Where in the Bible does it say you cant have blood transfusion?

Question

Jehovah's Witness

Answer 1

It doesn't say that anywhere because blood transfusions didn't exist back then. However, the JW's interpret a verse in Genesis 9:4 to include transfusions.

Answer 2

It says clearly in Genesis 9:3-4, Leviticus17:11-12 and Acts 15:19-20 but you might question is it eating blood? Think on this : In hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth he is fed intravenously. Now would a person who would never blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to "keep abstaining from blood" After all if a doctor told a man he should abstain from alcohol would he be obeying if he took it in through his veins?

Answer 3

It doesn't, pure and simple. In answer to those who say that this is because blood transfusions did not occur in those days, wrong, there is evidence that the ancient Egyptians performed blood transfusions. If the Bible is the word of God and he is all knowing and this issue was such a big deal for him then don't you think that he would have been very precise in his instructions to mankind about it? After all he would have known that in the future we would routinely use blood transfusion as a form of treatment. Is it not strange that the laws he gave the Israelites were very, very detailed, the whole book of Leviticus is law. Why did he not do the same for us if it was so important? And did Jesus not warn us that people would behave in certain ways in the future, if blood trasfusions are so abhorrent why did he not warn us of this also? In answer to some of the diatribe written by trustdel, non blood replacements are useful, particularly in surgical procedures, however, they are just about useless in most incidences of trauma. The 'experts' and research he has quoted are widely diputed by other experts, if non blood expanders are so good and so cheap tp produce as the Watchtower society proclaim, why are doctors still using blood, why do they not use these miracle blood replacements all the time? They do not use them because, like all medicine and medical procedures they are not the right treatment for everyone or in every incidence. True, people sometimes die as a result of having a transfusion, but people sometimes die from routine surgery, are we to stop all surgery? As Mr Spock says, do the needs of the many not outweigh the needs of the few? Trustdel should do his own research and not rely on the (very) biased rubbish put out by the society. JW's will elequently repeat the 'party line' of the society in response to your question but most will fail to tell you that the society has repeatedly changed it's stance on this matter. When I was a JW NO blood was allowed and the result of disobedience was disfellowshipment. In the last few years this edict has been changed and certain blood components are allowed such as clotting factors, e.g. Factor VIII, used for haemphilia; immunoglobulins and haemoglobin, amongst others. These are allowed because they make up only small percentages of blood, however, they are just as much blood as an egg yolk is still egg. In addition large amounts of donated blood is needed to abtain these components, who gives this? Is it not also a sin to donate blood because it is sacred and God will ask for it back? It is not a sin to allow someone else to sin in order that you might live? I now believe that the society has once again changed its stance and anyone who has a blood transfusion will not be disfellowshipped but dissasociated and will be forgiven if they are truly repentant! Either taking of blood is a sin or it is not, and am I not correct in saying that only God can give forgiveness, not human men. Hypocrisy is my only response.

Answer 4

JWs say that you cannot have a bloodtransfusion in referance to a verse in Acts 15 i think where it says you are not to take of the blood which actually means that u are not to eat or drink blood nothing to do with blood transfusions

Answer 5

It doesn't ... Genesis 9:4 says not to eat ,drink of it. Leviticus 17:11 says there is life in the blood. God gave us the ability to give blood transfusions , why shouldn't we do it then to save people ?

Answer 6

This is yet another false belief of the J.W.'s
Apparently in the early days there were certain pagan customs which included the drinking of blood. Why anyone of sane mind would deny another human being a life saving blood transfusion is beyond me.

Answer 7

I think in the bible it forbids the drinking of blood, which is a practice of the black arts and is to be discouraged on health grounds alone. Nobody at that time envisaged blood going into the body intravenously. Jehovah's Witness are putting the wrong interpretation of this.

Answer 8

Page 9

Answer 9

Somewhere it states that you can not drink blood, there for Jevoah's interpreate blood transfusion as drinking it. It also says in the bible do not test God, which is what they do when they do not accept blood.

Answer 10

EDITED :
If blood transfusion was being practiced at that Bible times , the instruction in Acts 15 did not EXCLUDE "blood transfusion" when it says abstain from blood. It is a general and precise instruction. If blood transfusion is being practiced then, there is no faithful follower of God who had one.


Someone says in here “if blood trasfusions are so abhorrent why did he not warn us of this also? “. Well, what that person cannot get is a general instruction “abstain from blood” will suffice. God didn’t also say in the Bible, abstain from crystal meth, cannibalism, and the use of nuclear bombs, and those things are abhorrent.We have to understand Bible principles to understand that those things are things we have to abstain from.

Why doctors are still using blood? Just like other medicines, some are found dangerous but doctors are still using it.

Please research this too.

