Jehovah's Witnesses and Blood - Part 4

We have thus considered the historical, secular and scientific aspects of the No Blood doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses. We continue with the final segments which address the biblical perspective. In this article we carefully examine the first of the three pivotal verses used to support the No Blood doctrine. Genesis 9:4 says:

"But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." (NIV)


It is acknowledged that examining the biblical perspective necessarily involves entering the realm of lexicons, dictionaries, theologians and their commentaries, as well as using rationale to connect the dots. At times, we find common ground; at times, views are incompatible. In this article, I share a perspective that has theological support.  However, I acknowledge one cannot be dogmatic on any point in which scripture itself is not clear and emphatic. What I share is a strong inclination, the most logical path I have discovered among available paths.

In preparing this article, I found it helpful to consider history from the third to sixth creative day, and then history from Adam's creation to the flood. Very little was recorded by Moses in the first 9 chapters of Genesis dealing specifically with animals, sacrifices and animal meat (though the period from man's creation spans more than 1600 years). We must connect the few dots available with solid lines of logic and rationale, looking to the ecosystem that surrounds us today as supporting the inspired record.

The World Before Adam


When I began compiling information for this article, I tried to imagine the earth at the time when Adam was created. Grass, plants, fruit trees and other trees were created on the third day, so they were fully established much as we see them today. The sea creatures and flying creatures were created on the fifth creative day, so their numbers and all their variety were teeming in the oceans and flocking in the trees. The animals moving upon the earth were created early in the sixth creative day according to their kinds (in varied climatic locations), so by the time that Adam came along, these had multiplied and were flourishing in variety all over the planet. Basically, the world when man was created was very similar to what we see when visiting a natural wildlife preservation somewhere on the planet today.

All living creation on land and sea (except humankind) were designed with a limited life span. The life cycle of being born  or hatched, mating and giving birth or laying eggs, multiplying, then aging and dying, was all part of the cycle of the designed ecosystem. The community of living organisms all interacted with the nonliving environment (e.g. air, water, mineral soil, sun, atmosphere). It was truly a perfect world. Man marveled as he discovered the ecosystem we witness today:

"A blade of grass 'eats' sunlight through photosynthesis; an ant will then carry away and eat a kernel of grain from the grass; a spider will catch the ant and eat it; a praying mantis will eat the spider; a rat will eat the praying mantis; a snake will eat the rat;, a mongoose will eat the snake; and a hawk will then swoop down and eat the mongoose." (The Scavengers' Manifesto 2009 pp. 37-38)


Jehovah described his work as very good after each creative day. We can be certain that the ecosystem was part of his intelligent design. It was not a result of random chance, nor survival of the fittest. The planet was thus prepared to welcome its most important tenant, humankind. God gave man dominion over all the living creation. (Gen 1:26-28) When Adam came alive, he awoke to the most amazing wildlife retreat one could imagine. The global ecosystem was established and thriving.
Does not the above contradict Gen 1:30, where it states that living creatures ate vegetation for food? The record does state that God gave living creatures vegetation for food, not that all living creatures actually ate vegetation. Certainly, many do eat grass and vegetation. But as the above example so vividly illustrates. many do not directly eat vegetation. Yet, can we not say that vegetation is the origin of the food source for the whole of the animal kingdom, and humankind in general? When we eat steak or venison, are we eating vegetation? Not directly. But is not grass and vegetation the source of the meat?

Some choose to view Gen 1:30 as literal, and they suggest that things were different back in the Garden. To these I ask: When did things change? What secular evidence supports a change in the planet's ecosystem at anytime during the last 6000 years—or ever?  To harmonize this verse with the ecosystem God created requires us to view the verse in a general sense. Animals eating grass and vegetation become food for those that were created to prey upon them for food, and so forth. In this sense, it can be said that the whole animal kingdom is supported by vegetation. Regarding animals being carnivores and at the same vegetation being viewed as their food, note the following:

"The geological evidence of the existence of death in prehistoric times is, however, too powerful to be resisted; and the Biblical record itself enumerates among the pre-adamic animals the chayyah of the field, which clearly belonged to the carnivora. Perhaps the most that can be safely concluded from the language is 'that it indicates merely the general fact that the support of the whole animal kingdom is based on vegetation'. (Dawson)." (Pulpit Commentary)


Imagine an animal dying of old age in the Garden. Imagine tens of thousands dying outside the Garden every day. What happened to their dead carcasses? Without scavengers to eat and decompose all the dead matter, the planet would soon become a cemetery of inedible dead animals and dead plants, the nutrients of which would be bound up and lost forever. There would be no cycle. Can we imagine any other arrangement than what we observe today in the wild?
So we proceed with the first dot connected: The ecosystem we witness today existed before and during the time of Adam.   

When Did Man Begin Eating Meat?


The Genesis account says that in the Garden, man was given "every seed-bearing plant" and "every seed-bearing fruit" for food. (Gen 1:29)  It is a proven fact that man can exist (very well I might add) on nuts, fruits and vegetation. In that man did not need meat to survive, I lean toward accepting the premise that man did not eat meat before the fall. In that he had been given dominion over the animals (naming those indigenous to the Garden), I envision a more pet-like relationship. I doubt Adam would have viewed such friendly critters as his evening meal. I imagine he became somewhat attached to some of these. Too, we remember his richly abundant vegetarian menu provided from the Garden.
But when man fell and was put out of the Garden, Adam's food menu changed dramatically. He no longer had access to the lush fruit which was like "meat" to him. (compare Gen 1:29 KJV) Nor did he have the variety of garden vegetation. He would now have to toil to produce "field" vegetation. (Gen 3:17-19)  Immediately after the fall, Jehovah slayed an animal (presumably in the presence of Adam) for a useful purpose, namely; skins to be used as their garments. (Gen 3:21)  In so doing, God demonstrated that animals could be slayed and used for utilitarian purposes (garments, tent coverings, etc). Does it seem logical that Adam would slay an animal, peel the skin off, then leave its dead carcass for scavengers to consume?
Imagine yourself as Adam. You just forfeited the most wonderful and tasty vegetarian menu ever imagined. All you now have for food is what you can eke out of the ground; ground which likes to grow thistles by the way. If you came upon an animal that had died, would you skin it and leave the carcass? When you hunted and killed an animal, would you use only its skin, leaving the dead carcass for scavengers to feed on? Or would you address that gnawing hunger pain in your stomach, perhaps-cooking the meat over fire or cutting the meat in thin slices and drying it out like jerky?

