O.K.....Now I'm confused! Religious Question...Serious only please.?

Question

A Jehova Witness came by yesterday. She asked me if I had any good questions. I asked her about the blood thing, why they won't take blood to save their lives or their childrens. She showed me in the Bible, Acts 15:20 and Acts 15:29, that is says to abstain from blood. And in Deuteronomy 12:16 and in Leviticus 3:17. But explained that to abstain means to stay away from. Like if a doctor told an alcholic to abstain from booze, that is would not be o.k. to put it in thier veins instead of actually drinking it. It is still taking it into your body. So my question is, wouldn't they be right on this subject? It's seems very clear to me that they are, yet everyone comdems them for doing this. I don't know. Is there anything else on this that I am not aware of? I would appreciate any help please.

Answer 1

I am just as confused as you are. Is it right, or is it an interpretational error?
One way to find out, is to find in the bible why it is written down to abstain from blood, was it an entry by a man who just added it in because he thought that the interpretation from God meant that it can't be drinken, because it just sounds so barbaric, sick? That the man who interpreted God's word wasn't aware that taking the right type of blood can help a man live?

Answer 2

PLEASE READ ME

The why has been covered in other posts. But this should clear up some misconceptions.

When I gave birth to my first daughter, I had an episiotomy and they used forceps. Due to the manner the forceps were used I was torn all the way down my birthing canal on both sides, plus my episiotomy tore.

Needless to say, the doctors wanted to give me blood. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, so I will not take blood. However, I do want the best medical care possible. It just doesn't have to include blood.

****What most people don't know, is that we take this issue very seriously. We research ALL options. We discuss with our doctors in advance, JUST IN CASE. I filled out a Medical Directive, indicating what alternatives I would have no issues with. (I believe I gave 3 or 4 options).

After delivery, my doctor refused to look at the directive, and told the nurse I could go home with Iron Tablets since I didn't care if I lived or died. My husband called one of our local elders, who is on the Medical Liason Committee. He brought research articles from both JW's and non JW's. My doctor refused to look at those things, as well.

We had to get another doctor on board before I could then stay and get treatment. I was not sent home for 5 days. All the while, I was receiving one of the four options I had in place in my medical directive before I ever went into labor. By the way, my daughter was fine. The most beautiful thing I've ever seen (and worth all the trouble.)

Life is just as precious to us as to anyone else, we choose to live our lives, to the best of our ability, in a manner that pleases God.

Answer 3

I'm glad to see that you are reasoning on the scriptures. That is what we are suppose to do.

With regards to some comments made, this command was not just give to the Israelites. It was also given to Christians at Acts 15:20 & 15:29. So even though we are no longer under the Law Covenant, God's law regarding blood did not change. Blood transfusions are the only medical treatment that Witnesses refuse. Some mentioned treatment for cancer...we have no problem with that other than if it relates to blood.

Some here feel that a blood transfusion is not eating blood. If a person cannot eat on their own, how are they fed? Through their viens. Either way, it still gets in their body. They are still nourishing their body. If a drug addict pops pills or injects in his veins, he's still taking drugs either way.

There are many alternatives to blood transfusion. There have been hundreds of witnesses told that they were going to die if they didn't take blood. They did not take blood, and are still with us today. I have known people to die from blood transfusions-
a lady I worked with, her father had heart surgery and they gave him blood, he died from hypetidis a few years back. I had a cousin who the doctor got a court order and gave him blood. He died at 27 of AIDS.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not take blood because Jehovah has commanded us not to. As Acts 15:29 last sentence says "Good Health to you." God knows what he is talking about.

Answer 4

Abstain from EATING blood. If you were to abstain from blood and had nothing else to explain the statement then you might also think that you needed to drain out your own blood. Also not a very good idea, right. It is from the eating of blood, and that is why animals that are butchered are drained of their blood.
There is no commandment about transfusions to save someone's life. If you continue to study with the JW's you will find out a lot of things that you aren't aware of and they will only be in their bible. They have revised their bible and reverse translated it into greek and hebrew to make it say what they want.
They also have their own little dictionary that gives the words the interpretation that they want..

