Do Jehovah's Witnesses differ over the blood transfusion prohibition?

Question

TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES ELDERS: BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS ARE BIBLICALLY SUPPORTED: Acts 15:20 says abstain from blood but 1 Samuel 14:32-5 says Saul's army ate unBLED meat to not starve and no verses show God not forgiving them. Christ says God also forgave David's eating temple holy bread to survive and that God wants Mercy Not Sacrifice. (Mt 12) The May 22, 1994 Awake tells of 26 Jehovah's Witness kids who died without transfusions, and by common sense in massive bleeding as in car wrecks blood expanders won't save lives http://www.ajwrb.org. About 3 Jehovah's Witnesses die daily earthwide from the unscriptural policy! (Blood On The Altar by David Reed) Yet most normal identical twins transfuse whole blood to each other through a shared placenta and childrens' whole blood is sometimes found in mothers years after birth-- the approved arrangement by God using nature. The book of Acts is about not using blood in all senses and contexts but in the sense of not using it anymore than strangled meat for temple sacrifices -- not in regard to transfusions. Please share copies of this with others to help save more lives.

JoJoBa: I'd be interested in knowing your reasons, if you care to share them.

DwayneWayne, if I wanted to leave something out, I would have left out the website reference wouldn't I. And Dwayne, you know that blood expanders only go so far. The JW leadership can't afford to back-up too much on this as they'd be sued back to the stone age by families who'd lost loved ones. The same scripture references you listed were once used to discourage your members from getting vaccinations!!! Do you want me to continue?

Hannah: As you purport to be Christian, you are of course aware of the biblical injuction to confront other Christians when they are in error. If you want to refuse blood transfusion on some scientific grounds then do so. However, the JW leadership blocks people from getting needed medical care based on a faulty interpretation of scripture. This, Hannah, I have a right to confront you on.

yes Hannah, that's a very good reference. "From things offered to idols", or do you just go blank when you read that part? Unless your surgeon has offered the blood he's giving you to Baal, I'd say you're okay,hmm??? The drinking of blood as part of a pagan sacrifice is a far,far cry from having a blood transfusion. What of twins in their mother's womb? that's per God's design. What of any child in it's mother's womb. Do they not draw sustenance from her? Your doctrines are soooooo specific when it's suits you, and then what doesn't suit you you term "allegorical". Now how is that sidestepping your answer?

Keiichi, please say whose those 20th and 21st century experts are. JW leadership in Bethel?

Hannah: I'm glad that you survived whatever happened to you. However, many lives are wasted NEEDLESSLY due to this unnecessary injunction. Do you keep ALL the old testament dietary laws? Also, is it, or is it not true that the same verses used to ban blood transfusions were once used to keep people from getting vaccinations?

Jason W: First, I don't view this as an attack. 2nd Timothy Chapter 4, verses 1-5 give me a charge to rebuke and exhort those who claim to be followers of christ and yet teach error. This is my view of what I'm doing. As a student of the scriptures, I'm sure you can understand me zealously folowing scripture in this matter. Too many false teachers as we approach the end. False teaching must be confronted.
As far as abstaining from blood transfusion on a scientific basis, or even out of fear of contracting disease, that i can at least try to understand. What I cannot understand is someone taking scripture clearly talking about eating things used in pagan rituals, and using that to cause Mothers and fathers to have to make agonizing decisions needlessly. Yes, needlessly. As i told hannah, the same scripture used to build this doctrine once denied JW's access to vaccinations. It's a ridiculous and unbiblical policy. Don't burden people needlessly,please!

To Hannah, or Achtung: Are the Old Testament dietary laws listed in Leviticus still in effect?

Answer 1

As the governing Body gets older, the restrictions against blood get lighter...I expect that in the next 10 years, it will be common for JW's to have blood transfusions.
I have had active Witnesses tell me that it is now a matter of conscience. Newer witnesses do not even have a good grasp of their own theology.
In several countries, it is already a matter of conscience, and right now the WBTS is changing their laws in Canada to allow transfusions.
counterfiet Christianity...Problem is, more JW's have died for false belief than in any other cult suicide, combined.

I wonder how the families of dead children feel when just a few years ago you had to die instead of having an organ transplant...How do the families of the witnesses faithful to that edict feel now that they could have had the very transplant that would have saved their child....sick

No apologies from the beastly WBTS...It was cannibalism, and then it wasn't cannibalism...Whet do you bet that one of the Governing Body either needed a transplant, or a loved one needed a transplant...New Light My ***.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=At9LA3mAjB_ReGf_kaDoe_7ty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070710131728AAvriKf


Interesting I posted a question on Levitical law, and was taken to task by above witnesses about how dumb I was for not understanding that we are not under Levitical law...Can't have it both ways...guys....i will go get the question.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhT4_cZaMq3w4hmSQpVMiabsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070909111359AAtBXZj

Answer 2

Only if you were married to him and he had not signed the medical directive all JWs are supposed to carry with them (forbidding whole blood transfusions), could you give permission (if he was unconscious). Any adult who takes a decision on such matters has to have his wishes respected by the medical profession. It is only in the case of minors that others have to take decisions, and parental refusal can be over-ruled by the Courts. It sounds as if his mother would do everything possible to prevent him getting one, probably by saying she knew his wishes and that he would not want one. If nothing is stated in writing by him, it will be a messy muddle. But if he still wants to refuse blood when he is NOT a practicing JW, you can be sure that the religion has a firm hold on him. He is quite likely to re-join them at a later stage in his life. That would make your position extremely difficult. The best thing you could do would be to find out the biblical reasons as to why God does not require martyrs to the blood transfusion 'cause', and show him from the Bible. After all, the JW stance is purely theological and actually is not based on any medical reasons at all. Email me if you want details.

