BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS

[Jesus.defender]

BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS

Watchtower Teaching WT forbids blood transfusions because of Genesis 9:4 ‘But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat’.

The WT teaches that a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood, because it resembles intravenous feeding. This doctrine was invented in 1944.

Bible Teaching and Historical facts:
1) Thousands of JWs and their children have died because they followed this WT error.
QUESTION: Would you really allow your baby to die because of this WT instruction?

2) Most JWs are unaware that their leaders have a history of making medical prohibitions,then later changing their minds to allow them. Examples include:

(i) Vaccinations were forbidden by the WT from 1931 to 1952. JWs had to refuse vaccinations because the WT taught that ‘vaccination is a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God made’ (Golden Age, 4 Feb 1931, p 293).

Awake of 22 Aug 1965 admitted that vaccinations have caused a decrease in diseases(p.20)
QUESTION: How did the parents of children who died from not being vaccinated, feel when the WT reversed its view in 1952? How many of these children died needlessly?

(ii) Organ transplants were allowed by the WT up to 1967, but were forbidden in 1967 saying that ‘organ transplants amounted to cannibalism and are not appropriate for Christians’ (WT, 15 Nov 1967, p 702-4, and Awake 8 June 1968, p 21). Hence all organ
transplants were forbidden for 13 years, during which time many JWs died needlessly.

Then in 1980, the WT changed its mind to allow them saying that ‘organ transplants are not necessarily cannibalistic’ (WT, 15 March 1980, p 31).

(iii) Blood plasma and blood particles were forbidden to be used by JW haemophiliacs (Awake, 22 Feb 1975, p 30). Shortly after, the WT changed its mind to permit certain blood particles to be used, but failed to put it into print for 3 years until 15 June 1978, p
30 (WT). Only those haemophiliacs who phoned WT headquarters from 1975-78 discovered the change. Others were left to suffer and die.
QUESTION: How long before the WT changes its view on blood transfusions?

QUESTION: Why does the WT keep changing its mind on medical issues?

QUESTION: Is it right for an infallible prophet of God organisation (such as the WT claims to be) to keep changing its mind.

(iv) In 1984, they allowed for a bone-marrow transplant. Bone marrow is the very source of blood. However, they would disfellowship you for receiving a bloodtransfusion.

3) In Genesis 9:4 the context is God forbidding the eating of animal blood (as pagans did), not the transfusion of human blood. A blood transfusion is not intravenous feeding, because the blood so given does not function as food. When one gives a transfusion, it is not a loss of life, but a transference of life from one person to another. It replenishes and saves a life.

QUESTION: Since blood is not taken in as food to digest, but as life sustaining fluid, is it not clear that transfusion is different from eating?

4) Leviticus 3:17 ‘You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’ (NWT)
QUESTION: Why do WT leaders forbid blood transfusions but allow the eating of fat? Why not forbid both? The WT is not consistently interpreting the Bible. Leviticus 17:11,12: ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood’. Blood transfusion does not function as food, but simply transfers life from one person to another as an act of mercy.

Key: Leviticus 3:17 prohibits eating animal blood, not transfusing human blood.

QUESTION: Where is loss of salvation mentioned in Acts 15:9,11 for receiving a blood transfusion?

Key: Acts 15:28,29. A blood transfusion uses blood for the same purpose that God intended, (as a life-giving agent in the bloodstream). Drinking blood is not God’s intended purpose for
blood

Conclusion: Even though JWs try to support blood transfusions with Scripture, their real reason for believing it is blind obedience to the WT. If the WT organisation lifted its ban on blood transfusions, JWs would freely accept them if needed.

For the WT to admit they were wrong would cause too great a stir in their ranks. Therefore any changes must be presented as ‘new light’ in order to make it appear that ‘Jehovah’ is making the changes, rather than a few men on the governing body.
 

[Alexa]

I understand Jesus as a way of life too, he uses His organization to accomplish what the people reckon what the organization will be His that fits Jehovah and himself's high standards. If it didnt meet up at times, they will be our judge. Remember that.  :-) 

[kaijafon]

1) there have NOT been "thousands" who have died from refusal of blood transfusions.  There are less than 500 deaths recorded of jw's refusing blood, WORLD WIDE over the past 100 years.  On the other hand, the CDC has data that shows over 3000 people die from receiving blood transfusions JUST in the USA every YEAR.  

I'd rather go with obedience to Jehovah and abstain from blood.  This stand saved my son's life when he was 3 months old.

2) Vaccines and organ transplants were very dangerous during that time and MANY died from them.  Again, more died from getting them than not.  

