Therefore, along with fornication, things sacrificed to idols, things strangled (i.e. unbled meat), ...Then how come unbled meat could be eaten under certain circumstances (see my post above) even when under law?
chocky
JoinedPosts by chocky
-
13
Abstain from Blood? Verb Missing Here!
by Englishman ini've just spotted this on touchstone forum.
it's well worth reading:.
".....for anyone else that might want to comment, i will elaborate a little on the issue of grammar.
-
-
chocky
-
13
Abstain from Blood? Verb Missing Here!
by Englishman ini've just spotted this on touchstone forum.
it's well worth reading:.
".....for anyone else that might want to comment, i will elaborate a little on the issue of grammar.
-
-
chocky
"EVEN IF IT MEANT YOUR LIFE, blood was not to be eaten. There were no special clauses that allowed the eating of blood if it meant your life."
Someone should mention to him when Saul's men ate an unbled animal with no recorded loss of divine favor.
Xander has already pointed out the example of Saul's men. I would also like to add Lev 17:15 where a person eating something already dead i.e. UNBLED would be "ceremonially unclean" NOT "bloodguilty". In the light of all the other scriptures which touch on this I can only see the possible explanation that this would be in a circumstance where there was no other choice but for preservation of life e.g. when short of food in the desert. The fact that it's being already dead may be because of having been torn by a wild beast seems to support that - an Israelite was not likely to select such a meal if anything alse was available. After all would you?
I am a JW and have studied this extensively. The only conclusion for me which fits all scriptures is when blood is seen to represent life and our attitude towards it as respect for life, NOT that is is more important than life itself. Therefore the eating of something delibrately without regard for the sanctity of life i.e. not pouring out the blood when it was possible to do so, was what would result in bloodguilt. But preserving life when there was no other choice seems to be supported. Read every scripture about blood and already dead animals in this context and they all make sense. Read them that the use/eating/preservation of life through blood was an absolute universal prohibition nad there are suddenly a number of conflicting scriptures like the one above. As another example see Deut 14:21 where an already dead animal i.e. UNBLED could be sold to a non-Israelite for food.
If you've understood my argument above you won't need me to spell out my personal stance on blood transfusions for preserving life.
I have pages of research on this stuff, which I don't have time to post right now, but I would be interested for someone to counter-argue the logic of the principle I have outlined.
(my first post)
Edited by - chocky on 24 July 2002 5:25:42