Another Question about JW's and blood...?

Question

Hi, I'm Phil.

I'm a rather young (15 yrs) Christian, and I have questions about JW's and their views on blood transfusions.

"Which of you shall have an *** or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?"
(Luke 14:5)

Does this mean that you are to disregard minor, relatively "trivial" rules in the Bible in cases of dire need?

What about blood transfusions? Shouldn't the rule about "eating blood" be disregarded when a person's LIFE is in danger?

Doesn't it seem that if this were true, God would have little regard or care for a person's life?

Wasn't the Salvation of Mankind brought about through the shedding of the Blood of Jesus? Are we not to remember him by symbollically "drinking his blood" during communion?

And does putting blood in your vessles really count as "eating"?

Just wondering...

Any answers appreciated.

Thanks,
Phil

They don't do communion?

Oh, so they edited out the last supper?

"There are, in fact, more health risks from having a blood transfusion that from not having a transfusion"

That's tosh; my life was saved by a blood transfusion when I was eight.

They are a better alternative than letting your child bleed to death.

Answer 1

At times, pro-blood activists (and/or anti-Witness activists) refer to Scriptures such as Luke 14:5 to pretend that the bible allows God's commands to be ignored whenever a human guesses that his situation (or his animal's) is "dire". The bible certainly does NOT teach that.

Especially regarding the matter of blood and human life, two other bible accounts seem to address the matter more directly. Perhaps it makes to analyze these two accounts:
1 Samuel 14:32-35 and Matthew 12:4


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 2

Ask any Doctor and they will tell you that one of the worst things you can do is have a blood transfusion. That's why so many hospitals now offer bloodless surgery.

People think that just because they lose blood they need blood, and that's not true. There are so many things that they can offer you so you don't need to have a transfusion.

Jehovah God's Word is clear on the matter, that we should abstain from blood.

Answer 3

The scripture quoted (in my interpretation) is saying, "don't be a hypocrite, I know you would get up and save your working stock if they were in danger even if it were the Sabbath." As for JW and their blood issue, no matter what they hold fast to their beliefs that blood, once it has left the body, is unclean. Hence, they will not even have their own blood stored for their own potential transfusion, they will not donate blood for others to use, and will not even donate a newborns cord blood for stem cell research. Some of the more devout JW also have issue with re-attaching limbs. If one were to have an accident and cut off a finger, they will not allow it to be sewn back on.
This is just one of many contradictions within the JW religion, and one of many reasons I am now Pagan.

Answer 4

in the JW's protection they have this type of robust faith that they are keen to die for it. The Bible suggested from the beginning up in Ge.9:4-sixteen, that the blood became sacred, then in 1Sam15:22 and Mr 12:33 suggested that obedience is extra appropriate than sacrifice. Then in Mr 8:35 it suggested that butting ones life purely before Gods regulation is deadly. do no longer you like that had the religion to die for Gods regulation? which includes this females? do no longer you such as you the religion to stand and depend as one which will carry Gods regulation over mans? which includes this family participants? inquiries to contemplate

Answer 5

As usual my friends answer got deleted by wimpy jw's. They a cult. The bible doesn't say anyting about transfusing bllod, it's only that eating blood is forbidden.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
cult [kuhlt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

www.towerwatch.com
www.watchthetower.com
www.carm.org/witnesses.htm
www.silentlambs.org

Answer 6

HelloPhil,

You ask an intelegent question.

The text at Luke 14:5 demonstrated how the Jews at that time treated the law code. The Hebrew law code said nothing about not raising a bull out of a pit, but the point Jesus was making was the religious leaders at that time had added traditions of men to the law code and Jesus was just showing how at times they would break their own traditions.

In context of that text. Many man-made restrictions were in force in Jesus’ day. Thus, religious leaders reproached his disciples for having plucked heads of grain to eat as they were passing through grainfields. They were accused of breaking the Sabbath—plucking grain was considered reaping, and rubbing it was viewed as milling or grinding. Jesus denounced their extreme views on several occasions, for they misrepresented the spirit of Jehovah’s law.(see Matthew 12:1-8; Luke 13:10-17; 14:1-6; John 5:1-16; 9:1-16.)

You are absolutely correct in that our salvation is due to the blood of the Christ. It is because of the sacredness of blood as presented in the Bible that we do not take blood.

And does putting blood in your vessles really count as "eating"?

Lets examine the main text we use A dispute over circumcision arose in the 1st century after discussing the matter the Christians in Jerusalem came to this conclusion that it was not necessary for a man to be circumcised. A note was sent to all the congregations and in part it reads (as per acts 15”28-29 ) “28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.” (the 21 Century King James Version)

Now notice these points. 1) they were to avoid things strangled because blood is still in the animal as well as for blood. There was a custom in those days amongst many people to drink the blood of animals. Also notice that this use of blood is on the same level sexual immorality

Let me illustrate it in a couple of ways

If you were an alcoholic and the doctor told you to abstain from drinking alcohol, would it be a wise move to inject it into your veins by means of an intravenous drip?

Or perhaps you are in hospital waiting an operation and the specialist surgeon says that it was absolutely critical that you were to go on a 24 hour fast before the operation, and writes on your char “NO FOOD”. Some time later a doctor comes in and thinks that you need some nourishment, sees the note and things well I will feed him intravenously. Would that nourishment do you good or harm?

The basic reason we do not knowingly take blood in the way of food or by transfusion is because of its sacredness and we are told to obtain from it.

However that does not mean that we will not accept medical help. We will take all the medical help we can except for blood.

