Posts by TD

43

Basic Blood Questions For Witnesses

by Vanderhoven7 in

basic blood questions for jehovah's witnesses.

where does the bible outlaw blood transfusions?

(acts 15:29 gen.9:4) .

TD

Fisherman,

With respect, I don't believe you have bridged the gap between the eating of blood (What the Bible forbids) and the transfusion of blood (What that prohibition is interpreted by JW's to mean in the context of modern medicine.)

You seem to be relying on your own gut feeling and that's not enough. Similarity is not moral equivalence.

There is a similarity between marital sex and adultery, but the two are not morally equivalent acts. Attempting to imply equivalency by lumping them both under the broader category of sex would be the fallacy of equivocation.

There is a similarity between burning a pinch of incense to a pagan god and burning a pinch of incense because you like the ambience, but the two are not morally equivalent acts.

There is a similarity between sipping wine during a JW memorial and sipping wine after you get home. (Even if it is poured from the exact same bottle) but the two are not morally equivalent acts.

Even strictly within the scope of the Decree, there is a similarity between the eating of an idol sacrifice in a pagan temple and the eating of an idol sacrifice when it is sold to the public, but the two are not morally equivalent acts.

Moral equivalency is not established by similarity. It is established via a logical construct.

Try a simple thought experiment. Why does the prohibition against murder, expressed poetically as, "shedding man's blood" apply to poisoning, electrocution and other forms of murder where no blood is shed? How would you construct a watertight argument that would stand up to criticism?

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

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 .

TD

What implication?

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.

If any implication of impropriety has been made, it's in the notion that a translator begins with a belief and translates accordingly. That's precisely what they try to avoid.

It's been pointed out that Jeremiah 25:11 contains two grammatical units and it's perfectly true. In the Septuagint, they are separated by a full stop.

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

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 .

TD

To paraphrase BeDuhn:

When the public turns to a Bible translation, it relies heavily on the principle of “truth in advertising” The public trusts that those who translate have been as fair, impartial and accurate has humanly possible. Accuracy in Bible translation means strictly excluding bias towards later developments in Christian thought. It means placing probable meaning above wished-for meaning.

----------

Back around the time the JW's released their interlinear, there was a Watchtower article speculating that much of the Bible comes to us in Greek because the rigid grammar makes for a very precise language, provided one follows it.

43

Basic Blood Questions For Witnesses

by Vanderhoven7 in

basic blood questions for jehovah's witnesses.

where does the bible outlaw blood transfusions?

(acts 15:29 gen.9:4) .

TD

Over the years, the JWs have offered four separate rationales for the allowance of various blood components

(1) In September of 1958 IgG preparations such as the diphtheria antitoxin were allowed on the basis that these "do not nourish the body." However since no component of blood actually nourishes the body, this rationale if taken to its logical conclusion would have brought the whole doctrine crashing down.

(2) In June of 1982, the 1958 rationale for the allowance of fractions was replaced. The JW's attempted to divide blood into "major" and "minor" components, with the major ones forbidden and the minor ones allowed. However the policy the JW's enforced did not consistently follow this rationale. The only basis the JW's ever offered for the major/minor division was raw percentage of blood volume for each respective component. Platelets which comprises roughly 2/10ths of 1 percent of your blood volume were forbidden while albumin which comprises slightly more than 10 times as much (2.2%) was allowed. Not one of the components of plasma was forbidden yet plasma as such (these components suspended in water) were forbidden.

(3) In June of 1990 the 1982 rationale was replaced. Blood components were now divided on the basis of transference across the placental barrier during pregnancy. The same divisions remained. This (IMHO) was one of their better and more honest attempts at interpretation as it put God back into the equation via an appeal to natural consequence. The idea was that God would not violate his own "laws" via creation. However this rationale was not technically viable either.

In 1992 a female lab tech who had donated a blood specimen for analysis was found to have "Y" DNA circulating in her blood stream. Researchers were puzzled until it was disclosed that she was 6 weeks pregnant. The source of the "Y" DNA was her unborn son. Cells in the blood of the fetus including fetal nucleated red blood cells, were crossing the placental barrier. Other studies detected fetal erythroblasts, trophoblasts, granulocytes and lymphocytes in the maternal blood. Since then it has been demonstrated that a woman can still have fetal blood cells in her blood stream more than 30 years after her last pregnancy.

