basic blood questions for jehovah's witnesses.
where does the bible outlaw blood transfusions?
(acts 15:29 gen.9:4) .
The Governing Body”have decided that this we may take if you wish”
The statement alludes to the Decree in Acts which implies that the fiat is not only from Rome (“we ourselves”) but from God ( “the Holy Spirit”). If that is a myth, the collapse of the house will be catastrophic with no protection from God which the builders claim it is founded on.
basic blood questions for jehovah's witnesses.
where does the bible outlaw blood transfusions?
(acts 15:29 gen.9:4) .
TD,
Very interesting, informative and respected commentary. I don’t want to give you the impression that I don’t appreciate your commentary or that I don’t highly respect you.
Kind regards,
FM
basic blood questions for jehovah's witnesses.
where does the bible outlaw blood transfusions?
(acts 15:29 gen.9:4) .
What would have been the proper course for the parent of a child
In every case, to save the life of one’s child —except taking the life of another human to save one’s child would be a horrible predicament. In the US a child is the ward of the State and he is getting blood if that is the only way or in the child’s best interest so a parent doesn’t have to worry about it —which Marvin Shilmer argued is disingenuous.
this is still a human interpretation subject to error,
What blood fractions are not blood is subject to error as you have shown. But you have not shown that BT teaching is.
take for example revelation 21: 10. .
“….and he showed me the holy city jerusalem coming down out of heaven from god.
here john sees something happening, action.
diamond in the back. Tv antennas in the back.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
DD,
Change indicates appeasement. A never ending supply of anointed to take the role of GB is interesting in the minds of older JW.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
I've simply pointed out that we're all bound by the same rules and conventions regardless of whether we believe the bible is the inspired word of God or just an interesting piece of literature.
It is not that simple.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
the rigid grammar makes for a very precise language, provided one follows it.
Your commentary is in Greek which the public doesn’t understand. The implication that WT strays from the grammar is arguable and not understood by the public. Using Greek grammar, translators have molded Jesus into God which is axiomatically not true whether or not the translator construes so using rigid Greek grammar. And that is what wt meant by the wt commentary you reference. Also, there is no fear that wt translation of the Bible is grammatically out of phase as you imply. Compared to other translations wt is in phase with the rigid base text except when wt interprets what the writer means or the overall teaching of the Bible ( keeping it simple. ) I respectfully understand your qualifications, Dr. I don’t think you are cut and pasting the conclusions of others about WT. Also, any mismatch is not significant overall. WT representation of Greek in the NWT is in phase with the base text and valid. But what do I know. That is only my humble belief.
basic blood questions for jehovah's witnesses.
where does the bible outlaw blood transfusions?
(acts 15:29 gen.9:4) .
the teaching is an interpretation.
How many people read the ancient languages of the Bible and understand its poetic wording and the meaning behind it. Everything in the Bible is translation and interpretation not only the JW BT teachings. But JW claim that they are guided by God ( so do all religions but that is not the issue here) in the spiritual food ( teachings ) JW provide. If you don’t believe that, you are not JW. What TD is saying is that God is not behind the BT teaching but it is only human belief subject to error. Obviously, God punishes such presumptuousness but we haven't seen that. What a JW considers is God does not want humans to consume blood. That is what JW believe.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
Tell me you prefer doctrinal bias over accuracy without telling me you prefer doctrinal bias over accuracy. 😂
Besides cut and paste, unlike TD, you’ve never translated anything it seems.
basic blood questions for jehovah's witnesses.
where does the bible outlaw blood transfusions?
(acts 15:29 gen.9:4) .
I think that TD has so elegantly appealing to logic and reason argued the point that life is more sacred than the blood that represents it. I’ve never heard a more persuasive argument and complete coverage refuting Bible interpretation that bt are prohibited by the decree. cofty’s attempt to raise reasonable doubt is also noted. but the scripture in the decree cannot be nullified and I don’t see a way around it without violating the scripture. Putting a gallon of blood into your body and saying you are not eating it and therefore doesn’t violate the decree is not how JW decision makers see it.