Answer 3

Greg M. It's clear the Bible teaches to abstain from blood.
Any Doctor would tell you today that it's not safe to have a blood transfusion. Why do you think so many hospitals now offer bloodless surgery. Why do you think so many people that are not Jehovah's Witnesses say that they are when they are going to have surgery to avoid the blood transfusion.
Just because we lose blood don't mean we need blood. They are other things Doctors can do to help a person who has lost blood.
I did alot of research on this before I decided to get baptized as a Jehovah Witness in Aug. 1996.
People always ask us would you let your loved one die.
The answer is no !!!
We love life we want to live forever.
We need to be obedient and listen to God's Word the Bible.
Jehovah's Witnesses are United on this.
Jehovah's Witnesses all believe the same.
My people would be united the Bible says.
We are not divided like other religions today.
A kingdom that is divided can not stand.
The same meetings we have in the United States is the same meetings they have in Africa, Russia, and all over the world.
If Jehovah God said it was ok to get a blood transfusion we wouldn't have a problem with it.
If the Bible taught the Trinity all 7 million Witnesses would believe it. Just listen and obey God's Word.
We need to be humble and listen and apply the scriptures in our life.
One more thing?
Why do you continue to attack Jehovah's Witnesses?
We love you as we love ourselves, the second greatest commandment.
Attract not attack.
Be Christ like.

Answer 4

Saul acted rashly by binding his men to an order that they could not eat until their enemies were defeated. Jehovah had already thrown the enemy camp into confusion, yet Saul faithlessly trusted in the strength of men.

Ironically, it had the opposite affect and his foolish injunction needlessly put his men in a very dangerous situation by compromising their strength and endurance during an all-day running battle with the Philistines. The result was that after the battle, the famished fighting men came across the enemy spoils and did not take the time to properly bleed the animals.

The account in the NIV reads: "That day, after the Israelites had struck down the Philistines from Micmash to Aijalon, they were exhausted. They pounced on the plunder and, taking sheep, cattle and calves, they butchered them on the ground and ate them, together with the blood."

We might wonder, though, if the Law had been enforced, who was going to put the ravenous soldiers to death: Saul? He would have likely had an insurrection on his hands if he would have tried to punish them in accord with the Law. He was the one responsible for putting them in that situation in the first place.

But, the account doesn't say one way or the other how Jehovah judged the situation. The account does, however, acknowledge that the men were sinning against God by eating "together with the blood". Still, because Jehovah issued no judicial decision on that particular case we cannot use this account as some sort of legal precedent for setting aside God's law on blood during an emergency.

New Topic: Expert

Repeated question.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArhwCCbE55wpkVlzkJTy_6bsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070911050722AAzIv1O&show=7#profile-info-7b7c9a924c74dd7d581ad620c3b1588caa

Answer 5

Greg, your initial question and the secondary part are unrelated... No, we are all united in thought with regard to the blood transfusion prohibition. The second part is apparently an attempt to refute our position (I suppose because you want to save us from ourselves and the society, right?)


Anyway, you conveniently left out the part where some children who had blood transfusions b/c of court orders died also - what about them? What about the advances made in the medical industry (mainly thru the use of volume expanders) due to our stand on blood? What about the fact that certain diseases can still be contracted thru transfusions in 2007 even though blood is supposed to be screened thoroughly?

And when you compare Genesis 9:3-4, Leviticus 17:13-14, and Acts 15:19-21, does the underlying principle still not suggest that once blood has left the body, it should not go back in?
Our Sovereign Lord reserves the right to designate blood for whatever purpose He chooses. Because He placed such an importance on blood (look at how valuable Jesus' shed blood is for all mankind), can He not tell us to abstain from blood?


JoJoBa, what was your purpose in posting on this page?

Answer 6

I had massive bleeding. I did not have a transfusion. I did not die. This survival scenario is repeated over and over again among Witnesses. If, as you imply, Witnesses were dying left and right because of no transfusions, there could hardly be 6.7 million Witnesses worldwide. Moreover, there can be no question that while the media publicly reports on so-called deaths of Witnesses from refusal of transfusions, they never report on the hundreds of thousands who survive without them. They give a slanted coverage of this subject.

Acts 15: 28,29, contrary to your contention, specifically commands Christians to abstain from blood. It also specifically commands Christians to abstain from fornication. By your faulty reasoning, if we can use blood in certain instances, we can also fornicate in certain instances.

