BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS BIBLICAL UNDERSTANDING

[Jesus.defender]

19 hours ago, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

What Really Is a Prophet According to the Bible?

- When Ezekiel in a vision was told to “prophesy to the wind,” he simply expressed God’s command to the wind. (Eze 37:9, 10)

- When individuals at Jesus’ trial covered him, slapped him, and then said, “Prophesy to us, you Christ. Who is it that struck you?” they were not calling for prediction but for Jesus to identify the slappers by divine revelation. (Mt 26:67, 68; Lu 22:63, 64)

- The Samaritan woman at the well recognized Jesus as “a prophet” because he revealed things about her past that he could not have known except by divine power. (Joh 4:17-19; compare Lu 7:39.)

So, too, such Scriptural portions as Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and his denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees (Mt 23:1-36) may properly be defined as prophecy, for these were an inspired ‘telling forth’ of God’s mind on matters, even as were the pronouncements by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other earlier prophets.—Compare Isa 65:13-16 and Lu 6:20-25.

So while prediction, or foretelling, is not the basic thought conveyed by the root verbs in the original languages (Heb., na·vaʼʹ; Gr., pro·phe·teuʹo); yet it forms an outstanding feature of Bible prophecy.

What then can we conclude: is The Watchtower Society a "prophet"?

When it comes to "revealing God's will", the answer is YES; but when it comes to "prediction" the answer is NO.

You are using a different word.

 

a PROPHET and a PROPHECY are two different things.

 

a Prophet can either 1) speak for God ( for want of a better phrase ) or 2) Predict an upcoming event like YOU guys did in 1914, 1918, 1923, 1925, 1875, etc.

 

to "prophesy" does not mean the person is a "prophet" as such.

 

In 1889, the WT said " we present PROOFS that the setting up of the kingdon of God has already begun...and that 'the battle of the great day of God almighty' (Revelation16:14),which will end in AD1914 with the complete overthrow of the earth's present rulership, is already commenced.". So, the WT presented "proofs". These "proofs" were wrong, so what credibility do they have to "proclaim" anything?
 

[John Houston]

With all the reading it came down to simple logic from Jehovah God's own mouth. At Genesis 9:4 when speaking to Noah, he gave the right of his about life, for only he could change our condition having created us and all lifeforms on earth. The blood of any creature was to be held sacred, and Jehovah demanded an accounting for any misuse of the blood of animal and his brother. 

It is not man's right to give blood, which was to be poured out to the ground, if taken from an animal for food; and if shed of a fellow human replaced by their own. So there would never come a time in the flow of history where your blood would be used to be poured in my veins to save mine or any other human life. That is what is forgotten in any argument about this topic, for it is mostly about the human organization that states they way we should live, the standards we should aspire to; many who have rejected just as Adam and Eve did from the very beginning. 

Thw 'law' of the blood, return to the One who created life. In reading verses 5,6 we find the principles of what Jehovah thought about our life giving blood. There is no change of mind in him. Only in the humans who want to forgo this 'law' and do things their way! 

Will it save lives? Yes! But when Jehovah demands that life as he said there in Genesis on what side of his 'law' will that life be? Your body full of some else's blood, blood the scripture states has to rendered for an accounting to Jehovah? Who will demand that life(the blood) , back. Yes, that is why I do not ascribe to transfusions. It is not their right as per what Jehovah says as to who created life and what should be done with the blood. Demand an accounting from every living creature, his exact words!

[Ann O'Maly]

19 hours ago, John Houston said:

It is not man's right to give blood, which was to be poured out to the ground, if taken from an animal for food ...

Blood was only to be poured out on the ground if a life was taken. It was to ensure the animal was properly dead and, when used as part of ritual sacrifice, was symbolic of atonement for sins.

Seeing as no life is being taken when blood for transfusion is being donated, and that it is not being used for religious purposes or for food, but it is being used for what God originally designed it for, those Scripture texts and the intent behind them do not apply.

[Noble Berean]

I completely understand why a Christian would refuse a blood transfusion, but I can also understand why a Christian would take one in an emergency life-or-death scenario. We are only human and weak, and it seems very unloving to disfellowship someone if they take a transfusion out of fear for their life. At the end of the day, isn't this choice between a Christian and Jehovah God? Is it really necessary for the organization to meddle in this private medical choice? I can understand why the organization wouldn't endorse transfusions, but I have always felt it should be a conscience matter.

Furthermore, isn't there some scriptural precedent for one law trumping another? I have always felt like Jehovah God was balanced about the law, but the organization's stance on transfusions is very extreme. The Bible accounts that come to mind are when David ate the loaves in the temple or when Jesus Christ healed a man on the Sabbath. Shouldn't love for our brothers trump rule following?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Please sit down in a chair  ... take a few deep breaths ..... clear your mind for a new thought.

Ready?

Here it comes ! .....

....

Whether in animals or humans .... how can the blood of A LIVING animal or

LIVING human represent their lives ... IF THEY DID NOT DIE?

....

Hmmmmm?

(Answer  ... for those in Rio Linda .... IT CANNOT!)

They are STILL ALIVE!

.

[Shiwiii]

On 8/9/2017 at 2:26 PM, Noble Berean said:

At the end of the day, isn't this choice between a Christian and Jehovah God?

