Is there a Bible text which proves Jehovah Witnesses are wrong when they deny people blood transfusions?

Answer 1

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that 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/e/hb/
http://watchtower.org/library/vcnb/article_01.htm

Answer 2

Jehovahs witnesses dont deny people blood transfusions. They opt for bloodless surgery (new techniques that offer state of the art care) because of the bibles command to abstain from blood. Old testament as well as the new testament it was not to be eaten. Giving a blood transfusion in so common today but is not safe or healthy but the blood carries all the waste and toxins out of the body. God is our creator and knows HOW we are created and you have to trust that he knows whats best for us. Those that make the decision to be loyal to God and respect the sanctity of blood are in gods memory and await a ressurection to life on a paradise EARTH. This is what the bible teaches. No you wont find a scripture to prove that taking blood is right. Most people feel that it dosnt matter what god says but preserving their life NOW at any cost is all that matters......

Answer 3

There is no Bible Scripture that proves blood can be used
for blood transfusions.
Jehovahs Witnesses for over 50 years used the King James Version. We now use the NWT, Moffats, Jerusalem, Phillips, Reina-Valera,KJV and many others. These are used in our publications numerous times because ANY BIBLE IS HOLY. To say that we use only the New World Translantion is nothing but a lie.
A humans blood is his life force and is to poured out on the ground as outlined in the Mosaic Law. It is sacred as it contains a persons individual DNA and is meant for no one else.
The New Testament in no way changed this requirement just as its standard on homosexuality and murder did not change in the first century. Thats why the Apostle Paul said to abstain from blood use along with rejecting immorality in the same sentence and it reads the same in all the above Bibles. Paul makes NO REFERENCE TO EATING/CONSUMING BLOOD ONLY.
If you think blood is the only thing that doctors can infuse to boost your blood cell count then you need to read medical journals that outline numerous other substances such as Artificial Blood that is available, is just as good as blood if not better because disease spread is not possible with Artificial Blood and the body will not reject it. Countries outside the US use this frequently instead of blood.

Answer 4

I've faced that decision, but I was not a witness at the time. I had been disfellowshipped in 1982. I was in a semi truck wreck, with severe internal injuries and lacerations, on May 28th, 1988. I refused a blood transfusion at St. Joseph Hospital in Joliet, IL.

It should be noted that only 13% of Americans who refuse a transfusion are JWs. It should also be noted that in Japan, they have cultural reasons for note having transfusions or transplants. They have the most advanced kidney dialysis program as a result.

You can say what you like about JWs, but as a result of their refusals, major changes has taken place in the medical fields. In fact, of you greatly disagree with JW beliefs, you can protest them by refusing to sign a permission form the next time you seek medical treatment. They are why these forms were created. Also, why doctors have to seek permission from parents for treatments, with the exception of abortions.

Witnesses have very clear beliefs, as regards blood. Those beliefs were established when they were still using the King James Version.

They have made their mistakes, but they have always strive to do better. Originally, they celebrated Christmas and flew the American flag in front of congregations and the headquarters. But, through Bible study, they learned these things were not right. Every major Christian religion recognizes many of the truths taught by witnesses, such as the celebration of holidays, and not observing the memorial of the last supper, but they fear losing members if they push the issues.

The primary thing about refusing transfusions is that JWs are certain of the resurrection, so they don't fear death, as other Christians do. This life is very short, compared to the promise of everlasting life. Other Christians would rather live their lives now, because they are not sure there is anything else. They is also why they live them in willful sin. They don't firmly believe it in their hearts that there is anything else, because there are no examples of if on Earth. A JW looks around, every day, and sees examples of what a Paradise Earth would be like.

I see in one of the answers above that there's a link to an article about over 2000 JWs die every year because of refusing transfusions, but there are no links to any such evidence. Not even the American Medical Assoc. web site can confirm any significant number of deaths from this decision. There are significant figures from blood transfusion related deaths. If you have an undiagnosed cancer and get a transfusion, it lowers your immunal reaction and the production of Interferon, a naturally occurring chemical to fight cancer. every person who gets a transfusion has a reaction related to the immune system, but any disease you catch as a result are not common ones. They are rare diseases, similar to what people with active AIDS cases catch.

Answer 5

One of the things that shows me it is not wrong to take blood to save a life is the constant flip flop the Watchtower has on this. What ever they say today, may well change tomorrow.

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has long forbidden blood transfusions for Jehovah’s Witnesses. The issue is so serious, in fact, that Witnesses believe a blood transfusion “may result in the immediate and very temporary prolongation of life, but at the cost of eternal life for a dedicated Christian” (Blood, Medicine, and the Law of God, p. 55; emphasis added). Witness parents are expected not only to prevent their children from undergoing a blood transfusion (Ibid., p. 54), but even to prevent family pets from receiving blood (Watchtower, February 15, 1964, p. 127).

News from Bulgaria

On March 9, 1998, the European Commission of Human Rights accepted a settlement between the government of Bulgaria and the Christian Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses in which Bulgaria, in exchange for a significant concession from the Witnesses, agreed to recognize the Witnesses as an official religious organization.

