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

[Srecko Sostar]

20 hours ago, Thinking said:

I’ll say it….he would come under the mosaic Law and when Christ died faithful…..he would then become under Christs Law….and as Christ instructed Peter to put away his sword thus he would say to Cornelius….thus he would be just like you and me…completely neutral..and looking for another job.

I'm sorry, but that's just one of the possible outcomes, that is, it's one of the interpretations that WJWorg offered as the correct interpretation of something that could or could not have happened.

There is no biblical evidence that Cornelius did this. So it remains in the realm/sphere of interpretation and speculation. Some stories end romantically and some don't.

Neutrality. There is no complete neutrality, because there is none.
Let's take a blood transfusion for example. The GB says that certain blood products can be taken, so the commandments about "abstinence from blood" are not fully obeyed. They also did not take a neutral position, because they determine what is forbidden and what is not when it comes to blood.

[Srecko Sostar]

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Obviously, what they drank would include water and milk, but the important part of the dietary food decree is what they were allowed to eat, with no concern for what they would drink. 

Please, what about alcohol? lol

[Srecko Sostar]

10 hours ago, Many Miles said:

As it turned out, there was an express statement of prohibition related to food, and it didn't include meat. Humans had already been given dominion over animals, which are made of meat. Humans had also been given vegetation, yet there was one item of vegetation that, though God had given humans vegetation, He singled out that one item of vegetation and said you can't eat of that, if you do you will die. But of the animals God had given humans dominion over, no such prohibition was issued. Would it have been "right" of God to have known there was another item given that if eaten it would lead to death, and He didn't tell Adam and Eve?

 

I think WTJWorg could blur the answers to such questions along the lines of:

God is omniscient, he sees and foretells the future, but he doesn't want to know every thing in advance because he respects man's privacy. So, God did not know that Adam and Eve would sin. And because of his "ignorance", God could not give instructions for something he had no idea could be important to future generations.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

8 hours ago, Many Miles said:

"But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die."

"Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat."

The consequences of the procedures differ. The first one was sentenced to death. There is no penalty for the second procedure.
So why does the exclusion apply to those who take blood. That is, according to the new regulation, it is called self-exclusion.

WTJWorg Lawyers playing with legalism of term disfellowshipping and dissociating. They want to present GB as respecters of human rights to freedom of choice.

[Many Miles]

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Here I thought I was done, then I get goaded into another response.

JWI, you have my profound apology that I made you feel goaded into a response. It was not my intention. You articulate yourself as knowledgeable and willing to entertain subjects others would ignore because of the work of thinking. (And thinking is work!) When I run into a person like this I feel I can learn from them, so I engage. In this case it felt like goading on your end. For that I apologize.

What you've written sounds appropriate to me, especially the part about not being dogmatic in the face of a possibility "IT" could refer to everything God had just given to humans, not only the vegetation. And, to be sure, I'm not going to leverage a possibility here.

WARNING: What follows uses the term "eat" to mean take in the digestive track as food nutrition. If this usage offends a reader's senses this is forewarning.

Assuming the likelihood that "IT" only refers to vegetation that was given, that still does not change that, as vegetation was given, dominion of the animals and "all the earth" was also given. The antecedent of giving dominion of animals and "all the earth" had to have a consequent. If, as you propose, the consequent is not expressly stated then the question becomes, what is the consequent of being given dominion of animals and of being given "all the earth". So then we look at actions involving animals and "all the earth" that God approved of for an answer. What do we find? Here are a few examples:

- Humans could use animal skins as clothing; hence humans could use animal flesh to serve practical needs, including transplanting animal tissue onto their own tissue (that's what clothing is).

- Abel herded sheep, so humans could coral or otherwise control animals.

- Abel killed animals, so humans could take the life of animals for their own purposes.

- Abel offered choice animal parts to God, so humans understood the rich pieces of meat and offered those to God. (Would Abel have offered to God something for Him to consume that he [Abel] thought was indecent or inappropriate to consume for himself?)

- Humans could eat milk. This despite it not being vegetation.

- Humans could eat water. This despite it not being vegetation.