Man would have killed animals for another reason, namely, to maintain dominion over them. In and around villages where humans resided, the animal population had to be controlled. Imagine if man did not control the animal population during the 1,600 years leading to the flood? Imagine packs of wild preditorial beasts ravaging domesticated flocks and herds, even man?  (compare Ex 23:29) Regarding domesticated animals, what would man do with those he used for work and for their milk when they were no longer useful for this purpose? Wait for them to die of old age?

We proceed with the second dot connected: After the fall, man ate animal meat.  

When Did Man First Offer Meat In Sacrifice?


We know not if Adam raised herds and flocks and offered animals in sacrifice immediately after the fall. We do know that about 130 years after Adam was created, Abel slaughtered an animal and offered part of it in sacrifice (Gen 4:4) The account tells us he slaughtered his firstlings, the fattest of his flock. He butchered off the "fatty pieces" which were the choicest cuts. These choice cuts were offered to Jehovah. To help us connect the dots, three questions must be resolved:

  1. Why did Abel raise sheep? Why not be a farmer like his brother?

  2. Why did he choose the fattest from his flock to slaughter in sacrifice?

  3. How did he know to butcher away the "fatty parts?"  


There is only one logical answer to the above. Abel was in the habit of eating animal meat. He raised flocks for their wool and since they were clean, they could be used as food and in sacrifice. We know not if this was the first sacrifice offered. No matter, Abel chose the fattest, most plump from his flocks, because they were the ones with "fatty parts." He butchered away the "fatty parts" because he knew these were the choicest, the best tasting. How did Abel know these were the choicest? Only one familiar with eating meat would know. Otherwise, why not offer a younger lean lamb to Jehovah?


Jehovah found favor with the "fatty parts."  He saw that Abel was giving up something special—the choicest—to give to his God. Now that is what sacrifice is all about. Did Abel consume the rest of the meat of the lamb offered in sacrifice? In that he offered only the fatty parts (not the entire animal) logic suggests he ate the rest of the meat, instead of leaving it on the ground for scavengers.
We proceed with the third dot connected: Abel set a pattern that animals were to be slaughtered and used in sacrifice to Jehovah. 

The Noachian Law — Something New?


Hunting and raising animals for food, their skins, and for use in sacrifice was part of everyday life during the centuries that passed from Abel to the flood. This was the world that Noah and his three sons were born into. We can logically deduce that during these centuries of time, man had learned to co-exist with animal life (both domesticated and wild) in relative harmony within the ecosystem. Then came the days just preceding the flood, with the influence of the demonic angels that materialized on earth, which upset the balance of things. Men became fierce, violent, even barbaric, capable of eating animal flesh (even human flesh) while the animal was still breathing. Animals may also have become more fierce in this environment. To get the sense of how Noah would have understood the command, we must visualize this scene in our minds.
Let's now examine Genesis 9:2-4:

"The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But [only] you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." (NIV)


In verse 2, Jehovah said that fear and dread will fall upon all the animals, and that all living creatures will be given into the hand of man. Wait, were not animals given into the hand of man since the fall? Yes. However, if our presumption that Adam was a vegetarian before the fall is accurate, the dominion that God gave man over living creatures did not include hunting and killing them for food. When we connect dots, after the fall man did hunt and kill animals for food. But hunting and killing was not officially sanctioned until this day. However, with the official permission came a proviso (as we shall see). As for the animals, especially those wild game animals typically hunted for food, they would perceive man's agenda to hunt them, which would increase their fear and dread of him.

In verse 3, Jehovah says that everything that lives and moves about will be food (this is nothing new to Noah and his sons) BUT....ONLY....

In verse 4, man receives a proviso which is new. For over 1,600 years men have hunted, killed, sacrificed, and eaten animal meat. But nothing was ever stipulated regarding the manner in which the animal should be killed. Adam, Abel, Seth, and all that followed them had no directive to drain the blood of the animal before using it in sacrifice and/or eating it. While they may have chosen to do so, they might also have strangled the animal, given it a blow to the head, drowned it, or left it in trap to die on its own. All of which would cause the animal more suffering and leave blood in its flesh. So the new command prescribed the only method acceptable for man when taking an animal's life. It was humane, as the animal was put out of its misery in the most expedient means possible. Typically when bled, an animal loses consciousness within one to two minutes.

Recall that immediately before Jehovah spoke these words, Noah had just led the animals off the ark and built an alter. He then offered some of the clean animals as a burnt sacrifice. (Gen 8:20) It is important to note that nothing is mentioned regarding Noah slaughtering them, bleeding them, or even removing their skins (as was later prescribed in the law). They may have been offered whole while still alive. If this is so, imagine the agony and suffering the animals experienced while being burned alive. If so, Jehovah's command addressed this as well.