You half report on the account of David eating the bread. You half report because that is the only way you can slant it to suggest to the unwary and the unfamilar so as to make it seem as if David sinned and was forgiven. Are you suggesting that it is okay for us to deliberately break God's law because we can count on his forgiveness? How very presumptuous of you! When David ate the bread, it was perfectly fine - neither illegal nor immoral and a deeper consideration of the account will assist you in recognizing that. There was nothing to forgive as respects David.

Many people who are not Jehovah's Witnesses refrain from blood transfusions. I personally know many. Your stance on transfusions is your right and your business. As an ex-Witness, you have the freedom to do as you wish. So do all others. You should respect that rather than harp on what you erroneously consider to be unscriptural.

Hannah J Paul

EDIT: As usual Greg, you throw out a question and then sidestep the answers. I specifically cited to Acts 15:28, 29 which COMMANDS CHRISTIANS TO ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD AND FORNICATION. If, according to your reasoning, we can use blood sometimes, does it logically follow that it's okay with God if we fornicate sometimes too? I do not refuse transfusions on scientific grounds. I refuse on Biblical grounds which grounds are undisputed. And I still had massive blood loss, Greg. And I still refused a transfusion. And I am still here.

Answer 7

I am not a jehovah witness and I do not believe in blood transfusions.

Answer 8

No.

An ostensible "Jehovah's Witness" who advocates any teaching significantly different from that of the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses thereby disassociates himself from the religion.

Does 1 Samuel 14:32-35 indicate that the bible's command to abstain from blood could be ignored when life seems at risk?

No, that bible account is actually powerful testimony of the precise opposite. For one thing, the soldiers involved in this account were not literally at risk of starvation, for they had been without food for perhaps one day and had had the bodily resources to fight a battle just minutes or hours earlier. However unwise it was for King Saul to forbid the soldiers from eating until the battle was concluded, nothing in the account implies that eating within minutes or hours (or days for that matter) would be life-saving.
...(1 Samuel 14:32-34) And the people began darting greedily at the spoil and taking sheep and cattle and calves and slaughtering them on the earth, and the people fell to eating along with the blood. 33 So they told Saul, saying: “Look! The people are sinning against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.” At this he said: “You have dealt treacherously. First of all, roll a great stone to me.” 34 After that Saul said: “Scatter among the people, and you must say to them, ‘Bring near to me, each one of you, his bull and, each one, his sheep, and you must do the slaughtering in this place and the eating, and you must not sin against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.’” Accordingly all the people brought near each one his bull that was in his hand that night and did the slaughtering there.

With regard to that livestock, what was different about "slaughtering in this place [the great stone]" (verse 34), rather than "slaughtering them on the earth" (verse 32)?

It seems that the Israelite soldiers actually were making some attempt to properly slaughter the livestock, but they did so "greedily" and hastily so that the blood puddled "on the earth" and some splashed onto the meat. The purpose of "the great stone" was to elevate the animal so that its blood could drain off that elevated surface onto the earth below.


Does Matthew 12:4 imply that God's laws are subject to human whims? No, that verse mentions an account which teaches almost exactly the opposite. Jesus himself noted...
...(Matthew 12:4) [David] entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests only

Did the Mosaic Law go into any detail implying that eating the loaves of presentation would be a "serious sin". No; in fact, the only Scripture which really discusses the command at all is Leviticus chapter 24. (By contrast, failure to abstain from blood was a capital crime under both the Mosaic Law and the earlier Noachan Covenant mentioned at Genesis 9:4,5).
...(Leviticus 24:7-9) it must serve as the bread for a remembrancer, an offering made by fire to Jehovah. 8 On one sabbath day after another he should set it in order before Jehovah constantly [for one week]. And [after that week] it must become Aaron’s and his sons’, and they must eat it in a holy place, because it is something most holy for him from Jehovah’s offerings

Did David and his men decide for themselves that they could ignore this command? No. The Jewish priest analyzed the matter and came to a theological determination, as he was authorized to do. Even during this seeming emergency involving the anointed David on his obviously godly mission, the authorized priest did not "ignore" God's law, but made certain that David and his men met the absolute minimum requirement for emergency priestly duties.
...(1 Samuel 21:4-6) But the priest answered David and said: “There is no ordinary bread under my hand, but there is holy bread; provided that the young men have at least kept themselves from womankind.” So David answered the priest and said to him: “But womankind has been kept away from us...” At that the priest gave him what was holy


More than a thousand years before the birth of Moses and the creation of the Mosaic Law, God told humans to abstain from blood. Years after the founding of the Christian congregation, the holy spirit specifically instructed the apostles that the Mosaic Law was no longer in force EXCEPT for its command to abstain from blood. It seems rather obvious that this is a matter which Almighty God takes seriously.
...(Acts 15:20,28,29) Write them [the various Christian congregations] to abstain from things polluted by idols [the meat of which is likely to contain blood] and from fornication and from what is strangled [the meat of which is likely to contain blood] and from blood. ...For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols [the meat of which is likely to contain blood] and from blood and from things strangled [the meat of which is likely to contain blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper.

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm?article=article_07.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/vcnb/article_01.htm

Answer 9

Scriptural or not, they should be thinking of saving lives.