3) abstain means to "abstain"

4) abstaining from blood was given (as you posted) in Noah's day, during the Mosaic  Law, and then confirmed to apply to Christians in Acts.  The eating of fat was not.  It was only forbidden under the Mosaic Law.  Christians are not under that. 

JW's do not teach that they will "lose salvation" for blood transfusions.  

Conclusion:  you have no clue as to being obedient to Jehovah God nor do you really understand what or why JW's teach and preach what they do.  

[Evacuated]

On 7/27/2016 at 10:35, kaijafon said:

There are less than 500 deaths recorded of jw's refusing blood, WORLD WIDE over the past 100 years.

Wow! Where did you get this statistic from???

[kaijafon]

by researching each and every single story about them.  The number is actually a lot lower but I'm giving ground for "unreported" so I doubled it.

 

[JW Insider]

I tried to do an estimated range once on this subject. I would have really doubted a method that researched every story about them, because no more than a small percentage would have had a story written up about it. (Newspapers tend to deal with the very young and/or photogenic. Otherwise, even if it bleeds, it doesn't lead; it gets buried.) I have had access to JSTOR and an awful lot of medical journals due to the fact that my son's Harvard ID allowed me to share a lot of those journals and library resources. There are a lot of interviews with doctors who have done studies on the difference in mortality rates from those who refuse most blood therapies and those who accept all blood therapies. But these are not statistics that most hospitals or doctors would like to have made public.

I get a much higher number based on extrapolating from these doctors who have done studies, but there is still a wide range of possibility.

There is a location here with a simple (incorrect) attempt: http://www.krev.info/library/pocetumrti.pdf

That article gives a number that appears high. If the number is correct, it makes a blunder in the method however in attempting to extrapolate the committed population of JWs to include the entire group of those who might attend Memorial (in effect). It also appears to assume a steady population of JWs. Also there is a difference in mortality during operations by doctors who are not as skilled in bloodless surgery (those who don't specialize in bloodless surgery) and those who normally use blood as a backup, but are forced not to have that backup. Elective and sometimes even emergency surgeries for JWs are often handled by doctors selected in advance for their willingness to respect JW beliefs. 

At any rate, I can't give a very good answer, but the minimum possible range that I see is still much higher than what you got for "100 years."

[Jesus.defender]

BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS

Watchtower Teaching WT forbids blood transfusions because of Genesis 9:4 ‘But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat’.

The WT teaches that a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood, because it resembles intravenous feeding. This doctrine was invented in 1944.

Bible Teaching and Historical facts:
1) Thousands of JWs and their children have died because they followed this WT error.
QUESTION: Would you really allow your baby to die because of this WT instruction?

2) Most JWs are unaware that their leaders have a history of making medical prohibitions,then later changing their minds to allow them. Examples include:

(i) Vaccinations were forbidden by the WT from 1931 to 1952. JWs had to refuse vaccinations because the WT taught that ‘vaccination is a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God made’ (Golden Age, 4 Feb 1931, p 293).

Awake of 22 Aug 1965 admitted that vaccinations have caused a decrease in diseases(p.20)
QUESTION: How did the parents of children who died from not being vaccinated, feel when the WT reversed its view in 1952? How many of these children died needlessly?

(ii) Organ transplants were allowed by the WT up to 1967, but were forbidden in 1967 saying that ‘organ transplants amounted to cannibalism and are not appropriate for Christians’ (WT, 15 Nov 1967, p 702-4, and Awake 8 June 1968, p 21). Hence all organ
transplants were forbidden for 13 years, during which time many JWs died needlessly.

Then in 1980, the WT changed its mind to allow them saying that ‘organ transplants are not necessarily cannibalistic’ (WT, 15 March 1980, p 31).

(iii) Blood plasma and blood particles were forbidden to be used by JW haemophiliacs (Awake, 22 Feb 1975, p 30). Shortly after, the WT changed its mind to permit certain blood particles to be used, but failed to put it into print for 3 years until 15 June 1978, p
30 (WT). Only those haemophiliacs who phoned WT headquarters from 1975-78 discovered the change. Others were left to suffer and die.
QUESTION: How long before the WT changes its view on blood transfusions?

QUESTION: Why does the WT keep changing its mind on medical issues?

QUESTION: Is it right for an infallible prophet of God organisation (such as the WT claims to be) to keep changing its mind.

(iv) In 1984, they allowed for a bone-marrow transplant. Bone marrow is the very source of blood. However, they would disfellowship you for receiving a bloodtransfusion.

3) In Genesis 9:4 the context is God forbidding the eating of animal blood (as pagans did), not the transfusion of human blood. A blood transfusion is not intravenous feeding, because the blood so given does not function as food. When one gives a transfusion, it is not a loss of life, but a transference of life from one person to another. It replenishes and saves a life.

