i thought some people might like to see a strictly bible-based dismemberment of the jw blood doctrine.
for some introductory material, see the thread:.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/7/67949/4.ashx.
Earnest,
Just wanted to thank you for your response. I think I was confused and connecting the point made about other scholars supporting their position to the idea of eating in ignorance. Have you ever come across anyone else linking this verse to something being done in ignorance?
Is this a deliberate twisting of scripture by WTS to shore up transfusion policy or possibly just a point of view on the correct understanding of the Hebrew?
i thought some people might like to see a strictly bible-based dismemberment of the jw blood doctrine.
for some introductory material, see the thread:.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/7/67949/4.ashx.
Earnest,
I found your comment quite interesting. Are you familiar with the 83 WT QFR on this matter? They put the spin on Lev 17 that for this to apply to a Jew, they must have eaten in ignorance. I have no idea how that would be implied by this scripture. Isn't the context discussing hunting?
Is not the difference between the proselyte and the pagan alien who ate an animal found dead simply this: the proselyte would be required to bathe while the pagan would not.
Also, is the procedure the same as this?
***
Rbi8 Leviticus 15:16-18 ***16
"?Now in case a man has an emission of semen go out from him, he must then bathe all his flesh in water and be unclean until the evening. 17 And any garment and any skin upon which the emission of semen gets to be must be washed with water and be unclean until the evening.18
"?As for a woman with whom a man may lie down with an emission of semen, they must bathe in water and be unclean until the evening.
blood -- wts questions and sound answers 2
*** w69 6/1 326-7 godly respect for life and blood *** .
"some persons may reason that getting a blood transfusion is not actually "eating.
Good points that are usually so obscure that they escape the notice of most JW's.
It seems to me that the WT does not seem to be entirely opposed to cannibalism.
Another line of 'reasoning' in that same article:
__________________________________________________________________________________________
***
w80 3/15 p. 31 Questions from Readers ***While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Of course to be a cannibal according to WT policy would not be very easy.
You could not eat the body of a person you found dead because that would be eating unbled meat.
Maybe if extremely fortunate the WT cannibal could come across someone that died in such a way that they bled out incidentally.
Killing someone and then properly bleeding the body would make you a murderer.
It might be allowable if someone else did the killing and bleeding (sort of like leaving donating blood and cutting it up sufficiently to others, eh?)
So this position of WT saying that cannibalism is not scripturally condemned seems to be an untenable justification for organ transplants in any practical sense.
i thought some people might like to see a strictly bible-based dismemberment of the jw blood doctrine.
for some introductory material, see the thread:.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/7/67949/4.ashx.
Another scripture of interest is found at Lev 17.
***
Rbi8 Leviticus 17:13-16 ***13
"?As for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. 14 For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: "YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off." 15 As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean. 16 But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, he must then answer for his error.?"Here is a post from another discussion board on this topic:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Conspicuous by its absence in Acts 15 is any prohibition of eating animals found already dead. This absence is notable inasmuch as anyone eating this meat would of course be eating blood along with the meat. This serves to bolster the argument that draining the blood of an animal killed for food was an act of respect to the Giver of Life and this act is only done by his permission. Since the council included experts on the Law it is hardly tenable to say this omission was an oversight.
So can a case be made that eating such meat is a violation of Christian principles?
*** w75 5/15 300-2 'Eating and Drinking to God's Glory' ***
Note that religious regulations prohibiting certain foods are actually an evidence of a falling away from true Christianity. This means that persons claiming to be Christian but commanding certain dietary restrictions as a required means for gaining divine favor are in reality dishonoring God. How can this be? Did not God?s law to Israel rule out certain foods as unacceptable? . . . .
Hence, for religious organizations of Christendom to impose the dietary restrictions of the Mosaic law, the whole or in part, would mean their denying that the reality belongs to the Christ. They would be acting contrary to God?s ?word? that has sanctified or set apart all things usable for food as acceptable. Religious dietary restrictions other than those contained in the Mosaic law would likewise be in opposition to divine revelation that ?every creation of God is fine? and therefore suitable for food.
The institution of dietary restrictions as a religious duty is not a minor matter. It constitutes rejection of Christian faith and accurate knowledge. It implies that there is something defective in God?s ?word,? that it does not reveal the full scope of what people need to do to gain divine approval and that man-made precepts are therefore needed. The importance of God?s ?word? is minimized and human regulations are elevated. By thus misunderstanding the only standard for judging truth, the Scriptural standard, the door is opened for other apostate teachings. Accordingly, to command obedience to man-made dietary restrictions as a religious duty dishonors God. However, if an informed Christian abstains for the time being in order not to stumble or offend the conscience of a person who feels bound by such dietary rules, he is doing a considerate thing and is looking for the liberating and salvation of a rule-bound person.?1 Cor. 9:19.