Answer 5

Is it possible that the refrain from abstaining from the blood was because of the pagan rituals that so freely used blood. Maybe a better of understanding of how the blood was used would give a clearer indication of what was meant in abstaining from it. The whole counsel of God must be considered in the interpretation of a passage.

Answer 6

For me, I try to remember that back when these verses were written, there was no such thing as a blood transfusion. But there were such things (I'm sure) as blood deseases (in animals). So to abstain from eating blood is like, don't eat the liver, or the heart or other organ meats from the animals you kill. And then there's the symbolic meaning. As all things in the OT point to Christ, and Christ was/is the Lamb of God, and He spilt His blood for us, and since lambs without spot were required as a sacrifice under Mosaic Law, eating the blood of a lamb (which was probably the most common source of meat for them) would symbolicly represent eating the blood of Christ. Remember that under Mosaic Law, there is always a double meaning in all things. One temporal, the other spiritual.
My opinion is that we have come a long ways in making transfusions safe. While I would be a little leary if I lived back when they were first being done, or if there was some blood born disease that no one knew how to cure (like back in the 80's with AIDS and no one knew it could also be passed from blood transfusions), now things seem to be much safer and I wouldn't have a problem accepting a transfusion. But, I'm not JW, I'm Mormon.

Answer 7

In quoting such Old Testament verses, however, they ignore another prohibition commonly found right alongside the prohibition on eating blood, namely, God’s command to the Jews not to eat any fat either: “Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat.” (Leviticus 7:23) The prohibition against eating fat was intended to be just as permanent as the dietary ban on blood. “It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.” (Leviticus 3:17) Yet Jehovah’s Witnesses who carefully avoid foods containing blood have no objection whatsoever to eating fat. Is this, perhaps, a clue indicating that the Watchtower Society is feeding them verses out of context?
Later, in the New Testament, the apostles sent a letter out to all the Christian churches instructing them to “abstain” from blood. (Acts 15:20, 29) This abstinence would preclude taking blood in any manner, the Watchtower Society explains, even through the veins; and instructions from the apostles to all the churches must remain in force for Christians today. However, if that were so, then how could Paul a short time later tell Corinthian Christians they were free to eat whatever meat their pagan neighbors or markets were offering? (1 Corinthians 8:1–13) Again, the Society has ignored context. The apostles sent out their letter to settle a dispute that had arisen in the churches. Most Christian churches at that time consisted of a nucleus of Messianic Jews, plus a growing number of Gentile converts. The Gentiles put faith in the Jewish Messiah, but disputes developed over whether or not they also had to get circumcised and keep the Law of Moses with its kosher diet. The inspired apostolic letter was aimed at addressing this contemporary issue rather than banning an as yet unknown medical procedure two thousand years in the future.

Answer 8

The one thing God always insisted on was that we drain the blood from whatever we eat."The life of the soul is in the blood"Leviticus tells us.
But when it comes to saving lives,we are all related on some level .All sons of Adam ,all descendants of Noah and his sons.That's why we can share our blood and body parts if necessary.Why are blood types are similar,why we cannot use monkey blood etc.God doesn't frown on progress,he frowns on Non-Christian cults like the J.Ws,from promoting superstitions while people die.
It's quite a bit different to eat blood than to take it intravenously.Remember back then with no checks on meat,the blood could carry tricinosis etc.You can't get that from transfusion.

Answer 9

We try very hard to maintain Bible standards. While many still consider the idea of abstaining from BTs a bad idea or odd, we are constantly learning new dangers with accepting BTs. I would not be surprised if one day people who supported BTs were considered the odd ones.

Answer 10

I hope that got cleared up. It does say "abstain from blood" but the subject is eating! not transfusions! The booze analogy is not helpful. Actually they have an "artificial blood" that is very good, and considering the risk of rejection, or bad cross matching, and diseases that aren't screened for, maybe refusing a transfusion is not such a bad idea.