Evidence for God from Science

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions, and often refuse them. recently I found out that they do not even believe in using their own blood for the transfusion, anyone knwo the reason that they will not even use their own blood for a transfussion?

I can't remember exactly where I heard this, and am certainly no expert, but I think the reason is historical.

As far as I know, a few decades ago some JWs had the neat idea of having their own blood frozen for future emergencies to get around the whole transfusion ban. When the Watchtower got wind of what they were up to they banned the practice. There's no Scriptural justification to the best of my knowledge, but that doesn't matter - the Watchtower's publications are the direct word of God so if they publish it then God said it (not that I personally believe that as you know).

The sad thing is one very rarely meets a JW on forums and so never gets to ask them directly.

Blob wrote:The sad thing is one very rarely meets a JW on forums and so never gets to ask them directly.

And the few we've had on were quite unclear on their own church's theology, unfortunately.

My understanding is that they will not have transfunsions because of the command not to eat blood in Lev 7:26 and 17:12. I'm not positive but I think that's right.

Ray

Ray is correct. They believe that since God doesn't want you to drink blood, then he wouldn't want you shooting it into your veins either. Since injection needles weren't around thousands of years ago when the Bible was written, and thus wouldn't be written down, kinda hard to argue with that.

I did a little reading and discovered that JW's believe that somehow characteristics and sins ( I think I have this right ) are contained in the blood. If you then accept a blood transfusion you will in some way be acquiring the sins of the person who gave the blood. I found it hard to follow when I read it, but I think I got it right.

Ray

Yes that is right, Ray, but I don't feel that really addresses Deborah's specific point about why you can't store and use your own blood.

Some information about the JW position on blood transfusions generally is available here.

The Law was that you weren't to eat blood because the "nephesh" (Heb: life/breath/soul) is in the blood. The Bible actually says you are not to eat the "nephesh" with the meat but you are to "field-dress" an animal by pouring it's blood on earth. The blood was reserved for atonement purposes and was not to be eaten.

The Jehovah Witnesses make the interpretative leap from the prohibition on eating blood (one issue) to a prohibition on internalizing blood in any way at all (another issue).
They see these two issues as inseparable, indeed as one and the same, and that to defy a command of God is to risk likely eternal damnation.

Many verses in Scripture do give us God's instruction not to eat blood, but I have been looking for Biblical evidence by which to understand the arrival at this other interpretation.

The Jehovah Witnesses give the grounds for that interpretation (no internalizing blood in any way at all, not even their own once it has been separated from their body - as in blood transfusions) as...

Acts 15:29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. (NIV).

Acts 21:25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. (NIV).

Notice that these verses do not specifically say "abstain from eating blood" (the words used in practically every other Biblical reference to blood except for it's use in a sacrificial sense) but just "abstain... from blood".
These verses are presumably selected as they omit the verb eat.

I personally disagree with their interpretation, for the following reasons:
1. Sandwiched between the words "food" and "meat" in the text, it would seem to me that the intended meaning was very likely to be in relation to eating.
2. Also, if the lack of a second verb permits "[abstain] from blood" to be interpreted as meaning "abstain from blood transfusions" (when transfusions and organ transplants were not performed in Biblical times and are not referenced) then surely common logic must permit the stronger case for interpetation being "abstain from eating blood" which is compatibile with other Scripture, and also far less of an anachronism?

So I guess I can't make that leap quite as easily as they do.

But there is also a secondary and genuine concern for the safety of receiving blood transfusions - the risk of serious infections that may result in death anyway, and of other medical complications - which they use as further justification to avoid recieving blood or blood products. There is some wisdom in that, although when a life is hanging in the balance then the wisdom is questionable or else takes the exercise of considerable faith.

Jehovah Witnesses point out that blood is precious, and in God's eyes it is deemed to be the vehicle for the life, even the soul, of a person. On the basis of that, tampering in any way with blood is seen as against God's intention for how we are to live.