The account at Genesis 8:20 confirms that Noah (and his ancestors) did not view blood as anything sacred. Noah now understood that when man takes the life of an animal, draining its blood to hasten death was the exclusive method approved by Jehovah. This applied to domesticated animals and hunted wild animals. This applied if the animal would be used in sacrifice or for food, or both. This would also include burnt sacrifices (such as Noah had just offered) so that they would not be in agony in the fire.
This of course paved the way for the blood of an animal (whose life was taken by man) to become a sacred substance used in conjunction with sacrifices. The blood would represent the life inside the flesh, so when drained out it confirmed the animal was dead (could feel no pain). But it wasn't until the passover, centuries later, that blood came to be viewed as a sacred substance. That being said, there would have been no issue with Noah and his sons eating the blood in the flesh of animals that had died on their own, or were killed by another animal. As man would not be responsible for their death, and their flesh did not have life, the command did not apply (compare Deut 14:21).  Furthermore, some theologians suggest that Noah and his sons could have used the blood (drained out of the slaughtered animal) as food, such as for blood sausage, blood pudding, et cetera. When we consider the purpose of the command (to hasten the death of the animal in a humane manner), once the blood is drained from its living flesh and the animal is deceased, has not the command then been fully complied with? To use the blood for any purpose (be it utilitarian or for food) after complying with the command would seem to be permissible, since it falls outside the scope of the command.

A Prohibition, or a Conditional Proviso?


In summary, Genesis 9:4 is one of the three textual legs of support for the No Blood doctrine. After close examination, we see that the command is not a general prohibition against eating blood, as the JW doctrine purports, for under Noachian law, man could eat the blood of an animal he was not responsible for killing. So, the command is a regulation or proviso imposed upon man only when he caused the death of a living creature. It mattered not if the animal was to be used in sacrifice, for food, or for both. The proviso applied only when man was responsible for taking its life, that is to say, when the living creature died.

Let's now attempt to apply the Noachian law to receiving a blood transfusion. There is no animal involved. Nothing is hunted down, nothing is slayed. The donor is a human being not an animal, who is not harmed in any way. The recipient is not eating the blood, and the blood may well preserve the recipient's life. So we ask: How is this remotely connected to Genesis 9:4?


Moreover, recall Jesus said that to lay down one's life to save the life of his friend is the greatest act of love. (John 15:13) In the case of a donor, he is not required to lay down his life. The donor is not harmed in any way. Do we not honor Jehovah, the lover of life, by making such a sacrifice for the life of another? To repeat something shared in Part 3: With those who are Jewish (who are ultra-sensitive regarding the use of blood), should a transfusion be deemed medically necessary, it is not only viewed is as permissible, it is obligatory.     

In the final segment we will examine the two remaining textual legs of support for the No Blood Doctrine, namely, Leviticus 17:14 and Acts 15:29.

Archived Comments

We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.

  • Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-02-06 13:11:35

    Thanks Sopater.
    I particularly appreciate the insight into Genesis 1:30 which shows the danger of always insisting a verse be read literally.
    The reasoning regarding how meat might have been used pre-flood is also important to dispel much JW dogma.

    • Reply by AndereStimme on 2016-02-06 16:37:33

      This way of understanding Gen 1:30 also resolves the problem of the carnivore imagery used in God's warning to Cain that sin was "crouching at your door" (Gen 4:7). It also frees us from having to insist that T-Rex was one of the fiercest vegetation-thrashers of the Jurassic.
      But getting back to Cain, other odd notions resulting from the insistence that all animals in the pre-fall days were herbivores include the idea that God's conversation with Cain was revealed to Moses but then Moses decided to misquote God's words for impact:
      *** w94 2/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
      "So, again, Moses might have been using language adapted to readers familiar with the post-Flood world. And even if Cain had never seen such a creature, he would have been able to get the point of a warning that likened the sinful desire in him to a hungry, ravenous beast."
      Perhaps God revealed this conversation when Moses' didn't have his chisel and stone tablet on him, forcing him to write it from memory later.

      • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-06 19:43:33

        Excellent point Andere.

      • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-02-08 12:04:10

        Oddly enough, the organization whose teaching at issue (Watchtower's blood doctrine) depends on one hand of a pre-flood environment where worshippers of God did not eat meat does, on the other hand, admit in the pre-sin era there was carnivores aplenty!
        Assuming Adam spent considerable time observing creation (what else did he have to do but sleep?) then he'd have witnessed the use of meat as food by carnivores. Specifically I have in mind carrion meat of animals dead of "natural" cause.
        I don't see why Adam would have thought it wrong to experiment with food eaten by creatures he ruled over. If creatures subservient to him could eat this sort of food then why couldn't he as their ruler? What is more wrong about eating a piece of dead flesh laying on the ground than eating an apple off the ground? I'm not suggesting a natural law fallacy. Rather, I'm asking what precisely is there in the biblical text that would have made Adam think it wrong to eat one thing versus another thing when the only thing he was told to abstain from eating was of the tree of knowledge? I don't see anything in the text that would necessarily have led Adam to think eating carrion meat was wrong.
        Then we have Abel's sacrifice to God of fatty piece of a slaughtered sheep. Why on earth would Abel have thought it okay to sacrifice something to God that it was wrong to eat? If it was good enough to offer to God then why would Abel have thought it was not good enough for him as food?

        • Reply by AndereStimme on 2016-02-08 13:01:15

          There's also the issue of predators like Cheetahs. Were they created to run at 70 mph to chase down carrion or vegetation? The fact is, predators are designed from their claws to the legs to their stomachs to their teeth to catch live prey. Adam, whose job list included observing the animals so as to name them, could hardly have failed to notice this. So, if animals could kill other animals for food, why couldn't he? That question would have been especially relevant when he found himself outside the garden with limited edible vegetation available. So the two speculative views are:
          1. Adam was knowledgeable enough on edible vegetation to eek out an existence without resorting to meat.
          2. Adam took his cue from God's use of skins and predator's killing of live prey and supplemented his diet with meat.
          Of the two, I think the first leaves the most questions hanging. Many of those questions have been raised by Sopater in reply to some of the counterpointing commenters. It would be interesting if those commenters could, dispassionately and with reference to the relevant scriptures, attempt to answer those questions instead of making unflattering accusations and then claiming to be victims of persecution.

          • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-08 13:56:04

            Andere,
            The continents and oceans as we see them today have existed since the third creative day. As soon as the continents were established, grass, trees and vegetation began growing.
            Psalms 104:5-9 says:
            "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them. You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth."
            You mentioned Cheetahs. I'm of the opinion that Africa at the time of Adam was much the same as today.
            Every year the "Mara" is the venue for the great migration of about 2.5 million animals making a round-trip journey of about 1250 miles. Many do not make the trek as they become sick and are eaten by scavengers and carrion. Who programmed all of this? Why migrate then come back?
            Similarly the Serengeti, where herds graze on plains and lions and cheetahs maintain a vigil from their lookout kopjes.
            To imagine these amazing creatures as anything other than preditorial is utterly impossible for me.
            Sopater

          • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-02-08 14:06:03

            Of number 1: Assuming Adam was sufficiently knowledgeable to eek out an existence without resorting to eating meat, my question is why would he? Meat is essentially as edible as vegetation. Wondering why Adam would have abstained from eating meat of a goat is like wondering whether he'd have abstained from eating milk of a goat. What reason would he have had to abstain from either? Insofar as I know Adam was never threatened with losing life for eating meat, as though it was considered some immoral act.
            Of number 2: Since God placed animal tissue onto Adam and Eve's human tissue then my question is what is wrong with Adam and Eve placing animal tissue on to the tissue of their tongues? What on earth is the difference? I don't see any, and I don't see anything in the record suggesting the act somehow wrong.
            Certainly the text of Genesis 1:26-30 is insufficient to suggest it wrong for humans to eat meat because the text is not comprehensive when it comes to either human or animal diet. Where does this text address milk? It doesn't. Does that mean milk from mammary glands was off limits for animals and/or humans? Where does this text address water? It doesn't? Is this supposed to mean early worshippers of God were not supposed to eat water as part of their nutritional uptake?
            Then we have the text of Genesis 6:21 where God gave Noah explicit permission to gather "every sort of food eaten" which he could use as food for himself and the animals. Unless we're ready to think carrion meat was not a "sort of food eaten" since creation then we're left with no alternative than to conclude Noah had express permission to gather and use carrion meat as food for himself and the animals. When Watchtower has addressed this text (Gen 6:21) the idea of this including meat is dismissed because Noah didn't have a deepfreeze unit to store meat in. Does everyone know how absurd that is? Noah didn't have a deepfreeze to store vegetation in either, so how did he store that? He stored it by drying it, just like the ancients stored meat.

          • Reply by Father jack on 2016-02-08 14:53:52

            Hahaha andere like it mate . Were cheetahs created to run at 70 mph to catch vegtables , possibly ! Perhaps the runner bean wouldnt have been that easy to catch or maybe the spring onion , ! FJ

  • Comment by rose on 2016-02-06 14:42:55

    we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. Act :15:28 .
    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 Act :21:25.
    This information was clearly directed towards the gentile nations which were non Jewish therefore it must be applicable to Christianity regardless of its origins.
    The bottom line is.. Everything we eat gets broken down and is carried
    along by the circulatory system and supplies various nutrients to the body.
    If you take poison orally you can surely die if you take it intravenously you can surely die as well
    So whether you
    take blood orally or intravenously is basically the same
    thing

    • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-06 19:38:40

      Rose,
      I ask you the same questions I asked Luke:
      1. When eating meat from animals sacrificed to idols (some of which had been strangled), were Christians disobeying the Apostolic Decree? (Acts 15:29)
      2. Was Paul enabling Christians to disobey God’s law?
      3. Was Paul an apostate?
      Rose, have you read Parts 1 and 2? If so, please re-read the scientific evidence that proves there is no comparison between drinking and digesting blood as food, and an intravenous injection. It's apples vs. oranges.
      Remember, the concern is blood as food, and as a nutrient. It is a fact that red blood cells (hemoglobin) carry no nutrition whatsoever. Why are they banned?
      your brother,
      Sopater

      • Reply by rose on 2016-02-08 09:09:20

        After seeing how you guys bullied Luke rather than try to help him to understand or me, I have nothing more to say and
        I think you brothers and sisters are so angry at the watchtower that you are taking it out on everyone who disagrees with you.
        It makes me really sad because I truly thought I was in a safe haven but I guess i was wrong.
        I will continue to search for truth elsewhere.

        • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-08 09:52:14

          Rose,
          I'm sorry if you feel we tried to bully you or Luke, that is never our intention.
          The simple fact is, the No Blood doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses collapses upon itself when placed under scrutiny. If it were truth, it would stand. If the doctrine was actually Jehovah's thoughts, the premise of physicians 300 years ago would still be scientifically sound to this very day.
          Sadly, their thinking was not God's thinking, it was merely a notion based upon ignorance.
          I hope that you will allow yourself to read (re-read) all four articles with an open mind, praying for Jehovah's spirit to help you settle this in your mind. What has been provided is not an attempt to create a different doctrine than JW, or insist upon a particular view. It is merely information, historical, secular and scientific, that we all need in order to make an informed decision. It is a life and death matter.
          You feel our motive is driven out of anger toward the WT, and we vent on everyone who disagrees.
          I'm sorry my sister, if we are guilty of anything, we are guilty of sacrificing hundreds of hours from our personal lives (and families) out of sincere love for our neighbor. It is a travesty when someone dies unnecessarily out of ignorance.
          I hope you reconsider and remain with us. If not, I wish you all the best in your journey to find truth.
          Your brother,
          Sopater

    • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-02-08 10:28:36

      Hello Rose,
      It is not my aim to add to any burden, but I'm compelled to ask a couple questions based on what you write here.
      1. What blood was Noah told to abstain from?
      2. What abstention from that blood was he to abide by?
      I think answering these two questions is vital if we want to follow the blood abstention placed upon all humankind (including "gentiles"). I think it also important that we not go beyond what is written by forming conclusions based on premises we don't find in applicable biblical text.

    • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-02-08 19:05:48

      Rose,
      You wrote something above suggesting IV administration of poison is essentially the same thing as oral administration of poison. When I first read this I was speechless wondering how we get led to thinking like this. Let me explain.
      Most here are familiar with isopropyl alcohol. We don't usually think of this as a poison, but like most things (including water!) it can lead to poisoning. We can experience poisoning from isopropanol by eating too much of it, which is oral administration. We can also experience isopropanol poisoning by absorbing too much of it through the skin from topical application. Does this mean putting isopropyl alcohol on our skin is essentially the same basic thing as eating it (oral ingestion)?
      Whether Noah knew it or not he gained medicinal benefit from blood transplantation every time his skin got bloody on a sunny day. That's right. Topically applied blood makes for a decent sun blocker, which we know today reduces incidence of skin cancers. Were we to use blood like this would we be eating blood? Would we be breaking the requirements God gave to Noah? As a longtime agrarian Noah would, sooner or later, have noticed something else about fresh blood. When topically applied to the wound of a moderate free-bleeder he'd have noticed an improvement in blood clotting. That's because healthy blood has a natural capacity to clot whether it's in or on its host, or on the wound of some other person. Modern medicine has learned how to extract constituents from blood responsible for this process in order to improve this capability. But ancients knew of this property of fresh blood, which is why we find record of ancient physicians treating bleeding wounds with xenogeneic and/or allogeneic blood. This was a topical transplantation of blood. Would Noah have ever thought of getting (or putting!) blood onto his skin as eating blood?

  • Comment by luke on 2016-02-06 14:45:13

    I strictly adhere to abstaining from blood altogether as well as its blood fractions, I don't believe there is any gray area, the bible clearly says to abstain from blood it doesn't say we could have bits and pieces of it!.
    However what people decide to do is between them and Jehovah.
    But People should be made aware of their options concerning this issue and the alternatives

    • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-06 19:26:38

      Luke,
      We certainly have the option to interpret the decree at Acts 15:29 any way we choose. But is it sound?
      May I ask you, how do you harmonize your current understanding of Acts 15:29 with Paul, when he told Christians in Corinth they should not be concerned if meat they bought in a market (or were served in an unbeliever's home) had been sacrificed to an idol, some of which may have been strangled? (1 Cor 10:25, 27)
      Think about this. Some animals that were sacrificed were strangled, which left 100% of the blood congealed in their flesh.
      Paul in effect was saying, it's not a big deal, don't inquire about it, the meat (albeit bloody) means nothing.
      Here are two questions that arise:
      1. When eating meat from animals sacrificed to to idols (some of which had been strangled), were Christians disobeying the Apostolic Decree? (Acts 15:29)
      2. Was Paul enabling Christians to disobey God's law?
      3. Was Paul an apostate?
      your brother,
      Sopater

      • Reply by luke on 2016-02-07 00:36:00

        You could twist the scriptures around all you want but the bottom line is the bible clearly says to abstain from blood.
        P.S. Don't even bother replying back with a retort: be cause you will only be wasting your time.

        • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-07 07:42:43

          Luke,
          The fact that you are unable to harmonize your view with Paul's position should cause you concern. For our position to have any possibility of being aligned with God's thoughts, it must harmonize with scripture.
          Have you read the history, secular facts and science provided in the previous articles in this series? I can't imagine that you have, and that you still hold such an outdated position. Your position is actually contrary to modern JW's.
          A correct understanding of Acts 15:29 is crucial, how sad if we (or our loved one) were to die unnecessarily, believing that a intravenous infusion is actually eating blood, and therefore forbidden for a Christian.
          You feel the person that accepts blood fractions is NOT actually abstaining. In so doing you place yourself at odds with the GB and many in the organization who feel that blood fractions are not....... actually blood? They feel they can accept 100% of blood after fractionated and still be abstaining!
          I guess you stand with hardline JW's of decades ago?
          BTW, it's not any bother to reply back, as there are many reading our conversation that will benefit from this.
          Sopater

          • Reply by luke on 2016-02-07 10:42:22

            But turning his back, he said to Peter: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, "because you think, not God’s thoughts, but those of men".
            If the light that is in you is really darkness, how great that darkness is! .Then Jesus said to his disciples: “If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his torture stake* and keep following me. "For whoever wants to save his life* will lose it," but whoever loses his life* for my sake will find it. Really, what good will it do a man if he gains the whole world but loses his life?* Or what will a man give in exchange for his life? For the Son of man is to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will repay each one according to his behavior.
            Matthew 16: you are deceived as Eve and we know what happened to her,

            • Reply by Father jack on 2016-02-07 11:12:49

              Luke the scripture you are qouting there has its application in the fact that peter was encouraging jesus to avoid persecution and impalement at the hands of the jews and romans . What did jesus mean when picking up his torture stake . ? Or perhaps he meant STEAK . Get it .

              • Reply by luke on 2016-02-07 16:28:39

                Lol.....

