What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?

[JW Insider]

10 hours ago, Many Miles said:

It will be interesting to see if George responds and, if so, how. If it’s not straightforward he’s back on ignore for me. 

I wouldn't hold my breath. Not saying anything about George specificially, of course, but you will find certain people on forums, including ones who love or need a few 'sock puppets' and, over time, literally 40+ different "handles" are often of the type who will never admit a mistake. I've been on this forum for about 8 years now, and someone ilke George, throughout 40 of his different names never admitted to one mistake during that entire time, and probably made hundreds of them. Someone couldn't even point out a simple typo without seeing his supposed justification for it. I suppose you could get: "I was testing you to see if you were still ignoring me." But more likely you will get ignored, and then soon notice a new name carrying on the same style of 'dialogue' and 'discussion.'

[Many Miles]

16 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But more likely you will get ignored, and then soon notice a new name carrying on the same style of 'dialogue' and 'discussion.'

Yeah. Seen it. Experienced it. Reminds me of another source that would go “crickets” when asked tough questions. Once, when suggesting an in-person audience on a narrow subject, the response was “We don’t have an arrangement for that.” Too many people don’t want to answer for themselves on the spot, which they should be willing to do, if they’re convinced they’re right and do not worry about being wrong. But I don’t want to whine. I’m as imperfect as the next man. But, if I’m wrong I want to know it. 

[Pudgy]

Men don’t do as well as women, as a rule, (women famous for “always being right”) because statistically they die 8 years before women, their “last words” being “Here! Watch this! Hold my beer!”.

 

[Anna]

On 11/13/2023 at 10:26 AM, JW Insider said:

When the Noahide Laws were clarified and expanded from what we currently see in the Genesis account, the rabbis specifically forbade eating a limb or part of an animal while it was alive and kicking

Is that something that was actually a thing back then, people eating bits off live animals? Is that why they had to expressly forbid it? Or were they just expanding on the law in a Phariseical way?

[Many Miles]

14 hours ago, Pudgy said:

...My guess would be a lack of refrigeration...

In relation to food taken onto the ark, the society has trotted out that red herring too. It's hilariously 20th-century-ignorant to think ancients would have needed refrigeration to store harvested animal flesh. No one then, nor now, needs refrigeration to harvest and store meat for later use. The same is true of vegetation.

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, Anna said:

Is that something that was actually a thing back then, people eating bits off live animals? Is that why they had to expressly forbid it? Or were they just expanding on the law in a Phariseical way?

You must think about the process of converting a live animal into a consumable based on the technology they had available to at the time, factoring in that realizing how scant their medical technology was they wanted to escape injury too. Live animals will fight with every fiber of their being to escape pain. So humans would opportunistically take what they could get however they could get it, which sometimes might include being satisfied with a piece of a whole rather than the whole of the whole. So, for instance, a hunter might lay a trap where an animal's limb becomes captured, isolated and unable to flail. On one side of the trap you have most of the animal, and that animal is thrashing at anything that comes near it for fear of attack. On the other side of the trap, in relative safety, the hunter can just disjoint the entrapped limb. This frees the animal to flee, and it will probably die (but not always), and the hunter has his chunk of flesh and he got it relatively safely.

This is what would have made animals found dead of natural cause a food smorgasbord for ancients, so long as the meat was still fit to eat. It was safe to harvest, and they could have the whole enchilada. They could even find novel ways of making other uses of internal components, like taking small intestines and converting them to strings for a harp. (Gen 4:21) I mean, someone somewhere had to figure that out, because it's still a real thing to this day. Oh, and lest we forget, it was God who first transplanted animal flesh onto humans. (Gen 3:21) That was an object lesson unto itself!

[Many Miles]

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Genesis 9:4 clearly provides a specific instruction, leaving no room for ambiguity or doubt. It unequivocally states, "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." This explicit command unequivocally prohibits the consumption of such meat.

Genesis 9:4 speaks of tissue of animal SOULS as food. That would be LIVING animals.

Genesis 9:4 says nothing whatsoever about NON-SOULICAL bodies. That would be DEAD animals, and specifically I'm talking about animal carcasses dead of natural cause whose flesh is still fit to eat.

Your statement above broadly applies something that's said within a much narrower context. It's a fallacy of generalization.

2 hours ago, George88 said:

In light of similar speculations, why do you consider your speculation more credible than mine?

What I've said about using animals carcasses dead of natural cause as food to eat is not speculation; we see it all around us in creation and so would Adam and every man since him. God issued ONE prohibition regarding food to Adam: DO NOT EAT of the tree of knowledge. That was it. Other than that Adam had no reason to feel prohibited from eating anything in Eden he acquired a taste for, including flesh of animals dead of natural cause whose meat was still fit to eat. Oh, and let's not forget that it was God who TOLD Noah to bring onto the ark EVERY SORT OF FOOD EATEN and to let it serve as food for himself and the animals, and we KNOW FROM CREATION that flesh of animals dead of natural cause was A SORT OF FOOD EATEN prior to the flood. Creation testifies to that, and creation is a much a testimony of God's will as is His written word we call the Bible.