A friend of mine who is an anaesthesiologist tells me that some Jehovah Witnesses will allow a small amount of their blood to be drained into a tube prior to surgery beginning, provided that the tube is not disconnected from their body... the blood must still be in contact with their vascular system... and then have it given back to them at end of surgery. Blood pressure during surgery can be maintained by infusion with non-blood products. My friend did not know the details of why that was considered OK - having their blood kept in connected tubing whereas it was not OK for their blood to leave their body completely and then be returned. They have been quite clear that once their blood leaves their body, it must not be returned. However, my friend said that she would do that for someone if requested, indeed has already done so, but has never had anyone able to explain the reasoning behind it yet.

In a deeper sense blood is sacred according to God, blood contains the life of a fleshly being or animal. God allows eating of meat but requires the blood to be completely cooked away before eating. It is why when Jesus was put to death his stomach was sliced open by a spear in turn the requirement that had to be completed for his sacrifice, his blood had to be spilled. Blood transfusion is not allowed an Jehovah's Witnesses will not except them because of how sacred blood is to God.

Yhwhhallowed wrote:In a deeper sense blood is sacred according to God, blood contains the life of a fleshly being or animal. God allows eating of meat but requires the blood to be completely cooked away before eating. It is why when Jesus was put to death his stomach was sliced open by a spear in turn the requirement that had to be completed for his sacrifice, his blood had to be spilled. Blood transfusion is not allowed an Jehovah's Witnesses will not except them because of how sacred blood is to God.

Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

RickD wrote:

Yhwhhallowed wrote:In a deeper sense blood is sacred according to God, blood contains the life of a fleshly being or animal. God allows eating of meat but requires the blood to be completely cooked away before eating. It is why when Jesus was put to death his stomach was sliced open by a spear in turn the requirement that had to be completed for his sacrifice, his blood had to be spilled. Blood transfusion is not allowed an Jehovah's Witnesses will not except them because of how sacred blood is to God.

Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

No but I was raised in the belief my entire life. I am not baptised into it. A lot of my family are baptised into the belief. Although since I was raised in it most questions about what they believe or who they are i can answer for you. I am not a active memeber to any organized meetings, and also have the ability to compare the slight differences between, most of the forms of Christianity, as far as apart as people claim them to be, in all honesty from Catholics to Pentecostals, from Methodist to baptists the message is still clear for the theme all the different bibles depict, the message of Gods perfect kingdom, no matter where it is you bekieve you will end up, it will only come down to what Jesus himself has done. After you die you will find out exactly where you are going to be, people get to wrapped upon what religious beliefs or interpretations of the bible is the correct one. Although they plainly forget that Jesus himself came down to cover all sin just not the sins of your religion. All will have the chance to live forever due to his sacrifice in one way shape or form. One thing is for sure JW's are not a cult because otherwise I would not have a choice. Right now I choose to not follow it because i am no hippocrate and like some Jehovah's witnesses choose not to be a wolf in sheep skin. Although any religion you walk into you will witness people acting one way during worship hours then a complete other way outside of the programs they put together. Right now i simply observe all things.

Yhwhhallowed wrote:

RickD wrote:

Yhwhhallowed wrote:In a deeper sense blood is sacred according to God, blood contains the life of a fleshly being or animal. God allows eating of meat but requires the blood to be completely cooked away before eating. It is why when Jesus was put to death his stomach was sliced open by a spear in turn the requirement that had to be completed for his sacrifice, his blood had to be spilled. Blood transfusion is not allowed an Jehovah's Witnesses will not except them because of how sacred blood is to God.

Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

No but I was raised in the belief my entire life. I am not baptised into it. A lot of my family are baptised into the belief. Although since I was raised in it most questions about what they believe or who they are i can answer for you. I am not a active memeber to any organized meetings, and also have the ability to compare the slight differences between, most of the forms of Christianity, as far as apart as people claim them to be, in all honesty from Catholics to Pentecostals, from Methodist to baptists the message is still clear for the theme all the different bibles depict, the message of Gods perfect kingdom, no matter where it is you bekieve you will end up, it will only come down to what Jesus himself has done. After you die you will find out exactly where you are going to be, people get to wrapped upon what religious beliefs or interpretations of the bible is the correct one. Although they plainly forget that Jesus himself came down to cover all sin just not the sins of your religion. All will have the chance to live forever due to his sacrifice in one way shape or form. One thing is for sure JW's are not a cult because otherwise I would not have a choice. Right now I choose to not follow it because i am no hippocrate and like some Jehovah's witnesses choose not to be a wolf in sheep skin. Although any religion you walk into you will witness people acting one way during worship hours then a complete other way outside of the programs they put together. Right now i simply observe all things.

Ok. Thanks for the explanation. It helps to know where someone is coming from, when he talks about a subject. PaulSacramento has family members that are JWs too.

One other question. I noticed you checked the "no" box in your profile. The one that asks, "Do you consider yourself a Christian?"

If not a Christian, what do you consider yourself?

RickD wrote:

Yhwhhallowed wrote:

RickD wrote:

Yhwhhallowed wrote:In a deeper sense blood is sacred according to God, blood contains the life of a fleshly being or animal. God allows eating of meat but requires the blood to be completely cooked away before eating. It is why when Jesus was put to death his stomach was sliced open by a spear in turn the requirement that had to be completed for his sacrifice, his blood had to be spilled. Blood transfusion is not allowed an Jehovah's Witnesses will not except them because of how sacred blood is to God.

Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

No but I was raised in the belief my entire life. I am not baptised into it. A lot of my family are baptised into the belief. Although since I was raised in it most questions about what they believe or who they are i can answer for you. I am not a active memeber to any organized meetings, and also have the ability to compare the slight differences between, most of the forms of Christianity, as far as apart as people claim them to be, in all honesty from Catholics to Pentecostals, from Methodist to baptists the message is still clear for the theme all the different bibles depict, the message of Gods perfect kingdom, no matter where it is you bekieve you will end up, it will only come down to what Jesus himself has done. After you die you will find out exactly where you are going to be, people get to wrapped upon what religious beliefs or interpretations of the bible is the correct one. Although they plainly forget that Jesus himself came down to cover all sin just not the sins of your religion. All will have the chance to live forever due to his sacrifice in one way shape or form. One thing is for sure JW's are not a cult because otherwise I would not have a choice. Right now I choose to not follow it because i am no hippocrate and like some Jehovah's witnesses choose not to be a wolf in sheep skin. Although any religion you walk into you will witness people acting one way during worship hours then a complete other way outside of the programs they put together. Right now i simply observe all things.

Ok. Thanks for the explanation. It helps to know where someone is coming from, when he talks about a subject. PaulSacramento has family members that are JWs too.

One other question. I noticed you checked the "no" box in your profile. The one that asks, "Do you consider yourself a Christian?"

If not a Christian, what do you consider yourself?

The term Christian is to be Christ like or another words following the examples set down for us by Jesus relating to biblical scriptures. I checked no becsuse i might know the biblical context on a high level but then again i am far from a man walking in the steps of Jesus as a just servant to God. The life Jesus led holds a lot of responsibility an prosecution. I cant call myself a Christian until I become baptised and align my life completely to do the will of God. If I was to say i am now i would be a hippocrate. I am simply a man with the knowledge that knows what to do but is not desided if that life is the life I can personally live. I guess you can say i have more growing to do.

Yhwhhallowed wrote:In a deeper sense blood is sacred according to God, blood contains the life of a fleshly being or animal. God allows eating of meat but requires the blood to be completely cooked away before eating. It is why when Jesus was put to death his stomach was sliced open by a spear in turn the requirement that had to be completed for his sacrifice, his blood had to be spilled. Blood transfusion is not allowed an Jehovah's Witnesses will not except them because of how sacred blood is to God.

Yes blood is sacred and so is life and to allow a person to die when they can be saved because of an incorrect interpretation of scripture is, well, blasphemy.
Any prohibition against the taking in a blood was dietary and had ZERO to do with the transfusion of blood to save a life.

As God has said, I desire mercy not sacrifice.