Blood Transfusion Is an Independent Predictor of Increased Mortality in Nonoperatively Managed Blunt Hepatic and Splenic Injuries.
Original Articles
Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care. 58(3):437-445, March 2005.
Robinson, William P. III MD; Ahn, Jeongyoun MS; Stiffler, Arvilla MA; Rutherford, Edmund J. MD; Hurd, Harry PhD; Zarzaur, Ben L. MD; Baker, Christopher C. MD; Meyer, Anthony A. MD, PhD; Rich, Preston B. MD
Abstract:
Background: Management strategies for blunt solid viscus injuries often include blood transfusion. However, transfusion has previously been identified as an independent predictor of mortality in unselected trauma admissions. We hypothesized that transfusion would adversely affect mortality and outcome in patients presenting with blunt hepatic and splenic injuries after controlling for injury severity and degree of shock.


===

The phrase “blood transfusion” is not found in the Bible. What you can find is the instruction to “abstain .. from blood”.

Acts 15:20 - but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
Acts 15:29 - to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication

Notice too that the Bible doesn’t say abstain from nuclear bombs nor abstain from cannibalism, but the underlying principles found in the Bible can help us determine that we have to abstain from those things.

When did the practice of blood transfusion started? According to wikipedia.org that it started "The first historical attempt at blood transfusion was described by the 15th-century chronicler Stefano Infessura". So do you expect the Bible to explicitly speak against medical transfusion of blood during the 1st century when during that time it wasn’t practiced? Or have you ever thought that just quoting a GENERAL instruction, i.e., to “ABSTAIN from Blood” will suffice. How come in the Hebrew Scriptures it always state a SPECIFIC instruction to “do not EAT blood” but when it comes to the Greek Scriptures, it becomes a GENERAL instruction “abstain from blood” and NOT “abstain from eating/drinking blood”?

The question then is, when Acts 15 states “abstain from blood” is it only for eating and drinking blood? At that time, early Christians, understood that “abstaining from blood” means not eating and drinking it because blood transfusion is not being practiced. If it was being practiced at that time, the instruction in Acts 15 did not EXCLUDE "blood transfusion". The early Christians also understood that they won’t use blood for medical reasons, that’s why they didn’t use blood to cure epilepsy.

The point there is “eating and drinking blood” means the blood goes IN to your body. So what the Bible says is that we abstain from blood going IN our body. This means that you can use blood for testing, clean it, etc.

If you are allergic to nuts, the doctor will only say, “abstain from nuts”, that covers everything, that is, nothing to be taken orally and to be transfused. If you have allergies to nuts, you’ll understand. You don’t force your allergic kid to accept nuts , do you?



Here are some excerpt from a news.

“For the past 30 years, Dr. Estioko, currently medical director at St. John's Transfusion-Free Medicine and Surgery Center in Santa Monica, California, has performed surgeries on high-risk heart patients from all over the world, specializing in repeat operations and multiple valve surgeries.

This is a higher level of surgical technique," Dr. Estioko stresses. "Not everybody can do this type of operation. In fact, many surgeons who are not so good, they don't even attempt it because it is more exacting, more demanding. It really attracts those who have more expertise in the field."

Estioko spent 11 years in New York, where he was also professor at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. In 1990, he moved to California to be part of the Kay Medical Group in Los Angeles in 1990, a cardiac surgery group where he stayed for 14 years before moving on to St. John's Health Center.”


Notice he said “NOT EVERYBODY can do this type of operation. In fact, many surgeons who are NOT SO GOOD, they don't even attempt it because it is more exacting, more demanding. It really attracts those who have more expertise in the field”.




Have you asked that doctor about “nitric oxide” considering that the donated blood lost much of it? Have you read this news?

http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/st...

It states in part:
For years, physicians noticed that patients who received transfusions of banked blood were MORE LIKELY TO DIE than those who got NO BLOOD.
Duke University researchers believe they know why — and how the problem might be solved.
Donated blood almost immediately begins to lose a gas that opens vessels so oxygen and nutrients get to tissues, the Duke researchers report. Without that gas — nitric oxide — the vessels stay closed, blood can’t deliver its precious cargo, and patients founder, the scientists suggest in two articles published online in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Other doctors supports bloodless medicine.

http://www.englewoodhospital.com/medserv...


If a certain doctor would like to commit fornication with your own child first, before curing him, are you as a parent will abide by that? Are you sacrificing your own child’s life if you, as a parent, do not permit the fornication or are you protecting your own child as a person that you love?


You normally won’t allow that bad thing to happen because you believe that fornication is a sin, and is disrespecting and abusing your own kid and you love your kid. JWs believe that having a blood transfusion into our bodies, is a sin and a disrespect and abuse for our own bodies and our own kids.


Just like fornication, the use of blood in the body is one of things we have to abstain from according to Acts 15.

The abstention in Acts 15:29 is not only limited for the use of blood to be in the body but also fornication.We have to abstain from fornication and the use of blood inside our human body.