                • Reply by Father jack on 2016-02-08 04:56:35

                  Luke thanks for appreciating the irony ,even though this is such a serious subject , i do think that this whole subject about use of blood is a very difficult subject to talk to others about , even jesus found it so as recorded at john 6 when in a spiritual application he said you must drink my blood v 53 many were stumbled v61 . I think romans 14 makes interesting reading on these types of issues .while not mentioning blood directly it does provide an insight of how we should all respect the choices and conscience of others . With these thoughts of romans 14 in mind the only thing i will say about the rule of acts 15 abstain from blood is that with any rule its always good to ask WHY ? when we can answer that question then we seem to see a much clearer application . Gods blessing to you luke FJ

                  • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-08 09:02:31

                    FJ,
                    It really is a serious matter.
                    I find this recent excerpt from an article in the NY Times (Jan 30, 2016) relevant. It shares the story of the latest victim of faulty air bags.
                    "He most likely did not even know that his airbag had been manufactured by Takata, the Japanese supplier whose faulty airbags have been linked to 10 deaths and more than 100 injuries, said his widow, Ann Knight.
                    'If he’d have known, he’d have gotten it fixed,' said Ms. Knight, 50. 'He took good care of that truck.' She added, 'Now something that was supposed to save him killed him.'"
                    Millions of lives of humans that drive vehicles with these air bags are at risk every day. This story has made major news, and the company involved will likely face bankruptcy over it. It will involve liability for the major automakers if they do not act quickly and recall. In this case, they had not done so yet, so there is liability.
                    Only 10 deaths thus far, and the world is this upset?
                    Mr. Knight hit a stray cow crossing the highway, causing his airbag to employ, and the metal shrapnel that hit him did so with such force investigators initially thought it might be a shooting. Ironically, he bled to death in the front seat of his truck.
                    I find aspects of this hauntingly linked to the No Blood doctrine. Everyday, the millions of individuals who carry their No Blood card are at risk. If they should be involved in a severe accident which causes significant blood loss and they suffer hemorrhagic shock, their chance of survival is grim.
                    What if such a person had known that God did not require them to carry a No Blood card?
                    Who is responsible for their carrying the card?
                    Sopater

                    • Reply by Father jack on 2016-02-08 10:27:49

                      I agree sopater . I think that the priciples of romans 14 have been violated by the watchtower society, the reason being is that they have forced thier own conscience on others . They have put themselves on judgement by what they approve not just ith the blood issue but on all sorts of issues . I suppose its one thing to make an interpretation of scripture , its another thing to make rule , but the worst thing is then to try and enforce the rule that tries to force a person to violate thier own conscience . This is a sin . It has application with the shunning issue , where pressure is applied to family members , partaking of communion , and i suppose blood , for goodness sake , why cant they just allow people to make thier own mind up by thier own bible trained conscience , galatians 6;4 and 5

            • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-02-07 13:01:15

              Luke,
              First you refuse to answer a valid Scriptural question, then you falsely imply that Sopater is twisting the Scriptures, then you exhibit a close-mindedness such as the Pharisees exemplified, and now you are comparing Sopater to Satan. These are all tactics we've seen before when people trying to support a false religious belief find themselves without any Scriptural footing. They must rely on insults and personal attacks.
              Such tactics have no place here, nor among Christians of any caliber. I realize this is likely an emotional issue, but please season your words with some salt.

            • Reply by AFRICAINE on 2016-02-07 13:31:34

              Now you are showing your true intent here - I was until this point reading your comments with an open mind and a certain empathy. You have not considered matters very deeply at all - Please don't try to abuse those commenting here by shoving you viewpoints upon them and then abusing them with your retorts - FINIS !

        • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-02-07 21:29:45

          We have an excellent example here of how to close down a discussion. Tell everyone how it is, bang your fist on the table, and then stick your fingers in your ears. Are you saying dogmatically that this is a salvation issue? Meaning, that if you accept a blood (organ) transplant, you have no chance of eternal life? That would explain your hardline stance. Remember, it is not necessarily the act, but the general attitude and heart condition that God sees. Think of David eating the showbread. Pretty serious stuff. Did being hungry justify doing it? What was David's normal attitude toward doing such a thing? Is this thinking too far outside the box for you?

        • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-02-08 08:55:53

          Hello Luke,
          If you don't mind fleshing out your view a little bit I'd much appreciate it.
          This "bottom line" that the Bible "clearly says to abstain from blood" deserves that you share the clarity you assert. Supposedly the text to which you allude is Acts Chapter 15 where it says "abstain from blood". Admittedly we see these words texted in precisely that order. But what is this supposed to mean? A living breathing human being cannot possibly literally abstain from blood because it flows in our veins! So what abstention is required of us? Are we to abstain from thinking about blood, like we are to abstain from thinking about fornicating? Are we to abstain from looking at blood, like we are to abstain from looking at a woman lustfully? Are we to abstain from talking about blood, like we are to abstain from idle talk (harmful gossip)? Are we to abstain from using blood as fertilizer? Are we to abstain from WHAT precisely when it comes to blood?
          If the clarity you suggest is evident then it should be easy enough for you to answer the questions above definitively.
          My answer to the questions I've asked above is to way the statement of Acts 15 to "abstain from blood" is no more and no less than a reiteration for sake of Christians to know God expects all humankind to abide by the ancient Noachian Decree, which included an abstention from blood. That abstention was of eating blood of animals killed for food. That's it. That's what Christians are to abstain from when it comes to blood. If you think God requires more in the way of abstention from blood than he required of ancient Noah I'd like to hear about it, and how you got there.
          Best regards, and with all respect,

          • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-08 09:11:02

            Marvin,
            I am in complete harmony with your view.
            Sopater

        • Reply by AndereStimme on 2016-02-08 15:14:31

          Hi Luke,
          I hope you don't feel bullied by yet another response, but I do have a question for you - one that bugged me for a long time as I tried to unravel this issue in a coherent manner that was respectful of our Creator's commands:
          How do you view the matter of blood tests?
          I ask this because, if we take a flat-out, black and white stance on the command to abstain from blood, it would certainly appear that we shouldn't be giving away vials and vials of the stuff to people who don't share our view on the sanctity of it.
          Now, I realize that, in the case of blood tests, the blood is not put into our bodies, but if transporting it from outside our bodies into our bodies is the issue, then how would we view organ transplants? If we're going to draw a distinction between eating and transplanting, is there a solid, scriptural reason for not drawing that same distinction between eating and transfusing blood?
          I raise these questions, not with a desire to prove you're wrong, but simply to illustrate that the issue is not as cut and dried as one might initially think, and when we try to view it as such we raise other, entirely legitimate questions.
          I don't think anyone on this forum is trying to simply 'get around' a biblical command for the sake of self-preservation. I personally aspire to having the kind of faith that would put my loyalty to God before my survival, should the two ever be in conflict. However, I wouldn't want to sacrifice my life unnecessarily, like ones who might have refused an organ transplant because someone told them it was cannibalism. So I think it's worth analyzing carefully and dispassionately, and with respect.

