Jehovah's Witness ? blood transfusion?

Question

I have been told Jehovah's Witness faith dosen't allow blood transfusion. If this is true , what is the scriptural basis?

Answer 1

Medical technology is now at the point where blood transfusions are medically unnecessary. Sadly, some old-fashioned physicians and many determined anti-Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that.

However, it is not the medical irrelevance of blood transfusions that motivate Jehovah's Witnesses. It is their sincere belief that the scriptures clearly demonstrate a pattern indicating the sacredness with which Jehovah God (and thus god-fearing humankind) views all creature blood.


Predates Mosaic Law.
For example, over a thousand years before the birth of Moses, the pre-Israel, pre-Jewish, pre-Hebrew man Noah received what the scriptures record as only the second restrictive command on humans (after Garden of Eden's tree):

"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it [that is, lifeblood] and of man" (Genesis 9:3-5)


Jewish Law.
Later, God's feeling regarding blood was codified into the Mosaic Law. This part of the Law dealing with blood was unique in that it applied, not just to Israel, but also to non-Jewish foreigners among them. It's also interesting that besides forbidding the consumption of blood, the Law also mandated that it be 'poured out on the ground', not used for any purpose.

"No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood. Any man also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust." (Lev 17:12,13)

By comparison, it's significant that the Law also forbid the consumption of ceremonial animal fat, but that didn't apply to non-Jewish foreigners and it DID allow the fat to be used for other purposes.

"The LORD said to Moses, "Say to the people of Israel, You shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat. The fat of an animal that dies of itself, and the fat of one that is torn by beasts, may be put to any other use" (Lev 7:22-24)


Early Christian era.
The Christian era ended the validity of the Mosaic Law, but remember that the restriction on eating blood preceded the Mosaic Law by over a thousand years. Still, does the New Testament indicate that Jehovah God changed his view of blood's sacredness?

"[God] freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses" (Eph 1:6,7)

"[God's] beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins... and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood" (Colossians 1:13-20)

"we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood." (Acts 15:19,20)

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." Acts 15:28,29


Modern times
Some will claim that the bible's command to "abstain" from blood only applies to eating it, and does not apply to the use of blood for other purpose. If that form of respect for blood were common among Christendom, one might wonder then why so many (who ostensibly follow the book of Acts) so happily eat their blood sausage and blood pudding if they truly respect blood according to some limited understanding of Acts 15:20,29. In fact, respect for blood and for Acts and for the Scriptures themselves is too rare among even supposedly god-fearing persons.

An honest review of the Scriptural pattern over the millenia from Noah to the Apostle Paul teaches humans that blood is to be used for a single purpose: acknowledging the Almighty. Otherwise, for centuries the instruction was to simply dispose of it; 'poor it upon the ground'. When Jehovah's Witnesses pursue non-blood medical management, they are working to honor and obey their Creator.


Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/library/hb/index.htm
http://watchtower.org/library/vcnb/article_01.htm

Answer 2

the Scriptural Basis is this at Acts 15:28,29the bible commands Christians o abstain from Blood as does Genesis 9 :3,4 and Lev 17 :11,12 because blood is sacred and if our creator tells us to abstain from it that is what we do ie for example if a dr told you you have advanced liver damage and not to drink any more as it will kill you would you go to the bar buy a pint or fifth of jack daniels and put it in an I.V. and tell the dr I havent had a drop pass my lips and he sees further liver damage well th same principle applies here if someone vastly wiser tells dont use blood we dont that doesnt mean we dont seek medical treatment as we do and many of Jehovahs Witnesses are drs and nurseswe just seek non - blood medical management which has proven so beneficial that many other non witnesses want the alternative also and there are so many other far superior no risk alternatives that bloodless medicine and surgery is becoming the gold standard of medicine and many drs and hospitals offer bloodless medicine and surgery seminars world wide in some 235 countries all of Jehovahs Witnesses carry a card that tells the dr or paramedic that they refuse Blood transfussions but do accept the following and there is a long list of alternatives the prime reason though has always been scriptural the medical benefits are just a bonus for following divine directions after all who knows more about what is good for us than the one who created us right hope this helps Gorbalizer

