So have the JW's ever stated (Formally or informally) an official position on apheresis blood donation?
Posts by TD
-
37Jehovah's Witnesses can donate blood
by Marvin Shilmer injehovah’s witnesses can donate blood.
today i added a new article to my blog that answers the question of whether watchtower doctrine forbids jehovah’s witnesses from going to their community blood bank and donating some of their blood to help replace all the products from blood accepted on a daily basis by the community of jehovah’s witnesses.. .
my article is titled jehovah’s witnesses can donate blood and is available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/03/jehovahs-witnesses-can-donate-blood.html.
-
-
-
25
Donating Blood a Disfellowshipping Offense?
by HiddenPimo inwhen i served as an elder i never heard of this scenario presenting itself - giving blood.. has anyone heard of a judicial case where a person donated and was disfellowshipped?
are there any references to this in the jw publications, manuals, handbooks?.
not so hiddenpimo :-).
-
-
TD
Blood drawn for testing is not necessarily disposed of.
A striking example in this discussion is premature infants, who cannot tolerate the loss of even a few cc's of blood.
When blood absolutely has to be drawn, it is reinjected later.
-
7
Doctor Sleep
by Simon insaw the movie yesterday and, wow - it was good.. it's a follow-up to the shinning, an iconic movie, and it just has the same feel to it not least because some of it ends up set back at the same hotel and has the same kind of camera angles and scenes plus the haunting soundtrack.
it actually starts with the mom and the kid living after they survived the experience in the original movie.. it wasn't what i was expecting, i thought it was going to just be a cash-in, but it wasn't - not just more of the same, instead it actually built in the original and expanded on what 'the shinning' was.. if you like suspenseful movies but not just a gore-fest, i give it a thumbs up..
-
-
TD
Cool. I gotta see this one!
-
18
Outcast Doctrines
by Socrateswannabe inin a recent post about the watchtower’s claim that all animals were created as vegetarians, one commenter said that watchtower could no longer sustain this belief so they simply stopped talking about it.
i began thinking about other wacky doctrines and statements by the borg that have faded away.
i’ll offer two of them below, but the complete list must be longer than your arm.. 7000 year-long creative days: watchtower once taught that each of the creative days was 7,000 years in duration, hence the hype leading up to 1975. they believed that year marked 6,000 years since adam’s creation, and oh how nicely the 1,000-year reign would fit as the last piece of the puzzle, thus completing the final “day”.
-
-
TD
The belief that all animals were originally vegetarians surfaces every 7 to 10 years. Just when you think the JW's have abandoned it, you realize they haven't.
The wacky heart as the source of emotion teaching was formally reversed in the mid 80's, which is a break from the pattern of simply not mentioning a past belief ever again.
-
7
Interesting WT Deluge Contradiction I just noticed.
by Jofi_Wofo ini was reviewing some of the evidence the wt proposes for their claim of the bible's scientific accuracy, when i came across this interesting assertion.. the mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean.
(psalm 104:6, 8) in contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.. https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/science-and-the-bible/.
interesting.
-
-
TD
I thought the JW's taught that the pressure of the water caused the mountains to rise to their current height (?)
-
12
When "all" is not "everyone" or "everything."
by Wonderment inwe keep seeing posters bringing col. 1.16 and john 1.3 up as proof that christ is excluded from the creative acts.
the proof they submit is that the words "all things [gk., pánta]" appear in these texts.
however, they are missing this important element from the discussion: the word "all" is rarely used in greek, and even in our everyday language to mean literally "everyone" or "everything" under the sky.
-
-
TD
I'm sorry I missed this thread. Thank you!
People have a tendency to treat Ancient Greek as a cipher that decodes directly into English, which is very frustrating.
Your example from Genesis is especially illustrative of your point: --ὅτι αὕτη μήτηρ πάντων τῶν ζώντων. (3:20 or 21 depending on what LXX you have.)
-
51
Help please
by jhine inhi , would someone help me please with some info about the nwt .
during my study time l have been reading john 1:1-14 and colossians 1:15-17 .
both these passages indicate that jesus was not created as the wt asserts .
-
-
TD
jhine
The word is πᾶς (pas)
"πάντα" (panta) is the neuter plural form. Perhaps this is unfamiliar because English is a relatively uninflected language.
At any rate, I don't quite know what to say.
Zητήσατε βοήθεια....
Κάποιος εξοικειωμένος με τη γλώσσα προσπάθησε να σας βοηθήσει και θέλετε να διαφωνήσετε. Τελείωσα. Ίσως ο Earnest να σας βοηθήσει.
-
51
Help please
by jhine inhi , would someone help me please with some info about the nwt .
during my study time l have been reading john 1:1-14 and colossians 1:15-17 .
both these passages indicate that jesus was not created as the wt asserts .
-
-
TD
I guess I'm not quite understanding that assertion that, "all means all."
Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged gives 13 basic definitions for the English word, "all" plus another 20 prepositional/adverbial constructs, for a total of 33 different definitions.
Johnston divides the use of the Greek word, πᾶς in the NT into two broad categories, which he calls the, "summative" and the, "distributive." The former would be the entire item or set of items taken as a whole, while the latter would be a set of items taken as individuals. He then develops the thesis that usage is based on a combination of syntactical-semantic and exegetical-contextual elements, which strikes me as a teeny, tiny bit more complicated than a singular definition.
Don't misunderstand. There's nothing wrong with pointing out the NWT does not, in your opinion, accurately convey the writer's overall message. There's nothing wrong in believing that other translations do a much better job in this regard. Most xjw's do..
What's wrong is the idea that the JW's have "changed the verses to alter the meaning." This assumes there is only one possible way the text can be understood, which is simply not true.
-
51
Help please
by jhine inhi , would someone help me please with some info about the nwt .
during my study time l have been reading john 1:1-14 and colossians 1:15-17 .
both these passages indicate that jesus was not created as the wt asserts .
-
-
TD
JoenB75
Everything is within context of the spoken subject.
Yes. Thank you.
The NIV is actually much farther from the word for word end of the spectrum than the JW's NWT, and as such, illustrates your point very well
The Greek text at John 8:2, for example, does not say the people "gathered around" Jesus; it simply says they came to him. (..ἤρχετο πρὸς αὐτόν) This intimation of a smaller, rather cozy circle of people is an embellishment of the translator.
-
51
Help please
by jhine inhi , would someone help me please with some info about the nwt .
during my study time l have been reading john 1:1-14 and colossians 1:15-17 .
both these passages indicate that jesus was not created as the wt asserts .
-
-
TD
jhine,
Luke 3:15 cannot possibly be totally inclusive of all people. Judea was only one small corner of the world even at the time and there were other civilizations that were simply too far away to know or care.
John 8:2 presents an identical problem. The temple complex could not have accommodated everyone in Jerusalem.
Similarly, if you accept the gospel accounts, it is clear that there were some who did not accept Jesus' message and others who actively opposed it. Luke's assertion that "all praised him" (δοξαζόμενος ὑπὸ πάντων) cannot possibly be totally inclusive. (Luke 4:15)
I only gave a few examples of this usage, but there are plenty of others.
Luke 11:41 is a different sort of qualification. Jesus did not wash his hands before dining like a good Pharisee should and responds to the surprise this causes by pointing out the superiority of charity over ritual cleanliness. Jesus' assertion that, "all [things] are clean to you" (πάντα καθαρὰ ὑμῖν ἐστιν) needs to be understood in that context; otherwise it makes no sense.