QUESTION: Since blood is not taken in as food to digest, but as life sustaining fluid, is it not clear that transfusion is different from eating?

4) Leviticus 3:17 ‘You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’ (NWT)
QUESTION: Why do WT leaders forbid blood transfusions but allow the eating of fat? Why not forbid both? The WT is not consistently interpreting the Bible. Leviticus 17:11,12: ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood’. Blood transfusion does not function as food, but simply transfers life from one person to another as an act of mercy.

Key: Leviticus 3:17 prohibits eating animal blood, not transfusing human blood.

QUESTION: Where is loss of salvation mentioned in Acts 15:9,11 for receiving a blood transfusion?

Key: Acts 15:28,29. A blood transfusion uses blood for the same purpose that God intended, (as a life-giving agent in the bloodstream). Drinking blood is not God’s intended purpose for
blood

Conclusion: Even though JWs try to support blood transfusions with Scripture, their real reason for believing it is blind obedience to the WT. If the WT organisation lifted its ban on blood transfusions, JWs would freely accept them if needed.

For the WT to admit they were wrong would cause too great a stir in their ranks. Therefore any changes must be presented as ‘new light’ in order to make it appear that ‘Jehovah’ is making the changes, rather than a few men on the governing body.
 

[Jesus.defender]

BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS

Watchtower Teaching WT forbids blood transfusions because of Genesis 9:4 ‘But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat’.

The WT teaches that a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood, because it resembles intravenous feeding. This doctrine was invented in 1944.

Bible Teaching and Historical facts:
1) Thousands of JWs and their children have died because they followed this WT error.
QUESTION: Would you really allow your baby to die because of this WT instruction?

2) Most JWs are unaware that their leaders have a history of making medical prohibitions,then later changing their minds to allow them. Examples include:

(i) Vaccinations were forbidden by the WT from 1931 to 1952. JWs had to refuse vaccinations because the WT taught that ‘vaccination is a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God made’ (Golden Age, 4 Feb 1931, p 293).

Awake of 22 Aug 1965 admitted that vaccinations have caused a decrease in diseases(p.20)
QUESTION: How did the parents of children who died from not being vaccinated, feel when the WT reversed its view in 1952? How many of these children died needlessly?

(ii) Organ transplants were allowed by the WT up to 1967, but were forbidden in 1967 saying that ‘organ transplants amounted to cannibalism and are not appropriate for Christians’ (WT, 15 Nov 1967, p 702-4, and Awake 8 June 1968, p 21). Hence all organ
transplants were forbidden for 13 years, during which time many JWs died needlessly.

Then in 1980, the WT changed its mind to allow them saying that ‘organ transplants are not necessarily cannibalistic’ (WT, 15 March 1980, p 31).

(iii) Blood plasma and blood particles were forbidden to be used by JW haemophiliacs (Awake, 22 Feb 1975, p 30). Shortly after, the WT changed its mind to permit certain blood particles to be used, but failed to put it into print for 3 years until 15 June 1978, p
30 (WT). Only those haemophiliacs who phoned WT headquarters from 1975-78 discovered the change. Others were left to suffer and die.
QUESTION: How long before the WT changes its view on blood transfusions?

QUESTION: Why does the WT keep changing its mind on medical issues?

QUESTION: Is it right for an infallible prophet of God organisation (such as the WT claims to be) to keep changing its mind.

(iv) In 1984, they allowed for a bone-marrow transplant. Bone marrow is the very source of blood. However, they would disfellowship you for receiving a bloodtransfusion.

3) In Genesis 9:4 the context is God forbidding the eating of animal blood (as pagans did), not the transfusion of human blood. A blood transfusion is not intravenous feeding, because the blood so given does not function as food. When one gives a transfusion, it is not a loss of life, but a transference of life from one person to another. It replenishes and saves a life.

QUESTION: Since blood is not taken in as food to digest, but as life sustaining fluid, is it not clear that transfusion is different from eating?

4) Leviticus 3:17 ‘You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’ (NWT)
QUESTION: Why do WT leaders forbid blood transfusions but allow the eating of fat? Why not forbid both? The WT is not consistently interpreting the Bible. Leviticus 17:11,12: ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood’. Blood transfusion does not function as food, but simply transfers life from one person to another as an act of mercy.

Key: Leviticus 3:17 prohibits eating animal blood, not transfusing human blood.

QUESTION: Where is loss of salvation mentioned in Acts 15:9,11 for receiving a blood transfusion?

