Cofty, Lev 17:15 does not say that Israelites could eat animals found dead -but let's say that someone did eat- the verse only says what would happen to such a person for doing so and what such person was legally required to do ( the remedy) or face consequences. And it is non sequitur to conclude that since eating an animal found dead may not have incurred the death penalty for an Israelite, that God allowed the Israelites to store and use the blood of living animals and of human beings, or that blood taken from living creatures is not sacred to God, or that blood taken from human beings could be consumed under the Mosaic Law. It only applies to the dead animal that was eaten. Everything else you stated is not supported by the Bible.
Fisherman
JoinedPosts by Fisherman
-
49
Let's talk about Blood again....
by stuckinarut2 ini know we have all talked about this topic before, but for some new ones on the forum, or to refresh ourselves, i wanted to start this thread.. the society likes to go on about the sacredness of blood, and how it should not be transfused etc.. they liken it to a symbol of life itself.
something that should be respected and therefore not transfused.. but, what is more important: real life, or a symbol of life?.
an illustration came to mind.. if we give a bunch of flowers to a loved one as a symbol of our love for them, are those flowers more important than the love itself?
-
-
-
45
Blood Transfusions are Biblically Supported
by allpoweredup into jehovah's witnesses elders: blood transfusions are biblically supported: acts 15:20 says abstain from blood but 1 samuel 14:32-5 says saul's army ate unbled meat to not starve and no verses show god not forgiving them.
christ says god also forgave david's eating temple holy bread to survive and that god wants mercy not sacrifice.
(mt 12) the may 22, 1994 awake tells of 26 jehovah's witness kids who died without transfusions, and by common sense in massive bleeding as in car wrecks blood expanders won't save lives http://www.ajwrb.org.
-
-
Fisherman
Actually Fishy does make one good point with his Watchtower post stating autologous blood is between Jehovah and the publisher.
Yes, but the medical directive forbids it.
-
45
Blood Transfusions are Biblically Supported
by allpoweredup into jehovah's witnesses elders: blood transfusions are biblically supported: acts 15:20 says abstain from blood but 1 samuel 14:32-5 says saul's army ate unbled meat to not starve and no verses show god not forgiving them.
christ says god also forgave david's eating temple holy bread to survive and that god wants mercy not sacrifice.
(mt 12) the may 22, 1994 awake tells of 26 jehovah's witness kids who died without transfusions, and by common sense in massive bleeding as in car wrecks blood expanders won't save lives http://www.ajwrb.org.
-
-
Fisherman
The bible is impotent.
Only if the everlasting life it promises is a lie.
-
45
Blood Transfusions are Biblically Supported
by allpoweredup into jehovah's witnesses elders: blood transfusions are biblically supported: acts 15:20 says abstain from blood but 1 samuel 14:32-5 says saul's army ate unbled meat to not starve and no verses show god not forgiving them.
christ says god also forgave david's eating temple holy bread to survive and that god wants mercy not sacrifice.
(mt 12) the may 22, 1994 awake tells of 26 jehovah's witness kids who died without transfusions, and by common sense in massive bleeding as in car wrecks blood expanders won't save lives http://www.ajwrb.org.
-
-
Fisherman
Respectfully, debating whether or not the Bible allows blood is the wrong argument. Saving lives is the right thing to do whatever your chosen holy book has to say on the matter. Debating scriptures gives them a credence that is undeserved in the age of modern medicine.
That is a different subject matter not relevant to the topic being discussed.
-
45
Blood Transfusions are Biblically Supported
by allpoweredup into jehovah's witnesses elders: blood transfusions are biblically supported: acts 15:20 says abstain from blood but 1 samuel 14:32-5 says saul's army ate unbled meat to not starve and no verses show god not forgiving them.
christ says god also forgave david's eating temple holy bread to survive and that god wants mercy not sacrifice.
(mt 12) the may 22, 1994 awake tells of 26 jehovah's witness kids who died without transfusions, and by common sense in massive bleeding as in car wrecks blood expanders won't save lives http://www.ajwrb.org.
-
-
Fisherman
came to that conclusion myself, Fisherman, and if it so happens to also be Coftys then so much the better
That does not prove the conclusion either.
it is an absolutely knockdown argument against the erroneous and sick Watchtower policy.
No, it is not.
-
45
Blood Transfusions are Biblically Supported
by allpoweredup into jehovah's witnesses elders: blood transfusions are biblically supported: acts 15:20 says abstain from blood but 1 samuel 14:32-5 says saul's army ate unbled meat to not starve and no verses show god not forgiving them.
christ says god also forgave david's eating temple holy bread to survive and that god wants mercy not sacrifice.
(mt 12) the may 22, 1994 awake tells of 26 jehovah's witness kids who died without transfusions, and by common sense in massive bleeding as in car wrecks blood expanders won't save lives http://www.ajwrb.org.
-
-
Fisherman
Fukitol, your above post is repeating cofty's conclusions. -
45
Blood Transfusions are Biblically Supported
by allpoweredup into jehovah's witnesses elders: blood transfusions are biblically supported: acts 15:20 says abstain from blood but 1 samuel 14:32-5 says saul's army ate unbled meat to not starve and no verses show god not forgiving them.
christ says god also forgave david's eating temple holy bread to survive and that god wants mercy not sacrifice.
(mt 12) the may 22, 1994 awake tells of 26 jehovah's witness kids who died without transfusions, and by common sense in massive bleeding as in car wrecks blood expanders won't save lives http://www.ajwrb.org.
-
-
Fisherman
Cofty, it is your article. I am not convinced. Whether or not I answer your questions does not validate your conclusions. You have to show that that storing and using blood was allowed under the law.
Blood transfusions do not involve slaughtering animals or eating dead animals. They involve consuming human blood. If you can show that being allowed anywhere in the Bible, you have a point.
-
45
Blood Transfusions are Biblically Supported
by allpoweredup into jehovah's witnesses elders: blood transfusions are biblically supported: acts 15:20 says abstain from blood but 1 samuel 14:32-5 says saul's army ate unbled meat to not starve and no verses show god not forgiving them.
christ says god also forgave david's eating temple holy bread to survive and that god wants mercy not sacrifice.
(mt 12) the may 22, 1994 awake tells of 26 jehovah's witness kids who died without transfusions, and by common sense in massive bleeding as in car wrecks blood expanders won't save lives http://www.ajwrb.org.
-
-
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.
-
45
Blood Transfusions are Biblically Supported
by allpoweredup into jehovah's witnesses elders: blood transfusions are biblically supported: acts 15:20 says abstain from blood but 1 samuel 14:32-5 says saul's army ate unbled meat to not starve and no verses show god not forgiving them.
christ says god also forgave david's eating temple holy bread to survive and that god wants mercy not sacrifice.
(mt 12) the may 22, 1994 awake tells of 26 jehovah's witness kids who died without transfusions, and by common sense in massive bleeding as in car wrecks blood expanders won't save lives http://www.ajwrb.org.
-
-
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.
-
45
Blood Transfusions are Biblically Supported
by allpoweredup into jehovah's witnesses elders: blood transfusions are biblically supported: acts 15:20 says abstain from blood but 1 samuel 14:32-5 says saul's army ate unbled meat to not starve and no verses show god not forgiving them.
christ says god also forgave david's eating temple holy bread to survive and that god wants mercy not sacrifice.
(mt 12) the may 22, 1994 awake tells of 26 jehovah's witness kids who died without transfusions, and by common sense in massive bleeding as in car wrecks blood expanders won't save lives http://www.ajwrb.org.
-
-
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