10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
Greg Stafford, back when he was a believing JW, came up with a novel defense of the Decree. (Or more precisely, the JW interpretation thereof)
I'm surprised the JW's never adopted it, as it was defensible from the standpoint of translation and grammar and did not set up a huge contradiction with Paul's more emancipated views on food sacrificed to idols.
10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
Fisherman,
If I understand your allusion, you are referring to a fallacy of definition vis-à-vis what constitutes a sexual act. The gentleman in question promoted a definition of convenience when there were already accepted legal, medical, ethical and religious definitions in place
I would respond by pointing out that you are the one promoting an esoteric definition here, not me. I am the one with the weight of legal, medical, ethical and religious definitions on my side, not you.
Like I said, if you believe there is either a physical, moral or ontological equivalency at stake here, then it is up to you to provide a concrete demonstration, free from false analogies, grammatical misconstructions and your own personal gut feelings.
10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
Nothing can me more simple and more removed from sophistry than if someone consumes 3 quarts of blood, pumping a load of blood into one’s organism he is not abstaining from blood. That is not equivocation.
No?
Like I said, there are only two ways that a JW can make their interpretation work:
(1) By paraphrasing the verse using words that no translator has any business using.
“To Jehovah’s Witnesses, there is a more important reason for avoiding taking in blood: God’s law forbids it." [W96 8/15 p. 32]
(2) By dispensing with the context and grammar entirely:
“Jehovah’s Witnesses decline blood transfusions for religious reasons. ‘Abstain from blood,’ the Bible commands [W80 10/15 p. 21]
----------
Both methods are textbook examples of misdirection through ambiguity for reasons a man of your intelligence would be aware of.
With the former, you know that the human body is not one system, but many
You know that there are substantial differences between, for example, taking water into your stomach (Your digestive system) and taking water into you lungs (Your respiratory system)
You know that although drinking a glass of water and drowning at the bottom of a lake could both be loosely described as "taking in water" or "a failure to abstain from water" it is obfuscatory and equivocal to deliberately use generic terms when more specific terms are called for.
----------
With the latter, you know that the word, "abstain" is intransitive
You know that it can't take a direct object and that a finite verb is therefore required to complete the thought.
You know that phrases like "abstain from crankshaft" and "abstain from locomotive" and "abstain from shrubbery" are nonsensical for exactly this reason. (i.e. They are grammatically incomplete)
You know that the clarification required to define the abstention from blood is found in the surrounding context of the Decree and it is therefore obfuscatory and equivocal to invoke the incomplete predicate as an independent construction.
10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
Fisherman:
Like everything else, medical advice is dependent upon the context in which it is given. An obstetrician and a dermatologist might have two entirely different things in mind when directing a patient to, "abstain from alcohol."
----------
ῥώννυμι is an interesting word that can be translated in many different ways and the JW's, to my knowledge do not assign any theological significance to their rending:
"The comment “Good health to you” was not a promise to the effect, ‘If you abstain from blood or fornication, you will have better health.’ It was simply a closure to the letter, such as, ‘Farewell.’"
(A similar statement appears in the study edition of the RNWT)
----------
It's easy to say the Mosaic law was abolished, but at the time of the Decree, that idea could have gotten you killed. (We're talking about a conflict that eventually cost both Paul and James their lives.)
Here was the problem and the solution linked together by the Bible writer himself:
“You behold, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews; and they are all zealous for the Law. But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them neither to circumcise their children nor to walk in the [solemn] customs....As for the believers from among the nations, we have sent out, rendering our decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication.”----------
Transfusion can't be argued one way or the other from the Bible, but that doesn't justify sophistry. Cofty's argument is short, simple and should be enough, but if you believe there is either a physical, moral or ontological equivalency at stake here, then it is up to you to demonstrate it and not simply equivocate.
10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
Fisherman,
—“And from sexual immorality….” Jesus added to the meaning of adultery “on every sort of ground” so your rule doesn’t strictly apply. However, how are blood transfusions outside the scope?
πορνεία is the name of a finite act (fornication) that must needs be defined
αἷμα is the name of an object (blood) and we are therefore dependent upon the context to define the prohibited act.
Your extreme familiarity with JW terminology (Which is not, strictly speaking, grammatically correct) is likely the reason you're having trouble with this.
10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
To the above, I would say, "Physician heal thyself"
The Decree did not say, "Abstain from blood."
It said, ἀπέχεσθαι....καὶ αἵματος -- "To keep abstaining....from blood"
It is very clearly a reference to an existing command.
The only way JW's can make their interpretation work is through semantic legerdemain.
--Either by paraphrasing the verse using words that no translator has any business using or by dispensing with the context entirely.
(Which is a helluva disrespectful way to a book they claim to respect.)
ask most fitness coaches, nutritionists or health professionals and they will tell you that weight control is about calories in versus calories out (cico).
after all, you can’t ignore the laws of thermodynamics!.
the flaw in this simplistic reasoning ought to be obvious; a human body and a steam engine are two different things.. our bodies have evolved complex systems of control and feedback loops in order to maintain a steady interior environment, also known as homeostasis.
Kinda depressing to discover later in life that concentration camp rations and running 30+ kilometers a week wasn't the best method of weight control.
(Not saying it didn't work. -Just saying it was never very pleasant)
the upcoming km school for all elders and servants is going to be in person only with no provision for video conferencing.. only fully vaccinated may attend.
meaning if you missed your last booster you are no longer fully vaccinated.. every coordinator of body of elders has to ask every single ms and elder if they have kept up with all their boosters and are fully vaccinated or they can’t attend.. this seems to be a census the gb want to know how many are keeping up with booster shots.
Indoubtbigtime
cv19 has never been purified and isolated and an image taken of it
You're not citing a source, but this sounds a lot like David Crowe's nonsense.
The claim that SARS-CoV-2 has not been "purified and isolated" is a misapplication of Koch's Postulates.
Robert Koch was a 19th century German doctor and scientist who proved that Anthrax, Cholera and Tuberculosis were each caused by a specific bacteria. The four rules he followed are known today Koch's Postulates.
(The original paper can be found here)
https://edoc.rki.de/handle/176904/5139
Although Koch was a brilliant man, he lived and died more than a century ago and a lot has changed since then. (Like the discovery of viruses as the cause of many diseases....)
Here is a more pointed refutation of Crowe's nonsense:
Here is another:
The idea that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been photographed is more nonsense. I do agree that pictures which are colorized and enhanced for the general public look artificial, but there are plenty of unvarnished photographs:
Here's a good example:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-73162-5
Here's one of the images from the article:
The late David Crowe's contention was not simply that Covid19 is a hoax, but that the entire field of virology is fraudulent.
Is that the position you're taking here? That viruses don't actually exist at all?
we have long time friends who are seriously involved with the urantia book.
they have regular meetings with others and seem to have become convinced of its alien inspiration.
it seems mostly harmless but weirds out anyone who talks to them.. do any of you have experience with this or have suggestions about how to debunk the book?.
Hardly an expert, but my experience is that people join and leave movements for emotional (As opposed to rational) reasons.
Rational criticism is helpful to people who have recently left, but does little to dissuade a true believer.
The best way to reason with friends is not to reason at all. (At least not in the sense I would use the word)
People leave when they either become disillusioned, or find something else that fills the same emotional need.