The JW policy on blood is not only wrong, it is inconsistent as well:
Scripturally Inaccurate - Most Christian religions recognise that there is no scriptural prohibition on Christians transfusing blood.

Inconsistent - The Watchtower states God's standard is that blood must not be stored, yet allows Jehovah's Witnesses to use blood fractions derived from stored blood.

Double Standard - Jehovah's Witnesses use significant quantities of medical products derived from blood, but are forbidden from donating blood.

There is, of course, no Law against the use of blood to safe a life:

Noah:
The Watchtower claims the command to refrain from blood originated with Noah.

"God imposed this one restriction. They were not to consume blood.(Genesis 9:3,4)" Watchtower 2008 Oct 1 p.31
Genesis 9:4 does not discuss eating blood, rather Noah was told:

"Only flesh with its soul - its blood - YOU must not eat."
This command is about respect for animal life during the ritual of slaughter. This does not state that blood could not be eaten. In its strict Hebrew wording, it means that an animal should not have flesh torn off it for food, whilst the animal is still alive. In general, it is understood to mean that out of respect for the life of an animal, it was to be bled when being killed for food; a command against eating things strangled.

Mosaic:
The Mosaic Law gave over 600 laws for the Nation of Israel, greatly adding to the laws that were given to Noah. For the first time, a law stated that blood was not to be eaten; to do so would result in death.

Leviticus 17:10 "And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people."
Yet, this too was related to the ritual of bleeding an animal killed for food, not the blood itself. This point can be seen from Leviticus 17:15;

"As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or a alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until evening; and he must be clean."
If the animal was already dead the death penalty did not apply for eating an unbled animal; rather they were required to bathe due to being unclean from handling a dead body.


Davidic:
From David we see that the regulation on blood was regarding the ritual of killing for food. David was not required to bleed the bears and lions killed in the protection of his sheep. (1Sa 17:34-36)

At 2 Samuel 23:13-16, when the mighty men risked their lives to get fresh water for David, he poured the water out to Jehovah (as commanded for blood) and chastised these men for not showing sanctity for their own lives. The words he used are enlightening.

"[David] did not consent to drink it, but poured it out to Jehovah. And he went on to say: "It is unthinkable on my part, O Jehovah, that I should do this! [Shall I drink] the blood of the men going at the risk of their souls?""
David's parallel of water with blood and life shows it is not literal blood that is important to Jehovah, but rather respect for life. Jehovah condemns reckless waste of life.

and in the NT:
The big on for JW's is how the pervert the meaning of ACTS 21:25

There is one occasion that on the surface may appear to complicate the issue on blood, and is the key scripture used by the Watchtower Society to justify its stance. At Acts 15:21 it is recorded that the Apostles and Older Men gave a decree to "abstain from blood". At first glance this may be taken to imply that the Mosaic Law was to continue applying to Christians in regard to consumption of blood. This is how Jehovah's Witnesses currently understand this scripture and is their predominate support for refusing blood transfusions.

Acts 15:21 does not apply to blood transfusions when understood in its historical and religious setting. It is not understood by the majority of Christian religions to be a binding command, nor was it understood as such by Pastor Russell. As already shown, the Noahide law on blood did not forbid eating blood, but was about showing respect when killing an animal. Blood transfusions do not involve taking life.

The command at Acts:

Is not a binding command on all individuals
Does not refer to blood transfusions
The situation at Acts was very specific. Jewish Christians were having difficulty accepting Gentile Christians, particularly in regards to circumcision. Paul, the Apostle to the Nations, was converting Gentiles and rightfully taught that they were not obligated to follow the Mosaic Law. Judaizers were a group of Jewish Christians claiming to be superior to the Gentile Christians due to following the Mosaic Law. As explained in the New Catholic Encyclopaedia, Judaizers were;

"A party of Jewish Christians in the Early Church, who either held that circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic Law were necessary for salvation and in consequence wished to impose them on the Gentile converts, or who at least considered them as still obligatory on the Jewish Christians."
The Apostles and older men convened to discuss the application of the Mosaic Law and came to the conclusion that observation of the Mosaic Law was unnecessary. However they recommended that 'the believers from among the nations' observe fours things from the Mosaic Law.