HOWEVER, that is exactly what they later do.
*** w83 4/15 30-1 Questions From Readers ***
Now let us carefully examine Leviticus 17:10. It says that no ?man of the house of Israel or some alien resident? should eat blood. Was that because the animal had been killed by a human and so the blood had to be returned to God? To claim such is to read into the verse more than it says. Further, if guilt resulted only if blood was from a creature killed by man, then Deuteronomy 14:21 and Exodus 22:31 would not have forbidden Israelites to eat unbled flesh from animals that were not killed by men. Yet the Israelites clearly knew they could not eat such meat. Ezekiel stated: ?My soul is not a defiled one; neither a body already dead nor a torn animal have I eaten from my youth up.??Ezekiel 4:14; compare 44:31.
Why, then, does Deuteronomy 14:21 say that the ?alien resident? could be sold unbled meat, but Leviticus 17:10 forbids the ?alien resident? to eat blood? Both God?s people and Bible commentators have recognized that the distinction must have been the religious standing of the alien involved. Aid to Bible Understanding (page 51) points out that sometimes the term ?alien resident? meant a person among the Israelites who was not a full proselyte. It appears that this sort of person is meant at Deuteronomy 14:21, a man who was not trying to keep all of God?s laws and who might have his own uses for a carcass considered unclean by Israelites and proselytes. Jewish scholars, too, have offered this explanation.
So, no worshiper of God could eat blood, whether from (or in the flesh of) an animal that had died of itself or from one that was killed by man. Why, then, does Leviticus 17:15 say that eating unbled flesh from such an animal that died of itself or was killed by a beast merely produced uncleanness?
We can find a clue at Leviticus 5:2, which says: ?When a soul touches some unclean thing, whether the dead body of an unclean wild beast . . ., although it has been hidden from him, still he is unclean and has become guilty.? Yes, God acknowledged that an Israelite might err inadvertently. Hence, Leviticus 17:15 can be understood as providing for such an error. For example, if an Israelite ate meat served him and then learned that it was unbled, he was guilty of sin. But because it was inadvertent he could take steps to become clean. This, however, is noteworthy: If he would not take those steps, ?he must then answer for his error.??Leviticus 17:16.
Thus eating unbled flesh was not a trivial matter; it could even result in death. No true worshiper (Israelite or full proselyte alien) could voluntarily eat unbled flesh, no matter if it was from an animal that died of itself, was killed by another animal or was killed by a human. (Numbers 15:30) The apostolic council confirmed this. Writing to Christians making up the spiritual ?Israel of God? it forbade eating that which was strangled, whether the unbled meat was from an animal that died from accidental strangulation or it was from one strangled by a man.?Galatians 6:16; Acts 21:25.
HOW does an animal get accidentally strangled??? Acts 15 confirms what was required of Noah re: blood but the Society adds to it.
IN the first paragraph quoted above they warn against reading into a verse more that it says. Two paragrahs later they do exactly that.
"Why, then, does Leviticus 17:15 say that eating unbled flesh from such an animal that died of itself or was killed by a beast merely produced uncleanness?
We can find a clue at Leviticus 5:2, which says: ?When a soul touches some unclean thing, whether the dead body of an unclean wild beast . . ., although it has been hidden from him, still he is unclean and has become guilty.? Yes, God acknowledged that an Israelite might err inadvertently. Hence, Leviticus 17:15 can be understood as providing for such an error. For example, if an Israelite ate meat served him and then learned that it was unbled, he was guilty of sin. But because it was inadvertent he could take steps to become clean. This, however, is noteworthy: If he would not take those steps, ?he must then answer for his error.??Leviticus 17:16."
WHAT does the scripture actually say?
*** Rbi8 Leviticus 17:13-16 ***
13 ??As for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. 14 For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: ?YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.? 15 As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean. 16 But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, he must then answer for his error.??
NOW I am not a Hebrew scholar, but it sure seems to me the situation is not about anything hidden at all. The Israelite was out hunting and found an animal already dead and decided to eat it. Nothing about going to someone's house and not knowing the kind of food he was eating. I find it hard to believe that this is actually suggested as a likely scenario. Of course the simple clear understanding of this scripture might cause problems with blood transfusion policy. This 83 WT spin was a change from previous comments.