YES!

On 8/9/2017 at 2:26 PM, Noble Berean said:

Is it really necessary for the organization to meddle in this private medical choice?

It is if you want to be part of their group. 

 

 

On 5/31/2016 at 8:26 AM, John Houston said:

Thw 'law' of the blood, return to the One who created life. In reading verses 5,6 we find the principles of what Jehovah thought about our life giving blood. There is no change of mind in him. Only in the humans who want to forgo this 'law' and do things their way! 

In verses 5,6, yes we do see some principles laid out. These have to do with eating meat with blood and the act of killing/murder. Context tells us this as well as supporting scriptures in Leviticus 17. One thing I found very interesting is that in Leviticus 17, where God tells us about blood and the prohibitions on its use, God tells us also a different set of circumstances with different punishments. In Genesis 9 God said that blood is not to be used as food, and this is again stated in Leviticus 17 but notice the part in verse 15 where God tells us what happens if we DO eat part of an animal which has not been drained of its blood:

15 "When any person eats an animal which dies or is torn by beasts, whether he is a native or an alien, he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening; then he will become clean."

 

So whats the deal? Unclean vs. death? Wouldn't it make sense and fit with scripture if God was meaning to not eat blood...ok, got it, and ALSO not to kill/murder. The scriptures tell us that God will require the blood of a man who has taken another's life/blood. But here in verse 15 of Lev 17, we see that God requires us to remain unclean until morning if we eat blood. That's not quite the same thing now is it? For the organization to require people to die instead of taking a transfusion, they are over stepping and adding to what God has told us through His Word. There is a reason for the separate distinction, it is because one is killing/murdering an other human being (hence the last statement at Gen 9:6) who was made in the image of God and the other is that of a beast/animal. God places higher value over people than beast, and it is also why there is a higher value of the blood of man over the blood of a beast. People generally do not eat human blood, and intravenous is not eating nor is it taking a life for the preservation of another life. Animal blood on the other hand IS consumed regularly by people.  

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

2 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

Animal blood on the other hand IS consumed regularly by people.  

Presumably after the animal has died .... THEN ... AFTER it has died ... the blood represents the animals life.

[Shiwiii]

3 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Presumably after the animal has died .... THEN ... AFTER it has died ... the blood represents the animals life.

true, and this is what makes the difference............a transfusion does not require ANYONE to die, but the lack of a transfusion may just require the life of a human. 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Please correct me if my logic is screwed up on this ... but it is my understanding that if Jesus had died by DROWNING, instead of being bloodily wounded, that his sacrifice would NOT have been accepted by Jehovah God ... because no blood would have been shed... so it took BOTH his willingly offering his life and actually following through ... AND .. the pouring out of his blood for that blood to have value in Jehovah's eyes.

I can imagine Jesus being accidentally cut as a young man while doing carpentry, and bleeding ... and since  no sacrifice to God was INTENDED ... the spilled blood would have no value to Jehovah God. 

I almost cut my fingertip off with a chain saw, and there was blood all over the place.

I had a triple bypass several years ago (95% heart blockage) and insisted that there be no blood or blood fractions, and had to go by ambulance to another Hospital for the surgery, so my position is clear, by actual real life and death test ... but I am wondering about the PRINCIPLE of whether or not blood without the death of the donor has any sacred value ... unless it is accompanied by the death of the owner donor.

If Cain had not been successful in murdering his brother, Abel, and Abel did not actually die ... say he only had lost several pints of blood ... but partially recovered, and lived injured for 40 or so more years ... would his blood "have cried out from the ground"?

Attempted murder is not murder.  No one would have actually died, in that scenario.

When David poured out the water that represented blood on the ground, he was recognizing the soldiers had GIVEN VALUE to the water, by risking their lives to go and get it for him.  Otherwise, the water was just water.

What is the PRINCIPLE behind what we do?

We know what is stated throughout the Bible about blood.

What is the PRINCIPLE behind Jehovah's commands?

ONLY if we correctly understand that ... can we correctly apply the scriptures.

Over the years I have put a lot of bloody bandages in the trash, and had drawn at a hospital for testing  ... NOT pouring it out on the ground.

 

.

[Shiwiii]

I think you are correct. 

The value of the blood of the sacrifice is just that, a sacrifice, a loss, a death, etc. and without that then what sacrifice is there? 

Like you, I believe that Jesus cut himself in His experience as a carpenter but that was not the sacrifice. While I'm sure that His blood at those times did have value over ours when we cut ourselves, it still was not the ultimate sacrifice. 

With this being said, what value is there in NOT taking a transfusion if no one died to obtain the blood? The only value I see is the adherence to a man made organization and the people who dedicate themselves to that organization, to glorify the organization.

Who gains if no transfusion is accepted? Not the person who allowed themselves to die........they died! Not the family, not friends....they all lost. Does God gain? I think not, because His word tells us that those who ate blood are only unclean until morning (Lev 17:15). This hardly indicates a absolute. Does God place a value of ones life? Yes, and that is also in Lev 17:15 as the scripture does not state the penalty is death. Does the organization? Not when it comes to preserving life with no life lost in the process.