According to Jehovah Witnesses, blood is sacred and therefore cannot be allowed for transfusions....?

Question

What Biblical evidence is there to refute such a claim?

As usual on this thing, people give uninformed opinions rather than use Biblical facts as I requested. And no, I meant REFUTE, and not PROVE. While I do believe that JW's have a point, and that doctors do not need to rush to transfusions as a standard way to deal with situations, one cannot argue the fact that there are medical needs for it. I need to know if there are passages in the Bible that show this belief to be wrong. My best arguement has been the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which Jesus says that customs should be ignored when it endangers the lives of man (which is why the Jewish priest would not touch the body, feeling it was unclean). There are other parables and acts of Jesus that support this point, but I want one that specifically references blood.

Answer 1

Actually, *ALL* biblical evidence *SUPPORTS* the position of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood. The scriptures demonstrate a clear 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

Jesus avoided many of the 'customs' that the Pharisee's had created.

but

He never violated any of the laws that his Father had made.

Abstaining from blood is not a tradition or custom.

It is a law.

In King Saul's day, his soliders were so hungry that they eat unbled meat and suffered for it.

Then there is the parable of the man who gained the whole world and lost his soul (his life).

It is never Okay to break God's Law.

Answer 3

I wonder why people answer when they don't know the answer and judge when they do not have any knowledge to base their judgement.

The JW believes that taking blood into body through mouth or veins violates God's laws. The bible references are as follows :

Genesis 9:3,4 - Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

Leviticus 17:14 - For [it is] the life of all flesh; the blood of it [is] for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh [is] the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

Acts 15:28,29 - For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 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.

Answer 4

A lot of good answers here, but a bit of info on this. there are now 15 hospitals that are blood free in the nation. UCLA now does blood free transplants, including the liver. And in Britain, anyone under 18 are to be given blood from donors in Britain or Europe. They get their blood from the US, because of the high incidence of contamination over there. In recent weeks, we've had three conferences on this in Kansas City, with reps from all over the planet. I got to talk to many of them in my taxi.

Answer 5

Quite a lot actually. From Cain and Able onward.
There are many factors involved here, such as the blood on the doorways of the Jews to keep death from entering their homes.
Blood splashed on the sacrificial alters etc.
I'm glad you asked, here's a great link to save, and look up other questions.
Incidentally refute has a different meaning. I think your looking for proof.......Look up .

Answer 6

Well, one thing is for sure- Look at whats happened in the world as far as blood and religion goes. The Jehovah's Witnesses said "Don't take blood transfusions, don't take drugs (introveinious/needles), don't be homosexual, don't cheat on your spouse, don't get tattoos (needles/blood), no sex wiith multiple partners or before marriage, etc....". We do not have to agree with tthem, but one thing is for sure, AIDS can (and is) wiping out mankind that does not live by these rules. AIDS (I think) is exactly what they were talking about. How can we deny it?

Answer 7

The Bible actually told the true Christians to abstain from blood. (Acts 15) All early true Christians follow that command. They do not disobey God because their lives are in danger. You can see from history books and from the Bible that early Christians were thrown in lion's den, died etc because of not disobeying God. It is wrong for you to say or imply that it is okay to disobey God if your life is in danger. That's why the early true followers of God & his Christ died FAITHFULLY for them & not disobediently. Mat 16:24-26

Your so called proof is actually wrong, these websites explain why :

http://www.freewebs.com/dellf12345/questionsaboutblood.htm

www.watchtower.org

Thanks.

Answer 8

I have a friend who was actually disowned by her parents because she chose a blood transfusion so she wouldn't die. Scary huh? The only blood that is sacred is the blood of Jesus.

Answer 9

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible prohibits the consumption, storage and transfusion of blood, including in cases of emergency. This view was introduced in 1945, though restrictions on the use of certain blood products and medical procedures have been relaxed over time. Their stance on blood has been a common source of controversy, as members have died from loss of blood.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible teaches:

blood is sacred to God
blood means life in God's eyes;
blood must not be eaten;
blood leaving the body of a human or animal must be disposed of;
Christians must "abstain" from blood in the sense used at Acts 15:29 (NWT);
blood was reserved for only one special use, the atonement for sins, which lead up to Jesus' shed blood;
when a Christian abstains from blood, he or she is in effect expressing faith that "only the shed blood of Jesus Christ can truly redeem him and save his life.-Ephesians 1:7"; [1]
even in the case of an emergency, it is not permissible to sustain a life with blood; and
that violation of the doctrine on blood is a serious offense in which a member may be no longer considered a Witness.
These beliefs about blood affect their acceptance of products containing blood or its components and medical procedures involving the use, re-use and storage of blood. While this stance has largely remained unchanged since its introduction in 1945, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has changed its views on which products and procedures may be considered acceptable to the conscience of each individual Jehovah's Witness.


Jehovah's Witnesses originally followed the Christian orthodox doctrine on blood, allowing it to be eaten. Charles Taze Russell, the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, wrote that the Jewish dietary law forbidding the eating of blood was not binding for Christians,[2] and that the statement at Acts 15:29 (NWT) to "abstain" from blood applied only to first century congregations that had a mix of Jews and Gentiles.[3]

This view continued to be held after the discovery of blood types and the liberal use, into wounded soldiers, of blood transfusions during World War I. However, after Russell's death in 1916, under his successor, Joseph Franklin Rutherford, things began to change with the doctrine on blood. In 1927, The Watchtower introduced a new doctrine on blood, prohibiting members from eating blood.[4] At that time, blood transfusions were not specifically prohibited. As early as 1944 while discussing the sacredness of blood, transfusions were mentioned. [5]

In 1945, the application of the doctrine on blood was expanded to prohibit blood transfusions of whole blood whether homologous or autologous. [6] While the prohibition didn't specify any punitive measures for accepting a transfusion, by 1961 they were warned that doing so could prevent them from living eternally in God's new world, the hope held by members:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood


Basically, there's no Biblical support for their views, and since God never changes, why do they change their views?

Answer 10

That is a self adopted doctrine that will not be backed up by any bible scripture. God gave doctors the gift of healing, and transfusions is one of those ways.