
The Bible is clear that God forbade Israel to eat dead animals but:
Deut 14:21 YOU MUST NOT EAT any animal that was found dead. You may give it to the foreign resident who is inside your cities, and he may eat it, or it may be sold to a foreigner. For you are a holy people to Jehovah your God.
Why did God allow those not under the law of Moses to eat an unbled carcass when God forbade mankind to eat animals that were not bled?
Gen 9:4 Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
cofty, your comentary is hogwash.
1.there are times when a doctor decides that the only life saving medical treatment -short of a miracle- is a blood transfusion.
in such a case, what should be done when a person refuses treatment on religious grounds and why?.
2. should a person be allowed to "mutilate" his body and why?.
If you can prove to me through the bible that the blood ban is scriptural.
I am only asking for sincere personal views and feelings on this thread.
I will return to the witnesses immediately.
How are you so sure that the door is still open for you?
you have to leave this webpage never to return.
Why? What prevents you from posting your views on this forum?
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
Especially when you are clearly wrong? Do you get a kick out of a half-dozen people telling you that you're wrong?
Saying that I am wrong does not make it so. Please show me wrong.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
under these circumstances the Law is giving PERMISSION to eat unbled meat.
If an Israelite farmer found an animal "already dead" he was free to eat it with IMPUNITY..
3 accusers report to a judge of ancient Israel that cofty is going around eating dead animals and teaching Israel that doing so is not a violation of the Law. What will happen to cofty?
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
The Bible does not state conditions for Lev 17 only the provision for restoration if a native or foreigner ate a dead animal or one torn by a beast.
Why would such a person do that or how could he do that when the law forbade it? The Bible does not say. The Bible does say in Numbers that doing something ( that was forbidden) deliberately was a capital offense.
( I posted something yesterday that did not post through so if that posts in the future it is after this dialogue.)
Something that may be a factor and needs to be considered is the definition of foreigner. Some foreignors where proselytes and some were not. Proselyte foreigners were under the law same as Israel and were forbidden to eat dead animals same as Israel. So when the scripture states to sell dead animals to foreigners it means non proselyte ones. And the ceremonial wash only applies to Israel and proselyte foreigners. The goyim were not under the law.