*** w54 4/1 223 Questions from Readers ***
"How can we harmonize Deuteronomy 14:21 (NW), ?You must not eat any dead body,? and Leviticus 11:40 (NW), ?And he who eats any of its dead body will wash his garments and he must be unclean until the evening???D. H., Eire.
Actually, there is no disharmony between these two texts. One prohibits eating an animal that died of itself or was found dead, and the other shows the penalty for eating in violation of the prohibition. The mere fact that the eating of a dead body is forbidden does not mean that will never take place. The Law contained prohibitions of many things, but it also contained penalties for violating those prohibitions. The mere fact that a thing was prohibited did not of itself mean it would never be indulged in; hence penalties were set up to give force to the prohibitions. There were prohibitions against stealing, talebearing, adultery, murder, and many other sins of varying magnitude, and penalties of varying severity were fixed by the Law to guide Israel in dealing with violators. So it was in the matter of eating a dead body."
THE following month is more like the 83 WT:
*** w54 5/1 286-7 Questions from Readers ***
? Some think it is wrong to hunt and fish, while others see no wrong in such pursuits. Some who think hunting permissible do contend, however, that the game should be thoroughly bled immediately after it is shot to avoid violating the prohibition of eating blood. This bleeding is not generally done. What is the Scriptural view concerning these matters??A. A., United States.
If the hunter failed to bleed his game properly he was put to death, or ?cut off.? To eat unbled game not only was prohibited to Israelites under the Law, but also is forbidden for Christians: ?Keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things killed without draining their blood and from fornication.? (Acts 15:29; 21:25, NW) Immediately following the instruction to hunters to bleed their game and that to eat blood will mean their death, we read: ?As for any soul that eats a dead body or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or a temporary resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening. Then he must be clean. But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, then he must answer for his iniquity.? (Lev. 17:15, 16, NW) A body that dies of itself or of wounds inflicted by another animal would not be properly drained of blood, and hence was not to be eaten. Penalty for deliberate violation of the commandment to eat no blood is death, but in the last-mentioned case guilt could be erased by a ceremony of purification, which indicates it was a case where the commandment was violated innocently, unknowingly, as might happen when someone purchased or bartered for meat, or when eating as a guest of someone else. Now, as in Israel?s day, one who violates the command concerning blood accidentally, without knowing it, not doing so deliberately, can gain forgiveness by repentance and avoiding a recurrence of the trespass.
WHY do they make the statement that this must have been done unknowingly due to the fact that it required only bathing? Other acts that were done unintentionally had a more stringent requirement.
*** Rbi8 Leviticus 5:14-19 ***
14 And Jehovah continued to speak to Moses, saying: 15 ?In case a soul behaves unfaithfully in that he actually sins by mistake against the holy things of Jehovah, then he must bring as his guilt offering to Jehovah a sound ram from the flock, according to the estimated value in silver shekels, by the shekel of the holy place, as a guilt offering. 16 And he will make compensation for the sin he has committed against the holy place and he will add to it a fifth of it, and he must give it to the priest, that the priest may make an atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering, and so it must be forgiven him.
17 ?And if a soul sins in that he does do one of all the things that Jehovah commands should not be done, although he did not know it, yet he has become guilty and must answer for his error. 18 And he must bring a sound ram from the flock according to the estimated value, for a guilt offering, to the priest; and the priest must make an atonement for him for his mistake that he committed unintentionally, although he himself did not know it, and so it must be forgiven him. 19 It is a guilt offering. He has positively become guilty against Jehovah.?
IF Acts 15 does not prohibit eating animals found already dead, it is evident that it does not cover all blood in all situations.
governing buzzards ?
changes in religious doctrine, dogma, cannon, practices, liturgy and ritual are common and almost all christians have witnessed this in their denominations ?
including fringe groups like jehovah?s witnesses.
Sidepoint for sake of accuracy:
Golden Age came before Consolation
there were so many times, when things didn't seem right in the organization or congregation, or when things weren't understood, you were informed : "just wait on jehovah, or in time jehovah will make it right".
my question becomes obscured with the fact that if in fact the elders are appointed by holy spirit, he would also direct them to make the right decisions in behalf of his congregation right?.
but if one of the elders felt he would be directed by god, and did things in behalf of his congregation, why would he be called on the carpet?