Key: Acts 15:28,29. A blood transfusion uses blood for the same purpose that God intended, (as a life-giving agent in the bloodstream). Drinking blood is not God’s intended purpose for
blood

Conclusion: Even though JWs try to support blood transfusions with Scripture, their real reason for believing it is blind obedience to the WT. If the WT organisation lifted its ban on blood transfusions, JWs would freely accept them if needed.

For the WT to admit they were wrong would cause too great a stir in their ranks. Therefore any changes must be presented as ‘new light’ in order to make it appear that ‘Jehovah’ is making the changes, rather than a few men on the governing body.
 

[Space Merchant]

Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only ones ho abstain from blood from either animal or man, such ones are of the New Covenant and the only blood that is of concern for such ones, is the one Jesus shed when he was crucified. Another problem you face is those bounded by culture of not accepting blood or giving blood, regardless. You do realize some, mainly those in Caribbean countries, abstain from blood and majority of them are not that religion, they do this due to avoidance of superstitious things, such as sorcery and the like, one country, namely Jamaica and Haiti, tend to avoid Black Magic which also involves blood rituals, it is called Vodou, Voodoo in English. The US/EU tend to force or trick a few of these people to accept blood, the irony is they never accept blood from such people. In some countries they do not even accept blood from those who practice homosexuality, namely Russia.

 

So in short, abstain means abstain, but in the end, it is the choice of the individual, regardless if they are Jehovah's Witnesses or not. There has been a huge debate on this in Christendom and the majority will even say abstaining from blood also includes blood from man.

So in short, it would be total hypocrisy to only say this of JWs and other Christians also avoid blood of any kind, the same could be said about nations who adhere to culture who abstain from blood.

This was talked about at CSE a while back: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/410/blood-transfusions-and-christianity

Also it is already known on the JW stance on this issue.

Also blood opens door to diseases and whatnot, mainly sexual transmitted diseases and the like via blood, something of which several if not over a dozen kids got infected with such as of last year and this.

True Christians believe in what God will bring by means of His Son, what is Son had died for by shedding His blood. We should not forget such.

As for me, I am bounded by such by means of cultural reasons, more than religious reasons, hence it is unlikely you will pull the racial and or discrimination card on those with such views, now can you?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

To a reasonable, rational person, what you have stated above is inescapably true .... ALMOST all of it.

What is also true is that Jehovah God considers blood his personal property, and demands respect for it ... a common theme that runs throughout the ENTIRE Bible.

The fact that the WTB&TS is now run by the Lawyers and Accountants, and the PR Department is whole OTHER issue.

That is why, in my recent heart surgeries, I insisted on no blood or blood fractions.

The GB caved to public pressure, and a fear of losing money via court actions ... and they changed the rules.

God did NOT.

They had the blood issue correct ... and instead of "new light" ... they dove into deep darkness with insane  reasonings .... for political reasons.

[JW Insider]

Under another topic, @James Thomas Rook Jr. brought up a question about what James (the brother of Jesus) and others in Jerusalem may have meant when they decreed: "Abstain from blood." (Acts 15:20) In this area of the site, it seems that we often point to breakthroughs in bloodless therapies, successful stories of surgery without blood, and now and then report on a death or lawsuit related to the Witness stance on the blood issue. However, we do not often discuss the Biblical viewpoint of the blood doctrine itself.

@Jesus.defender had started this topic in that direction, but makes several errors about the actual view of Jehovah's Witnesses. For example, we do not defend the view based on Genesis 9 and Leviticus 17, as claimed. They are used as "clues" but if it were not for Acts 15, we would likely think of eating and transfusing blood as non-issues.

I'll quote the primary scriptures we refer to with some context, but the entire context is extremely important here and these verses should really be read at least with the full chapters surrounding them:

• (Acts 15:1-29) Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”  But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them, it was arranged for Paul, Barʹna·bas, and some of the others to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem regarding this issue. . . .  On arriving in Jerusalem, they were kindly received by the congregation and the apostles and the elders, and they related the many things God had done by means of them.  But some of those of the sect of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up from their seats and said: “It is necessary to circumcise them and command them to observe the Law of Moses.” . . . Peter rose and said to them: “. . .  And he made no distinction at all between us and them, but purified their hearts by faith. So why are you now making a test of God by imposing on the neck of the disciples a yoke. . . ?  On the contrary, we have faith that we are saved through the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus in the same way that they are.” . . .  After they finished speaking, James replied: “. . . God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name. . . .   Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God,  but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood.  For from ancient times Moses has had those who preach him in city after city, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath.” . . .  We are therefore sending Judas and Silas, so that they also may report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