JWs believe in the Bible as the word of God and it is for everyone's lasting benefit to follow it. We follow the Bible's command to abstain from blood as stated in Acts 15:29. Eventhough we do not accept transfusion of blood, we accept other ALTERNATIVES to blood transfusion so that we can live. We believe that putting any sort of blood in our body is a serious sin that we can loose our chance of the life promised by God and Jesus.
The Israelites, who ate blood, was cut off from God's people. See Lev 17:10.

Soldiers, left and died, for a principle that they believe are right. They left their own kids and love ones. Does someone here scream at them?


Have you ever wondered why in Rev 2:14, , Jesus has something AGAINST Pergamum, i.e., to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication, which reflects the original instructions in Acts 15:29?. Also, Jesus has something AGAINST some in Thyatira because Jezebel misleads Jesus’ slaves to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols (From the original instruction in Acts 15:20, 29)? Many years have passed when the Apostle John wrote Revelation but the instruction from Acts 15:20,29 is still in effect. So you think, the instructions in Acts 15:29 are only temporary? And notice that the instructions given in Rev 2 are not only for Gentiles but to all Christians, even Jewish Christians.

The early Christians ate meat which are properly bled, but eventhough 100% of the blood wasn’t removed, they were still considered abstaining from blood.

Lev 17:10 states “‘As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who eats any sort of blood”

Notice ANY SORT OF BLOOD, so no faithful follower of God, eats blood of any sorts, animal or human. That’s why humans cannot drink or eat animal or human blood.

The prohibition for blood is repeated in Acts 15:28-29 but instead of just saying do not EAT blood, Acts 15 changed it to ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD, which is a general term to encompass not only eating, drinking of any sort of blood but the future use of blood in the body, which includes transfusion.

Is a subcomponent/fraction of the main components of blood, considered blood? In the case of an egg, is an egg white, egg yolk, still an egg? Is the subcomponent of an egg white, still an egg? Is oxygen, a subcomponent of water, water still? The same with blood, is one of the subcomponents of a main component still considered blood? Some will say yes, some will say no. This a personal decision we have to answer to God.

If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!. Acts 15:29 Please notice YOU WILL PROSPER, GOOD HEALTH TO YOU. (The word health here is all encompassing, not only limited to spiritual or physical health, otherwise it should have said Good spiritual or physical health to you.) Have you not wondered why Acts 15:29 EXPLICITLY stated those two reasons as why the Gentiles should abstain from blood and NOT the reason of maintaining peaceful relations with the Jews or other reasons?

For example, a few weeks back, a news reported:

“It doesn't matter how much oxygen is being carried by red blood cells, it cannot get to the tissues that need it without nitric oxide," said Dr. Jonathan Stamler of Duke University, leader of one of the research groups.

Blood vessels relax and constrict to regulate blood flow and nitric oxide opens up blood vessels, allowing red blood cells to deliver oxygen, he explained.

"If the blood vessels cannot open, the red blood cells back up in the vessel and tissues go without oxygen. The result can be a heart attack or even death," he said.”

So without nitric oxide, blood cannot help supply back oxygen to the body. So to say that blood transfusion will save the woman’s life is not totally true.

There are some alternatives to blood, that each individual JWs can use depending upon their conscience.

So basically, if a JW lost a lot of blood, we would like to have the volume expanders and other nonblood products or practices that help replace the lost oxygen. Please see www.noblood.org

Other doctors though are recognizing the alternatives to blood transfusion. Please see this website.

http://www.englewoodhospital.com/medservices.cfm?pageid=40


The instruction in Acts 15:29 is not only limited for eating animal blood. Why? Do you know of any faithful follower of God who drank and ate HUMAN blood? Do you know of any God’s faithful followers who DRANK or ATE blood from LIVE animals or humans? So it is wrong to say that you can use blood to be in your body if the there is NO LOSS in life.
People also die,i.e. loses LIFE, because of blood transfusion (AIDS, wrong blood types, etc).

Some misapplied Mark 5:25-34. … might on occasion have needs that would justify the breaking of these laws …

Answer : Making an implication that it is okay to disobey Gods law when life is involved or if you are in serious health is wrong. Question for you, is it okay to worship Satan if you know that someone will kill you if you don’t? Notice that the woman showed great faith in Jesus. Aside from that, the Mosaic Law is going to end very soon so Jesus has showed compassion, and notice the woman trembled and got frightened, showing repentance and told Jesus the WHOLE truth. Definitely Jesus forgave her because the woman got healed. Today, most people who had blood transfusions do not show any signs of trembling and repentance eventhough the Bible clearly stated to abstain from blood. So remember obedience is better than sacrifice.



If someone died because of wrong blood type transfused OR got AIDS and died because of blood transfusion, who will be accounted for the cause of death? The one who transfused the blood, the who one gave his blood or the one who accepted it?

Early Christians died and were thrown in the lion’s den and killed because of their faith. Some have seen even their own love ones died , their children, husband, wife, relatives, and other kins because of having faith in Jesus. Were they wrong to choose death because of their Christian faith? Were they wrong to die because they chose not to show even a little sign of worship to the Roman emperor or eat blood sausage?