Acts 21:25 ""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.""
This is not an exhaustive list of things to abstain from (murder being obvious omission) so why was this unusual list given. It was to prevent stumbling Jewish brothers. This was explained in the Watch Tower 1909 Apr 15 pp. 116-117 and is the common Christian understanding. The New Catholic Encyclopaedia states;

"These four prohibitions were imposed for the sake of charity and union. As they forbade practices which were held in special abhorrence by all the Jews, their observance was necessary to avoid shocking the Jewish brethren and to make free intercourse between the two classes of Christians possible. With the disappearance of the Jewish-Christian community of Jerusalem at the time of the rebellion (A.D. 67-70), the question about circumcision and the observance of the Law ceased to be of any importance in the Church, and soon became a dead issue." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII Copyright 1910 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright 2003 by K. Knight as displayed at newadvent.org as of 17 Sep 2005)
How do both scholars and Russell reach this conclusion? Firstly, as the Mosaic Law had ceased to apply it does not make sense for Christians to be required to retain only this portion of it. Particularly is this so when considering that these four things are not the only Mosaic rules that a Christian must follow, nor are they the most important ones.

James explained why the four things mentioned at Acts 15:20 were specifically chosen in the very next verse.

Acts 15:19-21 "Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 For from ancient times Moses has had in city after city those who preach him, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath."
The Law of Moses was read in Synagogues every Sabbath. The passage from Leviticus 17:1 to 18:27 applied to both Jews and Gentiles. This passage has the same four requirements, listed in the exact order as that given in Acts 21:25. (Lev 17:7 sacrifices to idol, Lev 17:10 eating blood, Lev 17:13 bleeding an animal, Lev 18 fornication) These were the compulsory rules for both Israelites and foreigners living in ancient Israel. These were considered of utmost importance to Jews due to being based on the Noahide laws.

Genesis 8:20 "And Noah began to build an altar to Jehovah" introduced the concept of abstaining from idolatry
Genesis 9:1 "Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth." Introduced the idea of marriage and not fornication
Genesis 9:4 "Only flesh with its soul-its blood-YOU must not eat" was abstinence from things strangled.
Genesis 9:6 "Anyone shedding man's blood, by man will his own blood be shed" introduced the blood law by forbidding murder. Once more we see that the foundation for the law on blood was respect for life.
This is why these four items meant so much to the Judaizers and why the Apostles concluded that upholding them was necessary to prevent stumbling within the surrounding Jewish congregations.

Paul specifically states that there is nothing wrong with eating food sacrificed to idols and explains that this prohibition was provided so as not to stumble others. This was only an issue in congregations that were having trouble between Judaizers and Gentiles.

1 Corinthians 8:4-13 "Now concerning the eating of foods offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one. Nevertheless, there is not this knowledge in all persons; but some, being accustomed until now to the idol, eat food as something sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food will not commend us to God; if we do not eat, we do not fall short, and, if we eat, we have no credit to ourselves. But keep watching that this authority of YOURS does not somehow become a stumbling block to those who are weak. For if anyone should see you, the one having knowledge, reclining at a meal in an idol temple, will not the conscience of that one who is weak be built up to the point of eating foods offered to idols? 11 Really, by your knowledge, the man that is weak is being ruined, [your] brother for whose sake Christ died. But when YOU people thus sin against YOUR brothers and wound their conscience that is weak, YOU are sinning against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat flesh at all, that I may not make my brother stumble."