Given these, it is utterly impossible to conclude the consequent of being given dominion of animals did not include eating their flesh, and this is precisely the unstated consequent of being given vegetation presented in the near parallel account at Genesis 9. I mean, if humans could transplant animal tissue onto the own tissue, how does one argue this wouldn't include the tissue of the mouth and esophagus? Tissue is tissue.

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I am not dogmatic that this restricted their diet to fruit trees and herbs, only that the account is deliberately putting emphasis on Jehovah's provisions of herbs and trees.

I'm glad to hear this. I agree there is some sort of poetic prose going on in the early Genesis account. You've alluded to it yourself in former postings here, and in this case you do so by underscoring what comes across as deliberate intent in relation to vegetation (herbs, trees, et. al.). Yet we know humans being given dominion of animals and "all the earth" had some consequent, and if it's unstated that leaves practically endless possibilities. We know too that vegetation was not the sole thing humans could eat, because they could eat water and milk too (of necessity).

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

While subduing the fish and other animals might be a reasonable indication that would come into play regarding their diet, It's still a stretch to move the antecedent of IT in Genesis 1:29 back to include the dominion over animals as food. 

Which brings something else into question regarding animals. What, precisely, is the "green vegetation" that deep sea creatures are supposed to eat? The text doesn't say, and there's no photosynthesis to produce green vegetation.

When it comes to what soulical creatures could utilize as food, the early Genesis account is woefully incomplete. It paints a picturesque serenity, when in fact there was lots of defecation, death and ecosystem at work (what many people look upon as "gore"). It's interesting that, as an educated agrarian, my view understands all this (natural earth ecosystems) is at work all around me all the time (including in my own gut!), and it does not strike me as "gore". Even looking upon maggots existing and doing what they do is not gore for me to watch, it's a wondrous example of converting biological tissue into something useful for other forms of life to flourish. Anyone who grew up enough years ago also knows what an "outhouse" is. Anyone who says they never got curious and looked to the bottom to see what was going on is a liar. It's ecosystem on steroids. Those worms are just lapping that defecation up like their swimming a pasta! It's not green vegetation that those animals are eating. They're eating something that Adam and Eve were unavoidably defecating as a natural process. After eating that defecation the castings left behind by those worms is a super-food for botanical life in the form of nitrogen and other important nutrients.

 All this just strikes me as natural and normal. But, for whatever reason, the Genesis writer seems to have wanted to paint an idealistic view of Eden.

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

JWI, you have my profound apology that I made you feel goaded into a response.

No need to apologize. I didn't mean to sound too serious. It was merely a setup to be able to say that I will "stop kicking against the goads" which I decided to skip saying anyway.

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

What follows uses the term "eat" to mean take in the digestive track as food nutrition.

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

Humans could eat water. This despite it not being vegetation.

I don't mind the overlapping meaning of eating with drinking on a technical level, but regarding Bible commentary, Hebrew and Greek both had separate terms for eating chewable food and drinking liquid food. So I don't know how much we could ever expect the term to overlap in Hebrew (or Greek).

(Deuteronomy 9:9) . . .I remained on the mountain 40 days and 40 nights, eating no food and drinking no water. 

(Luke 17:26-28) Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of man: ²⁷  they were eating, they were drinking,... and the Flood came and destroyed them all. ²⁸ Likewise, just as it occurred in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building.

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

What, precisely, is the "green vegetation" that deep sea creatures are supposed to eat? The text doesn't say, and there's no photosynthesis to produce green vegetation.

True. You can't expect a Bible account to give every detail we might wonder about. Much of the text is poetic shorthand. Also although the term does mean "green," the exact same term will often just mean grass/leaves/stalks etc. For example, both of the following are good translations:

(Numbers 22:4) So Moʹab said to the elders of Midʹi·an: “Now this congregation will devour all our surroundings, just as a bull devours the grass in the field.”. . .

(Numbers 22:4) 4 So Moʹab said to the elders of Midʹi·an: “Now this congregation will devour all our surroundings, just as a bull devours the green in the field.”. . .

This reminded me that the term "devour" is actually the NWT choice for a word that technically means to "lick up" which is the way the KJV and others translate it. But I mention it because the usual term for "eat" is the same word often translated "devour," especially when it comes to beasts. It would be odd, but a translator would thus have the right to say that Adam and Eve were given every tree to "devour." Or to Noah "You must not devour [flesh with its] blood." That potential connotation could refer to the fact that the mouth is chewing something up and therefore smashing and crushing with teeth, for example. That may be part of the reason that the word is never used of milk, water, or alcohol. 