• (Acts 21:11-32) . . .: “Thus says the holy spirit, ‘The man to whom this belt belongs will be bound like this by the Jews in Jerusalem, and they will give him into the hands of people of the nations.’” 12 Now when we heard this, both we and those who were there began begging him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered: “What are you doing by weeping and trying to weaken my resolve? Rest assured, I am ready not only to be bound but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 When he would not be dissuaded, we stopped objecting and said: “Let the will of Jehovah take place.” 15 Now after these days we prepared for the journey and started on our way to Jerusalem. 16 Some of the disciples from Caes·a·reʹa also went with us, taking us to Mnaʹson of Cyʹprus, an early disciple at whose home we were to be guests. 17 When we got to Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us gladly. 18 But on the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 And he greeted them and began giving a detailed account of the things God did among the nations through his ministry. 20 After hearing this, they began to glorify God, but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21 But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to follow the customary practices. 22 What, then, is to be done about it? They are certainly going to hear that you have arrived. 23 So do what we tell you: We have four men who have put themselves under a vow. 24 Take these men with you and cleanse yourself ceremonially together with them and take care of their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is nothing to the rumors they were told about you, but that you are walking orderly and you are also keeping the Law. 25 As for the believers from among the nations, we have sent them our decision in writing that they should keep away from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality.” 26 Then Paul took the men the next day and cleansed himself ceremonially along with them, and he went into the temple to give notice of when the days for the ceremonial cleansing would be completed and the offering should be presented for each one of them. 27 Now when the seven days were about to end, the Jews from Asia, on seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd, and they seized him, 28 shouting: “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our Law and this place. And what is more, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” 29 For they had previously seen Trophʹi·mus the E·pheʹsian in the city with him, and they assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple. 30 The whole city was in an uproar, and the people came running together and seized Paul and dragged him outside the temple, and immediately the doors were closed. 31 While they were trying to kill him, word reached the commander of the army unit that all Jerusalem was in confusion; 32 and he immediately took soldiers and army officers and ran down to them. When they caught sight of the military commander and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul.

 

More of the context is provided for Acts 21, because it makes the situation very clear about how and why the decision from Acts 15 was so appropriate.

[JW Insider]

I'm sure @Jesus.defender meant to present a fairly comprehensive view of the issues that are involved. In some cases the issues are not Biblical, but they point out that Witnesses (or the WTS) have admitted to making errors of judgment in presenting vaccinations and organ transplants as unclean in God's eyes, and have changed their stand on those medical treatments. That's true, and although it might be evidence that we have been careless in our medical-related doctrines, it is not evidence that we are necessarily wrong in our stance on blood transfusion.

I think a better "outside" presentation of a practical, doctrinal Biblical discussion and then a slightly more scholarly Biblical discussion of the issues as presented by NON-JWs can be found in these places, respectively:

• Must Christians Today “Abstain from Blood”?

• Acts of the Apostles: Decree of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) Part 1: The Literary Flow of Acts 15

• Acts of the Apostles: Decree of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) Part 2: The Decree’s Purpose

The first link ends up admitting that Christians should not eat blood. The last link says something interesting about the same question that James T. Rook brought up commenting on the possibility that Acts 15 might have had reference to bloodshed/murder when it said "Abstain from blood." The point is that several early Bible manuscripts of Acts left off "and from things strangled." Perhaps they (the copyists of Western Bible manuscripts) assumed that this was unnecessarily redundant if it was just another way of stating that an animal should be properly bled. But another assumption is that the manuscript copyists thought that it was problematic in that it interfered with the much more understandable position that James and the elders were stating something much more obvious: that Gentiles were being told that the most important things to remember were to abstain from bloodshed (murder), idolatry, and immorality.

• Endnotes

• ¹⁵In some Western Greek manuscripts, the decree contains only three ethical admonitions: Avoid idolatry, blood (in the sense of bloodshed) and sexual immorality. This fits in with “the rabbinic tradition which considers the three primary sins of the Gentiles to be precisely idolatry, shedding of blood and immorality” (Stephen G. Wilson. Luke and the Law. [Cambridge: University Press, 1983], p. 80). However, Wilson also observes that “the Western version consists of such widely accepted ethical norms that a decree to this effect would be superfluous” (Stephen G. Wilson. The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts. [Cambridge: University Press, 1973], p. 188).
• All major English translations, including the King James and the NIV, use a Greek text with four prohibitions. The textual questions are discussed in detail in Bruce Metzger. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), pp. 429-433.
• ...
• ⁴²Christians in the West would be less likely to know that strangled things were associated with pagan customs. Perhaps this explains why the word was omitted in the Western text.