Isaiah 59:15-16
And Jehovah got to see, and it was bad in his eyes that there was no justice. 16 And when he saw that there was no man, he began to show himself astonished that there was no one interposing.
i understand from talking to some one who had some knowledge of the situation but could not find the reference material , that the society has something in writing which says if a person believes they are scripturally free and that they are willing to stand before jehovah and face the consquences they can get married -- (this in effect leave the elders out of the equation and they can not do anything to you.
) does anyone know where this reference can be found -- i need it as soon as possible.
i can not find it.
If you still want to play by rules you could try branch again as last resort.
strong circumstantial evidence, such as pregnancy or evidence (testified to by at least two witnesses) that the accused stayed all night in the same house with a person of .
the opposite sex (or in the same house with a known homosexual ) under improper circumstances, is acceptable.
i was told that there is a scriptural principle for the above quote from the "pay attention to the flock book".
Are you serious?
Actually sent to you in a letter?
Are you able to give more of the context or would that be too revealing?
i've been following a thread on another forum where jw's are insisting that it is ok for them to go inside churches for weddings, funerals, etc.
they say it's quite ok to go inside any church just as long as they don't participate in the service by singing, praying, kneeling...etc...some of them say that they have seen "guest speakers" in churches who came as watchtower representatives.
when did this ever change?
*** w74 12/15 pp. 766-767 Questions from Readers ***
Questions
from Readers?
What is the view of Jehovah?s witnesses toward attending the wedding of a worldly acquaintance or relative?In the case of minors who contemplate attending, the final decision rests with the parents. Otherwise it is a matter for personal decision, with each Christian being willing to bear his own responsibility. However, there are Scriptural principles and a wide variety of circumstances that should be considered.
The wedding ceremony may be conducted in a religious building and by a clergyman. This would make it quite different from a purely civil ceremony. A true Christian could not conscientiously join or participate in any prayers or religious exercises that he knew to be contrary to Bible teaching. Nor is he interested to see how close he can come to apostate acts without overstepping the line. He is under obligation to heed the Scriptural command: "Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? . . . Or what portion does a faithful person have with an unbeliever? . . . ?Therefore get out from among them, and separate yourselves,? says Jehovah, ?and quit touching the unclean thing.?"?2 Cor. 6:14-17.
Understandably, one invited to attend a wedding of worldly relatives and acquaintances may at times be faced with quite a problem. For example, the invitation may have been extended to a Christian wife and her unbelieving husband. He may think that both of them should be present for the wedding. Yet she may be troubled about it. She may reason that, if she were to attend a church wedding, the emotional pressure of the circumstances could cause her to do something wrong. On the other hand, she might conclude that, out of regard for her husband?s wishes, she could go with him merely as a respectful observer, but being determined not to share in any religious acts.
Regardless of how a wife might view the matter, it would be to her advantage to explain her position to her husband. If, on the basis of her explanation, he comes to the conclusion that his wife?s presence may possibly give rise to a situation unpleasant to him, he may prefer to go alone. Or, he may still want her to go with him, but as a quiet observer, in which case she will have to decide whether to go.
Something that deserves consideration is the effect that attending a wedding in a religious building might have on fellow believers. Could it injure the conscience of some? Might their resistance to engaging in actual idolatrous acts be weakened by this action of yours? A Bible principle that comes into the picture is: "Make sure of the more important things, so that you may be flawless and not be stumbling others up to the day of Christ."?Phil. 1:10; see also 1 Corinthians 8:9-13.
At times an invitation to a wedding may include being actively involved as a member of the bridal party. What if this required participation in certain religious acts? Manifestly one desiring to be pleasing to God could not share in acts of false religion; the person must act in harmony with his Word. But a Christian could explain just how he feels and point out that in no way does he want to mar the joy of the wedding day by being responsible for what might prove to be an embarrassing situation.
In matters of this nature, Christians must carefully weigh all the factors involved. Under certain circumstances they may conclude that no difficulties would arise if they were to attend as quiet observers. On the other hand, the circumstances may be such that a Christian may reason that likely injury to his conscience or that of others by attending such worldly wedding outweighs the possible benefits of attending. Whatever the situation, the Christian should make sure that his decision will not interfere with his preserving a good conscience before God and men.
i am in a situation where my ex-wife left me.
i had survellaince done on her place by two members of my family.
this was done over a several month time frame.
Isn't there a way to just claim she confessed to you and be free in the eyes of the elders?