[Many Miles]

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I hoped to get back more directly to the topic of Acts 15. It seemed to me that the "James decree" had treated "abstain from blood" as if it had a more specific meaning that might not have included "things strangled." Otherwise why would it need to be added if it were already included in items that were not properly drained, for example? Today we think of the abstain from blood prohibition as already including "things strangled." 

You've drawn a circle around something, which, as I read it, wonders why have "abstain from things strangled" when it's no more than a subset of "abstain from blood". As I read it, that makes you wonder if "abstain from blood" has more of a meaning, and I think you are right to wonder. So, let me throw a log on that fire...

My response is going to limit itself to the apostolic decree being a result of standards recognized prior to Mosaic Law, which I know is debatable depending on perspective.

In the context of Genesis 9 abstaining from "things strangled" would refer only to animals killed by strangulation at the hand of humans who want to use the flesh as food. When it comes to abstaining from "blood", Genesis 9 speaks of abstaining from more than eating blood of slaughtered animals (whether by strangulation or other means). Genesis 9 also speaks of abstaining from "shedding man’s blood" in the form of unjustified homicide. Hence, the later apostolic decree to "abstain from blood" could be 1) another say of saying "abstain from bloodguilt" or 2) it could be a transpositional term that includes literal blood and unjustified homicide. In the former case (1) "abstain from things strangled" would be include flesh whose blood had not been drained as part of the decree, and in the latter case (2) "abstain from things strangled" would be to make sure what was written as a transpositional phrase is not misunderstood to only refer to bloodguilt.

That said, I'm away from my library at the moment, but I have a fairly objective analytical commentary I'd like to consult before offering much thought on what you circle, which, as I read it, wonders why have "abstain from things strangled" when it's no more than a subset of "abstain from blood". Something in my aging memory recalls that source offered some insight into the question you raise. If I find something helpful I'll share it.

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Another thing I noticed is that Ezekiel seems to refer back to a rabbinic style Noahide list in Ezekiel 33, and if so it apparently breaks down the Noahide "blood" reference to some additional ideas related to blood, too. (Not that Noah directly mentions idolatry and fornication/adultery although some rabbis derived this from Noah's proper sanctioned sacrifice, and the command for moral sanctioned sexual relations that would "be fruitful and fill the earth."

Note that passage mentions blood, idolatry, and fornication/adultery, more similar to Acts 15, but appears to expand "no blood" to unbled meat, murder/bloodshed, and reliance on the sword.

(Ezekiel 33:25, 26) . . .Therefore say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: “You are eating food with the blood, and you lift up your eyes to your disgusting idols, and you keep shedding blood. So why should you possess the land? ²⁶  You have relied on your sword, you engage in detestable practices, and each of you has defiled his neighbor’s wife. So why should you possess the land?”’

I can honestly say I've never considered this portion of Ezekiel in relation to the apostolic decree of Acts 15. When I have time I'm going to take a closer look at this. Thanks for raising this.

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I don't mind the overlapping meaning of eating with drinking on a technical level, but regarding Bible commentary, Hebrew and Greek both had separate terms for eating chewable food and drinking liquid food. So I don't know how much we could ever expect the term to overlap in Hebrew (or Greek).

No matter the language a person speaks, everyone knows an infant suckling its mother teats is eating, and milk is the food.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

True. You can't expect a Bible account to give every detail we might wonder about. Much of the text is poetic shorthand. Also although the term does mean "green," the exact same term will often just mean grass/leaves/stalks etc.

Perhaps my statement you respond to here was too precisely worded. I was borrowing the phrase "green vegetation" and I did spell out photosynthesis, but in my head the real point is that I don't know of many creatures that dwell in the deep sea whose primary source of eating is vegetation.

Also, the fact that we know the Bible account fails to give every detail about available nutritional resources that humans and animals likely and legally (meaning God was okay with it) made use of is only one more reason to defer to what we see in the natural created world and accept what we find there as additional testimony of God's will. Ever heard of a salt lick? Natural salt licks provide animals with essential mineral nutrients. These are not vegetation, yet animals will seek out these mineral deposits because they need them. Just look at the tremendous effort that some mountain goats go to in order to get to these minerals, which they're not getting from vegetation alone. Yet Genesis is totally silent on this subject. Good thing the written testimony of the Bible tells us that we also have the unwritten testimony of creation that also tells us of God's will.