The Bulgarian government, in order to reach an agreement, will now provide civilian service for conscientious objectors to military service (Information Note No. 148, ). The compromise made by the Society is far more noteworthy. The Society agreed, regarding blood transfusions, that “members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association” (Ibid.; emphases added).

A press release distributed in 1997 by the Commission clearly explains the understanding of the Commission and the Bulgarians of the Society’s stated position:

In respect of the refusal of blood transfusion, the applicant association [i.e., the Jehovah’s Witnesses] submits that there are no religious sanctions for a Jehovah’s Witness who chooses to accept blood transfusion and that, therefore, the fact that the religious doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses is against blood transfusion cannot amount to a threat to ‘public health’ (Press Communiqué Issued by the Secretary to the European Commission of Human Rights, Application No. 28626/95, ; emphasis added).
This concession seems to be a remarkable reversal of Watchtower doctrine, raising the question: will Jehovah’s Witnesses now be allowed to receive blood transfusions, or was the Society disingenuous in its agreement?

What is the Biblical Position on Blood Transfusions?

As stated above, the Bible explicitly condemns eating blood. The Noahide covenant forbids eating blood (Genesis 9:4), as do the Mosaic covenant and the ruling of the Jerusalem council (Leviticus 17:11–14; Acts 15:28–29).

These scriptures notably forbid the consumption of animal blood. Leviticus explicitly states that the blood of “beast or fowl” is to be poured out before the flesh can be eaten. Ironically, while the Society outlaws transfusions on the basis of Leviticus, they allow Witnesses to consume animal fat, which was similarly forbidden to the Israelites (Leviticus 3:17).

Blood transfusions were not practiced at the times of the biblical writings, and thus are not directly addressed by the Bible. For this reason orthodox Jews, who rigorously follow kosher laws, allow transfusions while forbidding oral blood consumption. Jews and Christians have, through objective analysis of biblical regulations and medical evidence, determined that eating and digesting animal blood in no way resembles the intravenous replacement of human circulatory fluid.

In Short, the Watchtower has killed more of it's people then Jim Jones did at Jonestown.

Answer 6

I have no idea. But - a little unsolicited advice if I may. If you're asking because a friend needs a transfusion and won't get one - you're not going to get anywhere by attacking their faith. Even if there was a scripture that said point blank that transfusions are allowed it wouldn't make a difference - you're still on the attack.

What you need to do is appeal to the life of the person. Put God out of it for now (contrasting religious ideas can't seem to find middle ground on god so rather take him out) and appeal to the importance of the person in the lives surrounding him/her.

Answer 7

The best I can do for you is tell you that the verses which say 'refrain from blood' are in conjunction with 'refrain from things strangled' and 'refrain from things sacrificed to idols'... obviously the meaning here is to not EAT blood. (And of course Jesus said it is what comes out of our mouths, not what goes in that will harm us, anyway.)

Anyhow, you will not have an easy time convincing them, in fact you will find some witnesses who will claim taking blood in a transfusion is the same thing as eating it. (Of course they are incorrect, but good luck getting them to budge on that.)

You could try approaching it from this angle: witnesses believe the Bible is the eternal word of God (meaning it is just as valid and applicable today as when it was written). So you could point out that if God wanted them dying in his name rather than accepting blood, he would have been more specific... after all he knew we would one day have that technology, right?

Or you can remind them how the witnesses once were against vaccines and reversed that policy. They were also once against organ transplants and also reversed that policy.

Finally, witnesses are always saying 'I would rather die than take blood against God's will', so it might help to remind them that many people who refuse blood do not die. Sometimes they wind up blind or paralized or braindead. Would that happen if God didn't want them to take blood? Wouldn't God see to it that they either die or come through unscathed rather than struck blind because they obediently followed his will?

Anyhow, sorry there's no scripture to help you, but there is also no scripture that says 'thou shalt abstain from blood transfusions'.

Answer 8

no - it's a belief that is not based in the Bible. The Bible teaches us to care for others (good samaratin is a good example). If someone is sick or hurt, we should help them, not deny treatment. It's one believe of the Jehovah Witness that I just can't understand! I think it has something to do with faith, that if God wants them to get better, He'll do it, or something like that. I don't necessarily believe in that. God wants us to take care of our bodies, and be healthy.

Answer 9

They didn't have blood transfusions or even surgery when the bible was written.

Answer 10

This is actually a misinterpretation of Lev 17:14 which states" 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." What God is referring to is part of the ceremonial and food laws concerning the killing of animals and eating their flesh; all the blood must be drained from the flesh first (check out Kosher preparation of meat, or Halal if you know about Muslim meat preparation). Yes there is life in the blood, but we are counselled not to eat it. I do not believe it is a mortal sin to donate blood nor to use in in the saving of lives dues to sickness or injury (Prov 3:27 Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it.)

God bless
Malcolm

Answer 11

Is there a Bible text that says in exact context that:

No Stem Cells no matter how there harvested.

No gay marriage even though that's just taking people happiness away.

No Abortions because its considered murder.

and im not sure about your question though..

Sorry.

Blessed Be