1 Corinthians 10:25-33 "Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience; for "to Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it." If anyone of the unbelievers invites YOU and YOU wish to go, proceed to eat everything that is set before YOU, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience. But if anyone should say to YOU: "This is something offered in sacrifice," do not eat on account of the one that disclosed it and on account of conscience. "Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other person. For why should it be that my freedom is judged by another person's conscience? If I am partaking with thanks, why am I to be spoken of abusively over that for which I give thanks? Therefore, whether YOU are eating or drinking or doing anything else, do all things for God's glory. Keep from becoming causes for stumbling to Jews as well as Greeks and to the congregation of God, even as I am pleasing all people in all things, not seeking my own advantage but that of the many, in order that they might get saved."
Even though the decree at Acts 15 says to abstain from eating food sacrificed to idols, Paul makes clear that there is nothing wrong with this practice. He said it was only wrong when it stumbled the brothers, in this case the Judaizers. The same principal applies to blood. Acts 15 included food sacrificed to idols, blood and animals strangled because they caused stumbling in the mixed congregations due to their being read "in the Synagogue on every Sabbath", not because they are offensive to God. This became less of an issue after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. and holds no relevance in our era.

Abstaining from blood is never mentioned in any other context in the New Testament. It is never discussed as a reason to shun a brother. Paul does not mention eating blood at 1 Corinthians 5 as a reason to 'quit mixing' with a brother, neither does John mention it. In Revelation 21:8 and 1 Corinthians 6 blood is not said to be a reason for not inheriting God's Kingdom. If avoiding blood was a key requirement of God it would be mentioned alongside sins such as fornication, murder and idolatry that are repeatedly condemned in the New Testament.


For further reading,please go to:
http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/blood ... ons.php#L4

Yhwhhallowed wrote:

RickD wrote:

Yhwhhallowed wrote:

RickD wrote:

Yhwhhallowed wrote:In a deeper sense blood is sacred according to God, blood contains the life of a fleshly being or animal. God allows eating of meat but requires the blood to be completely cooked away before eating. It is why when Jesus was put to death his stomach was sliced open by a spear in turn the requirement that had to be completed for his sacrifice, his blood had to be spilled. Blood transfusion is not allowed an Jehovah's Witnesses will not except them because of how sacred blood is to God.

Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

No but I was raised in the belief my entire life. I am not baptised into it. A lot of my family are baptised into the belief. Although since I was raised in it most questions about what they believe or who they are i can answer for you. I am not a active memeber to any organized meetings, and also have the ability to compare the slight differences between, most of the forms of Christianity, as far as apart as people claim them to be, in all honesty from Catholics to Pentecostals, from Methodist to baptists the message is still clear for the theme all the different bibles depict, the message of Gods perfect kingdom, no matter where it is you bekieve you will end up, it will only come down to what Jesus himself has done. After you die you will find out exactly where you are going to be, people get to wrapped upon what religious beliefs or interpretations of the bible is the correct one. Although they plainly forget that Jesus himself came down to cover all sin just not the sins of your religion. All will have the chance to live forever due to his sacrifice in one way shape or form. One thing is for sure JW's are not a cult because otherwise I would not have a choice. Right now I choose to not follow it because i am no hippocrate and like some Jehovah's witnesses choose not to be a wolf in sheep skin. Although any religion you walk into you will witness people acting one way during worship hours then a complete other way outside of the programs they put together. Right now i simply observe all things.

Ok. Thanks for the explanation. It helps to know where someone is coming from, when he talks about a subject. PaulSacramento has family members that are JWs too.

One other question. I noticed you checked the "no" box in your profile. The one that asks, "Do you consider yourself a Christian?"

If not a Christian, what do you consider yourself?

The term Christian is to be Christ like or another words following the examples set down for us by Jesus relating to biblical scriptures. I checked no becsuse i might know the biblical context on a high level but then again i am far from a man walking in the steps of Jesus as a just servant to God. The life Jesus led holds a lot of responsibility an prosecution. I cant call myself a Christian until I become baptised and align my life completely to do the will of God. If I was to say i am now i would be a hippocrate. I am simply a man with the knowledge that knows what to do but is not desided if that life is the life I can personally live. I guess you can say i have more growing to do.

To be a Christian is a journey. I am far from Christ like but I am made a commitment to follow him. I fail spectacularly at times but luckly I have his forgiveness and grace. Dont delay in making that commitment and stumble along with the rest of us sinners.