[Many Miles]

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The consequences of the procedures differ. The first one was sentenced to death. There is no penalty for the second procedure.
So why does the exclusion apply to those who take blood. That is, according to the new regulation, it is called self-exclusion.

Yes, I didn't highlight that aspect though it's true no penalty is expressly stated in one versus the other in respect to eating.

I'm not sure one is directly related to the other, but there is another parallel of sorts between the early Genesis account versus the later Genesis account of Noah. Here's what I'm speaking of:

1) The earliest humans were prohibited from one item of food under penalty of death. But killing animals was legal because God had given humans dominion over animals. Hence Abel could legally kill an animal, and he did. Yet, nothing said to the earliest humans placed a penalty on killing a human, though humans had not been given dominion of other humans. So, only after the unjustified first recorded killing of a human do we find an express statement condemning the act.

Fast forward to Noah

2) To Noah, more is addressed than just dominion of animals and vegetation and the prohibition of eating blood of slaughtered animals. Unjustified killing of humans is also addressed, and in that case, just as in the case of the forbidden tree of knowledge, if a person partook of unjustified homicide they were condemned to die.

There is a lot of parallel between the early record of Genesis and the later account as relayed to Noah.

These parallels only further underscore the value of giving as an antecedent to a consequent of allowable for use as needed in relation to whatever was the thing given.

[Srecko Sostar]

abstain

verb [ I ]

US  /æbˈsteɪn, əb-/

to not do something you could do, esp. something that is unhealthy or gives you pleasure:

Some families abstain from eating fried food.

If you abstain from voting, you do not vote although you are permitted to vote.

to choose to refrain: he abstained from alcohol

abstain (from something) to decide not to do or have something, especially something you like or enjoy, because it is bad for your health or considered morally wrong

to abstain from alcohol/sex/drugs

I have already noted that the term "abstain" is weaker than the term "prohibition/ban". Abstinence is left to personal choice, personal willpower, personal motivation. Furthermore, the word, at least for me, gives the impression of a decision that applies in the short term. Or as a decision not to do something temporarily. For the benefit (in favor) of yourself or others.

 

[Many Miles]

17 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I have already noted that the term "abstain" is weaker than the term "prohibition/ban". Abstinence is left to personal choice, personal willpower, personal motivation. Furthermore, the word, at least for me, gives the impression of a decision that applies in the short term. Or as a decision not to do something temporarily. For the benefit (in favor) of yourself or others.

That's a perspective I've not really explored, as least not that I can recall at the moment. In English translation from different original languages, we have:

Gen 2:17: you must not

Gen 9:4: YOU must not

Acts 15:20: abstain from

Could be the difference between you can't versus you shouldn't.

It's subtle. But it's a curiosity. I'm gonna give this more thought.

[Srecko Sostar]

57 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Yet, nothing said to the earliest humans placed a penalty on killing a human, though humans had not been given dominion of other humans. So, only after the unjustified first recorded killing of a human do we find an express statement condemning the act.

To rule over or dominate others. I found this article an interesting perspective. It deals with man's dominion over creation. - https://religiondispatches.org/reexamining-the-shaky-theology-that-gives-humans-dominion-over-all-creation/

Domination has led to a global alienation between man and nature. Man is mostly a master who selfishly exploits and destroys all living things around him. The Bible translations use the term "rule over" the plant and animal world, over the earth (the planet). The consequences are catastrophic, but God has allowed or even commanded it, without giving instructions on how people should rule.

On the other hand, although there is no commandment or prohibition to rule over people, this is a consequence of the biblical text. For we are dealing here with ideas: 1) If something is not expressly forbidden, is it permitted or permissible? 2) If something is not expressly permitted, is it forbidden?

Did God give Adam authority over Eve? To rule over her? Is this stated directly or indirectly somewhere in the Bible text? Were Adam and Eve supposed to rule over children, grandchildren and other people?

Maybe we should put it under a new topic?