Otherwise my observation is that you have failed to provide anything straightforward in response to specific questions asked of you. I'll not waste my time.

[Many Miles]

If we have no rational scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from donor blood (and I've not seen any offered), then 1) why did the society initially ban transfusion of any products rendered from donor blood and 2) why has it maintained that position despite lack of rational scriptural basis for it? We could also ask 3) why has the society done this though admitting throughout the entire episode there has been consistent objection from within its own ranks and on bases which the society has ludicrously talked fallacies around?

 

[Srecko Sostar]

I would give answer to the question in the title, "What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?"

We have seen that the WTJWorg interpretations seem to imply that the taking of animal or human blood is unacceptable because they tend to draw that conclusion based on a few passages of the Bible.
Then they subsequently made it clear that blood (and blood products) should not be used for nutritional purposes, but some blood products can be used (allowed) to protect or improve health.
They also inserted into that thesis the vague and inconsistent use of the amount of a certain ingredient in the blood as a measure of acceptable or unacceptable.

Whatever of their logic they want to use as a "biblical argument", we see that they (GB) have ruined the original commandment with their politicization and assumptions. If it is said that blood is not to be used (let's add a sequel-for any purpose except for a religious act) but must be shed on the ground, then it is clear that WTJWorg and GB along with their followers is a violator of that commandment because they doctrinally and literally allow the use of blood (and its parts) for an illegal (non-religious) purpose.

Since GB did not provide a single biblical quote as possible proof that some minor parts (fractions) of blood are allowed to be used by believers, GB falls into the "false teachers" category.

Or, in order not to offend some readers, we can say it like this: Teachers who do not know how to use God's Word correctly. ("...rightly dividing the word of truth” KJV), ("...handling the word of the truth aright. NWT) - 2 Timothy 2:15.

 

 

[Pudgy]

I’m just enjoying the show … watching windup sets of novelty plastic teeth chattering at each other, vibrating across the the table top,  occasionally taking breaks to re-wind the springs that keep the teeth chattering, and for comic effect the Alphonse/George88 doppelgänger sock puppet will burp out a green upvote.

My wife asks “what’s so funny?”, and I try to tell her ….

[Many Miles]

11 minutes ago, George88 said:

You mean, like you have failed to provide proof of carrion, carcasses, spoiled meat being eaten by Noah before the flood and during the Ark?

Logical Argument:

Premise one: A sort of food eaten is animal carcasses dead of natural cause that is edible.

Premise two: Every sort of food eaten should be taken onto the ark and used as food for Noah and animals on the ark.

Evidence of Premise one: Animal flesh dead of natural cause is, by Divine act of earth's created ecosystem, ONE SORT OF FOOD EATEN and metabolized by other living creatures.

Evidence of Premise two: Genesis 6:21 expressly states that Noah was to gather EVERY SORT OF FOOD EATEN for it to serve as food for himself and animals on the ark.

We have:

- IF animal flesh dead of natural cause was a sort of food eaten, and Noah obeyed God's instruction to take onto the ark some of every sort of food eaten as food to feed himself and the animals

- THEN Noah took animal flesh dead of natural cause onto the ark as food to eat for himself and the animals.

Finally, though you keep harping (more like carping!) about "spoiled meat", though "spoiled meat" is ALSO a sort of food eaten, in that case whether Noah ate that sort of food versus unspoiled meat was up to Noah, he had God's permission either way. Same thing with vegetable matter. Noah could eat strawberries or blue berries at his preference.

 

 

[Pudgy]

Premise three:  If I was Noah, and I was given permission to (technically) take any sort of food aboard the Ark, as a practical matter I would NEVER consider Carrion in any way, shape, or form … BECAUSE  is not a dependable food source ad to availability, or to packaging or storage … When a Lion kills an antelope, it’s good for that day, and for about 30 hours afterwards, depending on temperature, then it is “iffy”.  Then it starts to go bad VERY FAST.  

That’s why in Smithfield Virginia they used to wait until cold weather below 40°F to do “hog killin’”, and load up the smokehouses to have meat for winter.

Another thing … You may technically have “permission” to eat crappy, blood soaked, contaminated cancer and parasite laden food that died of disease or infection, but sane people don’t do that except as a very last resort.

Premise four:  Noah was sane, and had an Ark FULL of excess live, healthy “prey”animals.

You only need two of each animal … not seven.  And if the females are pregnant, the male animals may be surplus as well.

MORE than enough fresh, wholesome food without having to feed straw or carrion to meat eaters.

MAKE A SKETCH

DO THE MATH

MAKE REASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS.

Spend your brain’s resources  trying to figure out how the Penguins walked to the Ark, or how the Kangaroos got to Australia!