(4) In June of 2000, the 1990 rationale for the allowance of some blood components was replaced. Blood components are now classified as either "primary" or "secondary." This enlarged the scope of permitted preparations procedures to any and all "fractions" or a "primary" component.

While I would agree that easing the restriction was a positive development, this is still a human interpretation subject to error, future revisions and lacking anything even remotely resembling a biblical basis.

43

Basic Blood Questions For Witnesses

by Vanderhoven7 in

basic blood questions for jehovah's witnesses.

where does the bible outlaw blood transfusions?

(acts 15:29 gen.9:4) .

TD

The JW's emphatically condemned the use of gamma globulin (IgG) in 1954 (Awake! January 8, 1954 p. 25)

Four years later, in 1958 they changed their interpretation and allowed it on the basis that it didn't nourish the body as food. (The Watchtower September 15, 1958 p. 575 --Gamma globulin is the basis for post-exposure vaccines and serums.)

Three years later, in 1961, they changed their mind again and said that any and all fractions derived from blood were forbidden (The Watchtower September 15, 1961 pp. 558,559)

Three years later, in 1964, they changed their mind again. IgG was now allowed, but under a different rationale than it had been allowed in 1958 (The Watchtower November 15, 1964 p. 682)

The position with regard to IgG has remained pretty much the same ever since and few JW's even think twice about accepting it today.

----------

With the foregoing in mind:

What would have been the proper course for the parent of a child with ITP, Kawasaki's syndrome, neonatal immunological deficiency syndrome, etc. during one of the windows where IgG it was forbidden?

Similarly, what would be the proper course for the parent of a child with an atypical bleeding disorder today?

12

Gun Ownership - A question for American Witnesses (or Ex-Witnesses)

by no-zombie in

i would like to ask a question regarding gun ownership in the active american witnesses community.

while rifle ownership has been put in the same category as spear guns and fishing rods, how has the issue of pistol ownership been handled in us congregations?

.

TD

Starting in 1983, JW's in law enforcement and security were no longer considered "exemplary" and could no longer hold "privileges" in the congregation. Those that held those types of jobs were given six months to find other employment.

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

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 .

TD

I don't usually facepalm, but sometimes words fail me....

43

Basic Blood Questions For Witnesses

by Vanderhoven7 in

basic blood questions for jehovah's witnesses.

where does the bible outlaw blood transfusions?

(acts 15:29 gen.9:4) .

TD

I'm not a JW, but if I were, it would come down to this:

On one side of the scales, we have plain and simple, black and white, clear and direct commands regarding the sanctity of the gift of life and the severe penalty for unjustly depriving another human being of that gift.

Only something of equal weight can balance those scales.

From Uzzah to King Saul, the Bible is full of examples of those who thought a direct command could be violated based on what another command might mean and the message is crystal clear: Human speculation doesn't cut it.

For me, this was not hypothetical. (A child, a medical emergency involving blood and a believing JW wife.) I spoke with the JW parent organization directly and in the end, they acknowledged that the teaching is an interpretation.

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

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 .

TD

Those of us who regard the Bible as an interesting piece of literature are still bound by many of the same rules and conventions that religious people are, especially when it comes to the more rigid grammar of ancient languages.

Simple (non-biblical) example: (Είμαι περίεργος αν το αναγνωρίζει ο «λόγιος»)

We don't do this in English. (It's not nearly as precise a language)

12

Gun Ownership - A question for American Witnesses (or Ex-Witnesses)

by no-zombie in

i would like to ask a question regarding gun ownership in the active american witnesses community.

while rifle ownership has been put in the same category as spear guns and fishing rods, how has the issue of pistol ownership been handled in us congregations?

.

TD

--Looking forward to your thread. In the 1937 book, Enemies, self defense was an inalienable right of all people.

By 1983, they were willing to misapply their own understanding of Isaiah 53:12 in order to discourage it.