Answer 3

The answers from the Witnesses provided you with the scriptural answer, so I won't restate everything that they said, since all Jehovah's Witnesses are in agreement when it comes to abstaining from blood. I am also going to include a link to a different article that discusses the controversies of Blood transfusions, it covers a bit of history as well as some dangers. From this article, you can do more research including some of the alternatives that are used instead of blood. It is very important to be informed about this form of medical treatment. After all, it is your life.
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2000/1/8/article_02.htm

Answer 4

We do not allow blood transfusions. We do not use whole blood or medications using the separated blood parts. Jehovah tells us in Leviticus 17:10 and Deuteronomy 12:23 (among other scriptures) not to eat blood. We take this to mean we are not to use blood because blood is the sacred life force and we must show respect to life.

Answer 5

There are a number of biblical passages that forbid the eating of blood. It is from such passages taken way out of context that Jehovah's Witnesses determine that a transfusion is not allowed. Google it. That's how I confirmed it. A lot of so-called Christian splinter groups embrace some pretty strange beliefs.

Answer 6

Worldwide safety standards are highly variable, and treatments with blood are riskier that many assume. Physicians differ widely in their use of blood because of education, skills, and viewpoints. Yet, many are increasingly cautious about transfusing blood. A significant and growing number of doctors are showing a preference for medical treatments that avoid the use of blood. If the medical use of blood is increasingly questionable, is these another purpose that blood fulfulls?

OUR CREATOR AND BLOOD

Back in the days of Noah, an ancestor of all mankind, God laid down a remarkable law. While granting humans the right to eat the flesh of ansimals, he forbade them to consume the blood. (Gen. 9:4) He also gave them his reason, equating blood with the soul, or life, of the creature. He later said: “The soue (or life) is in the blood.” In the eyes of the Creator, blood is sacred. It represents the precious gift of life that each living soul possesses. God restated this principle again and again. Lev 3:17; 17:10, 11,14; Deut. 12:16,23.

Shortly after Christianity was founded some 2000 years ago, believers were give the divine commandment to “ABSTAIN from....blood.” The prohibition was based, not on health concersn, but on the sacredness of blood. (Acts 15:19, 20,29) Some argue that this God -given restriction applies only to the eating of blood, but the word “ABSTAIN” speaks for itself. If a doctor told us to abstain from alcolol, we would hardly feel at liverty to inject it into our veins.

The Bible further explains why blood is so sacred. The shed blood of Jesus Christ, representing the human life that he gave in behalf of mankind, is key to the Christian hope. It means forgiveness of sins and hope of eternal life. When a Christian abstains from blood, he is in effect expressing his faith that only the shed blood of Jesus Christ can truly redeem him and save his life. (Eph.1:7)

Jehovah's Witnesses are well known for taking these Bible commands to heart. They reject all transfusions involving whole blood or the four primary blood components -- redcells, plasma, white cells, and platelets.

In recent years more than a few doctors have recognized that Witnesses have benefited medically from adhering to the Bible's standard. A spine surgeon recently spoke out in favor of choosing alternatives to blood transfusions. He said: “It's absolutely the safest thing to do, not just for Jehovah's Witnesses, but for everyone.”

Answer 7

yes this is true. They do not believe in blood transfusions. they believe that christians must "abstain" from blood being used in any sense. This comes from the New Testament, Acts 15:29.

Answer 8

The command at Gen 9:3, 4 where God tells Noah he can eat animal flesh, but not eat their blood.

What was the reason for refraining from eating the blood of animals? Was it not to “return” the animal’s life to God, figuratively speaking?

So, then, can we kill a fellow human and escape bloodguilt by “returning” the life to God, by pouring out his blood on the ground and refraining from eating his blood?

If you answer No, then you must recognize that Jehovah views the life, blood, and souls of humans in a different way than he views the life, blood and souls of animals and that his commands about animals should not be applied to humans as if they were interchangeable.

We AVOID bloodguilt by pouring out the blood of animals.
We INCUR bloodguilt by pouring out the blood of a fellow human.

So what is his command regarding HUMAN life, blood and the soul? Simply this: You must not murder. Refraining from murder is the way we “return” the life of our fellow humans to God. In the case of humans, he does not want the substitute for life (blood) given back to him. He wants the real thing, the life. If I raise up my hand against my brother in murder, then God will ask back my life (symbolized by blood) from my hand. If I refrain from murdering my brother, God will NOT ask back my life as payment for his. What if I take my brother’s blood into my body, but my brother still has his life? Will Jehovah ask back my life to pay for his life which I didn’t take in the first place? Is that a question that can be arbitrarily answered, or is it possible that good people could view it from different perspectives?