Now very few people (including many doctors) are unaware of the growing movement by surgeons NOT to use blood because IT IS bad medicine. As proof of that do a web search using “bloodless medicine”.

There are, in fact, more health risks from having a blood transfusion that from not having a transfusion

Answer 7

Phil, what a wise and sensible soul you are. You are wise to question scripture and very wise to question the beliefs of JW's. I will not explain to you why they do not accept blood, because I see some Witnesses have eloquently done that already. However, what they have failed to mention is that;(a) they eat meat that is not traditionally bled, such as kosher or halal, modern methods of slaughter and butchery leaves a fair bit of blood in the meat, therefore they disobey the command to abstain from blood in this way, and: (b) they are allowed to accept transfusions of blood components such as plasma, clotting factors, haemoglobin and immunoglobulins. They reason that this is because these represent very small percentages of whole blood, except of course that plasma constitutes a very significant percentage. In order to obtain these factors many, many litres of blood have to be processed, which, of course has to be donated by other people. As the reason why they do not accept blood is because it is sacred then donating blood is also a sin. I would ask you to consider two things; in Gods eyes do you think it is not acceptable to sin a lot but to sin a little is O.K., remember, when talking about sexual sin, the Bible says that even such THOUGHTS are sinful. Also, do you think as a Christian that so long as you do not commit the sin yourself it is alright to allow somebody else to sin in order to save your life? Keep on questioning. I pray that the Holy Spirit guides you always to see the truth.
God Bless

Answer 8

Phil, Perhaps you can learn a lesson from a King that did not Obey instructions.
Partial Obedience Not Enough
Not all who have claimed to be obedient to God have actually obeyed him. Consider King Saul of ancient Israel. God instructed him to wipe out the wicked Amalekites. (1 Samuel 15:1-3) Though Saul destroyed them as a nation, he spared their king and preserved some of their sheep and cattle. Samuel asked: “Why is it you did not obey the voice of Jehovah?” In reply, Saul said: “But I have obeyed the voice of Jehovah . . . The people [of Israel] went taking from the spoil sheep and cattle, the choicest of them . . . , to sacrifice to Jehovah.” Stressing the need for complete obedience, Samuel replied: “Does Jehovah have as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of Jehovah? Look! To obey is better than a sacrifice, to pay attention than the fat of rams; for rebelliousness is the same as the sin of divination, and pushing ahead presumptuously the same as using uncanny power and teraphim. Since you have rejected the word of Jehovah, he accordingly rejects you from being king.” (1 Samuel 15:17-23) How much Saul lost because he did not have an obedient heart!
Hope you see the Logic in this Phil..Its all about Obedience...!

Answer 9

This is a matter that takes real hard meditation. Still researching the matter. I've found this site to be somewhat informative of the matter. http://www.wddty.com/

Personally I find JW theology very impressive but I find this portion of that same belief hard to swallow.

Answer 10

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 animals, he forbade them to consume the blood. (Genesis 9:4) He also gave them his reason, equating blood with the soul, or life, of the creature. He later said: “The soul [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.—Leviticus 3:17; 17:10, 11, 14; Deuteronomy 12:16, 23.

Shortly after Christianity was founded some 2,000 years ago, believers were given the divine commandment to “abstain from . . . blood.” The prohibition was based, not on health concerns, 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 alcohol, we would hardly feel at liberty 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.—Ephesians 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—red cells, plasma, white cells, and platelets. As for the various fractions derived from those components—and products that contain such fractions—the Bible does not comment on these. Therefore, each Witness makes his own personal decision on such matters. Does this Bible-based stand mean that Witnesses reject medical treatment or view their health and life lightly? Not at all!—

Jehovah’s Witnesses, some of whom are physicians and nurses, are known worldwide for their rejection of transfusions involving whole blood or primary blood components. Does their united stand against this practice stem from a man-made doctrine or a belief that a person’s faith can heal medical ailments? That is far from the truth.

Cherishing their life as a gift from God, the Witnesses strive to do their best to live according to the Bible, which they believe is “inspired of God.” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17; Revelation 4:11) That book encourages worshippers of God to avoid practices and habits that harm health or endanger life, such as overeating, smoking or chewing tobacco, abusing alcohol, and using drugs for recreational purposes.—Proverbs 23:20; 2 Corinthians 7:1.


By keeping our body and surroundings clean and getting some physical exercise for health reasons, we are acting in harmony with Bible principles. (Matthew 7:12; 1 Timothy 4:8) When Jehovah’s Witnesses get sick, they demonstrate reasonableness by seeking medical care and accepting the vast majority of available treatment options. (Philippians 4:5) True, they obey the Bible command to “keep abstaining from . . . blood,” insisting on nonblood medical management. (Acts 15:29) And this choice often results in a higher quality of treatment.
In recent years more than a few doctors have recognized that Witnesses have benefited medically from adhering to the Bible’s standard. For instance, 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.”

Serious health decisions can cause a great deal of stress and are often difficult to make. Regarding the common practice of transfusing blood, note the words of respirologist and medical director Dr. Dave Williams: “It’s important that we respect people’s wishes, . . . and we need to be very careful about what we put into our bodies.” Those words ring true—and never more so than today

Answer 11

Well....

All the issues of clean animals, offerings and burnt offerings, and that blood issue, were all done away with when the New Testament (death, burial and ressurection of Jesus) came into effect... the Word says in 1 John 3:9 "whosever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he was born of God". Yes salvation was given to us, and the Law is now enscribed on our hearts and there is not a need to concern yourself with blood transfusions being a "sin" or not... concentrate on God and growing your faith.

Take care, God bless