Obviously blood isn’t ALWAYS representative of the life. Sometimes blood is just blood, like any other organ of the body. If you allow your blood to be withdrawn for testing, is the lab technician taking your life, thus becoming accountable to God for it? You will likely answer No, because you recognize that life is not involved, only blood. Likewise with blood transfusions. A blood transfusion does not require anyone’s life to be taken, lost or forfeited. Life is always forfeited when one eats animal flesh or commits murder and these commands are about having respect for life.

There's no black and white answer in the Scriptures as to the appropriateness of medical treatment that involves using blood WHERE NO LIFE IS FORFEITED. Following different lines of reasoning lead to different conclusions, One person’s conscience may tell him that it’s wrong to sacrifice a life if a blood transfusion would keep the person from dying, and since no life would be lost by the person supplying the blood, his conscience may be clear. Another person may feel that the prohibition against eating animal blood applies to blood transfusions. Shouldn’t each one be allowed to follow his conscience in matters where the Bible gives no clear direction? Notice what the Watchtower says about blood fractions:

“Should Christians accept these fractions in medical treatment? We cannot say. The Bible does not give details, so a Christian must make his own conscientious decision before God.”

Likewise, “the Bible does not give details” about blood transfusions. Shouldn’t a Christian ALWAYS make their own conscientious decision before God, or just in cases where they are “allowed” to do so by their religious leaders.

The JW’s on this forum freely admit that the “faithful and discreet stave” are just men who are imperfect and make mistakes. They’ve made them before. Is there some reason to think they couldn’t be wrong again? Do you want to sacrifice your child to please God, when there‘s a chance that God wouldn‘t even be pleased with your sacrifice? In the past, these men have been absolutely adamant about certain beliefs and practices, then “further research revealed” that what they thought was “indisputable” turned out to be something that wasn’t so sure after all.

Have you read the account of the Pharisees and the disciples eating grain on the Sabbath? Did Jesus agree with the overly strict and legalistic interpretations of the Pharisees? Think about it.

Answer 9

yup...

they base that on the following scripture:

Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

However, most people cannot fail to notice that 'blood' is interjected between 'meats offered to idols' and 'things that are strangled' and therefore it is very wise to assume this means don't EAT blood.

Answer 10

(Acts 21:25) 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.”

(Genesis 9:4) Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat.



(Leviticus 3:17) “‘It is a statute to time indefinite for YOUR generations, in all YOUR dwelling places: YOU must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’”



(Leviticus 17:10) “‘As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off from among his people.



(Deuteronomy 12:23) Simply be firmly resolved not to eat the blood, because the blood is the soul and you must not eat the soul with the flesh.

A Godly View of Life
Does the command to abstain from blood include blood transfusions? Yes. To illustrate: Suppose a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcoholic beverages. Would that simply mean that you should not drink alcohol but that you could have it injected into your veins? Of course not! Likewise, abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all. So the command to abstain from blood means that we would not allow anyone to transfuse blood into our veins.

What if a Christian is badly injured or is in need of major surgery? Suppose doctors say that he must have a blood transfusion or he will die. Of course, the Christian would not want to die. In an effort to preserve God’s precious gift of life, he would accept other kinds of treatment that do not involve the misuse of blood. Hence, he would seek such medical attention if that is available and would accept a variety of alternatives to blood.

Would a Christian break God’s law just to stay alive a little longer in this system of things? Jesus said: “Whoever wants to save his soul [or, life] will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:25) We do not want to die. But if we tried to save our present life by breaking God’s law, we would be in danger of losing everlasting life. We are wise, then, to put our trust in the rightness of God’s law, with full confidence that if we die from any cause, our Life-Giver will remember us in the resurrection and restore to us the precious gift of life.—John 5:28, 29; Hebrews 11:6.

Answer 11

i am a canadian and you can check any search engines for it
yes they do not allow blod tranfusion, but if you check a christian bible you may not find the answer you must used their own bible they do have their own version of the bible you may be able to research that on the following web site if they have it
www.watchtower.com or org.