  • Comment by Anonymous on 2016-02-06 16:38:06

    Hi Sopater,
    As you know, I do not agree with the Society's blood transfusion ban. It lacks solid scriptural support.
    I believe:
    That the Bible should be allowed to say what it says.
    That we should not add nor subtract from text.
    That we must not place our well meaning suppositions on the same level as scripture.
    That what Jehovah allows us today to glean from scripture is only the surface reflection of what can be found there and therefore must be allowed to exist and understood as written. Otherwise, for every man there would be another string to pull, another thread to add.
    You have spent much time and effort to help others and I do appreciate that, truly.
    What I wrote above is my opinion, you of course have your opinions and I respect that.
    Your brother,
    Joshua

    • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-06 19:04:46

      Joshua,
      Thank you.
      I appreciate that you feel we must allow what is written to exist and be understood in the "as is" condition. The problem is, in its "as is" condition, if we consult only the inspired record, it is not understandable. As I see it, there is no understanding it as written.
      There is so little found in those 1600 years from Adam to the flood. Moses wasn't at all detailed, he just hit the high spots. So, do we settle with "I guess Jehovah didn't want us to understand this?"
      For certain, Jehovah has given man the ability to discover and understand the ecosystem, even on a microscopic level. It truly speaks volumes where the written record is silent.
      Must not both harmonize perfectly? They can not be at odds with each other. This is part of the inexcusable evidence (Rom 1:20).
      Jehovah gave us the intelligence to comprehend the ecosystem, now we have to connect dots.
      I respect your opinion too.
      Warm regards,
      Sopater

  • Comment by Vincent Gomez on 2016-02-06 19:53:47

    What a great article Sopater! Very cerebral, I would say. You painted a picture that I never really thought about. We get so trapped in seeing things one way, that it almost impossible to see things any other way. What I appreciated the most, is that the law directed to Noah, really had to do with God's concern for animals. That is very touching. In addition, you brought out why the fear and dread would fall over the animal kingdom. That is a scripture that I have always found intriguing, but never found a satisfying answer in the Watchtower. This article is definitely a keeper! Thanks!

    • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-07 08:24:49

      Vincent,
      Thank you brother. What you say is very true, we do get locked into looking at things one way. My "aha" moment was when I tried to visualize the planet when Adam took his first breath. I had never gone there before. The ecosystem had been functioning perfectly (as designed) for thousands of years. Like a wildlife retreat, it was just waiting for man to arrive.
      I'm an animal lover like you. It is touching to know how our Father feels about animals. Just a few verses that come to mind:
      "Do not cook a young goat in its mothers milk." (Deut 14:21)
      "Do not plow with an ox and donkey yoked together." (Deut 22:10)
      "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." (Deut 25:4)
      "Look at the birds of the air, they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. (Matt 6:26)
      Jehovah gave man permission to kill animals only for sacrifice and for food, not for sport. The proviso kept the animal from suffering any more than necessary.
      What a loving God we have.
      Phileo,
      Sopater

      • Reply by Willy on 2016-02-07 09:04:50

        "Not one sparrow forgotten by God" Luke 12:6
        Thank you brother Sopater for the wonderful article above. A few neurons added today :)
        Willy

        • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-07 09:28:10

          Thank you Willy.

  • Comment by QC on 2016-02-07 14:04:47

    Sopater said:
    [Let’s now examine Genesis 9:2-4:
    “Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.”
    Then you said, "When we connect dots, after the fall man did hunt and kill animals for food. But hunting and killing was not officially sanctioned until this day."]
    This is an unbelievable leap into speculation.
    I'm sorry, Genesis 9:2-4 is clearly a food paradigm shift for Noah and by extension the human race. "Just as I gave you the green plants" for food, I now give you "Everything that lives and moves...will be food for you."
    Humans are healthier and live longer with vegetarian diets.
    cf. http://time.com/9463/7-reasons-vegetarians-live-longer/
    The human digestive system is that of herbevoirs. Says Dr. William C. Roberts, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, "Although we think we are, and we act as if we are, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us, because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."
    I enjoyed your earlier articles because your arguments had merit. Now I suspect you should have left well enough alone.
    Pet theories are usually not worth it. That's what caused the JW leadership's demise.
    QC

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-02-07 14:10:07

      Let us not get into debates about health and nutrition.
      Jehovah would not tell his faithful servants that they could eat food that was bad for them.

      • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-02-08 08:46:24

        Meleti,
        It's well stated that God would not tell his worshippers to use something as food that was bad for them. Like any sort of food, how much, how often and how prepared is more crucial to healthy diet than whether a particular meal includes or does not include meat.
        When it comes to meat, many of our ancient brethren would have died from starvation had it not been for eating it as food.

    • Reply by AndereStimme on 2016-02-07 16:44:53

      The act of connecting the dots is inherently speculative, but in this case the leap doesn't seem unbelievable to me. That Abel tended sheep, sacrificed them and used their hides for clothing but never ate their flesh is possible, but not all that easy to believe either. That Adam didn't starve to death upon being ousted from the garden without resorting to eating animal flesh is also possible, but does raise questions. On the other hand, as you observed, God's instructions to Noah certainly do look like a "food paradigm shift". But why would God instruct Noah to eat something bad for him? Or have we degraded since then? Whichever way you go on this, you'll wind up with unanswered questions.
      It's good to bear in mind that this issue has come up because someone's speculative reasoning became a doctrine with life and death implications - a doctrine that was not left up to the individual conscience to evaluate and which was enforced under pain of excommunication.
      Speculative leaping is ok as long as we remember that that's what we're doing, and as long as we don't try to enforce our speculative views on others.

      • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-07 17:26:39

        Andere,
        You make a very good point when you said:
        "It is good to bear in mind that his issue has come up because someone’s speculative reasoning became a doctrine with life and death implications – a doctrine that was not left up to the individual conscience to evaluate and which was enforced under pain of excommunication."
        The only reason we are discussing this at BP is that someone chose to endorse a centuries old premise (while rejecting modern science) and build a doctrine with life and death implications, with coerced compliance under threat of sanction.
        Do Jews mention Gen 9:4 in their medical situations?
        Why is it that Jehovah's Witnesses are the only religion that brings Gen 9:4 into a modern day hospital setting?
        Sopater

  • Comment by QC on 2016-02-07 16:32:37

    Yes, I did veer off point.
    This point: “When we connect dots, after the fall man did hunt and kill animals for food. But hunting and killing was not officially sanctioned until this day.”
    There's no "dots" evidence that proves this is true.
    The Bible states Adams descendants were herbivores, then later (with Noah) they became carnivores/herbivores.
    Gen 9:
    2 ... all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands.
    3 "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. (NIV)
    Biology says humans are more naturally the herbivore (short digestive track, and hold food) than the carnivore (long digestive track, and rip food).
    QC

    • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-07 17:03:15

      QC,
      You must have missed when I said:
      "The Genesis account says that in the Garden, man was given “every seed-bearing plant” and “every seed-bearing fruit” for food. (Gen 1:29) It is a proven fact that man can exist (very well I might add) on nuts, fruits and vegetation. In that man did not need meat to survive, I lean toward accepting the premise that man did not eat meat before the fall."
      I personally believe man was intended to be a vegetarian. but I hold it would be incredibly naïve to believe he continued as such for 1600+ years after the fall.
      When Jehovah slaughtered the first animals for their skins, he gave permission (by example) for man to do the same. Do you honestly think man would merely peel off the skin but leave the dead carcasses for scavengers to eat? Given Adam's dramatic change in diet?
      Please provide your explanation for why Abel offered the fattest of his flock instead of a young lean lamb? Also, how did he know the "fatty parts" were the choicest? What did Abel do with the rest of the meat not offered to Jehovah, leave it on the ground for scavengers?
      Explain if you believe Abel's sacrifice was the ONLY sacrifice made by man to Jehovah during 1600+ years leading to the flood? If you feel Abel set a pattern, good. So, during the 1600+ years, what did man do with the meat not offered to Jehovah, leave it on the ground for scavengers?
      Another question: What would the planet have looked like during the 1600+ years had the animal population not been controlled by man? Would man hunt and kill, peel off the skin and leave the dead carcass for the scavengers?
      How did Abel know the "fatty parts" were special?
      Sopater

      • Reply by QC on 2016-02-07 18:34:50

        Sopater,
        I believe Noah's definitive account over your speculation. He was there. This 1600 + years period had highly intelligent humans that understood God, the Messianic Genesis 3:15 and the dilemma Adam brought upon them.
        Their herbivore status was real. And, their carnivore status became real. It shows God anticipates sources for food would be needed due to man's mismanagement of earth.
        QC

        • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-08 07:45:55

          QC,
          Interesting, I was hoping you would attempt to reply to the questions I posed. Do you not feel the answers are relevant to connecting the dots?
          You say that during the 1600+ years period there were highly intelligent humans that understood God. I agree with you. Please elaborate on what you believe these highly intelligent persons understood from God.
          For example, what do you think Adam understood when Jehovah slaughtered animals for man to use for clothing? That killing an animal was only permitted if for using its skins?
          What do you think Abel understood when he raised sheep and then decided to slaughter the fattest to be used for sacrifice, butchering off its "fatty parts?" Visualize this QC. Put yourself there. What did Able likely do with the rest of the meat?
          What do you think Noah understood when he built an alter to offer some of the clean animals taken on the Ark? Jehovah was pleased with Noah, the same as he was pleased with Abel's sacrifice. What can we logically conclude happened during the 1600+ years between sacrifices?
          If I take a position based only upon scripture, and the scriptures do not mention any other sacrifice made during the 1600+ years, I must view that these are in fact the only animal sacrifices that occurred. That my friend, creates a gap for me to leap over like the grand canyon.
          Of course, we have the option of taking the position that Moses (Jehovah) just didn't want us to understand this. That we will find out later.
          I'd be interested to know your view on Gen 1:30. If you take the verse literally, you must dismiss the ecosystem we witness today all over the planet. If you take this position, then when did the ecosystem change into what we witness today? (please provide references). We're only talking 6000 years, which is very recent in the big picture.
          All I've attempted to do in this article is provide a "logical" (not dogmatic) explanation that (1) harmonizes with the ecosystem, that (2) that explains God slaughtering animals (after the fall) for man's use as significant (given Adam had just forfeited the major portion of his diet) and..... (3) that explains how Abel knew to offer his fattest lamb, and butcher away its fatty parts. Had Abel not been familiar with butchering animals and eating, why not bring a healthy lean animal? Moreover, if he was a strict vegetarian, how would he know which were the choicest cuts?
          At times the scriptures are silent because Jehovah wants us to use the intelligence he gave us to connect dots. The fact that he didn't see fit to provide detailed information tells me that killing animals for food and sacrifice was not on the top of his list of things for man to understand and obey.
          I tried to present the article in just this way. Jehovah had no issue with man hunting and killing (wild or domesticated) animals after the fall. After all, animals were created to live very short life spans and die anyway.
          What did matter to God after 1600+ years of observing man taking animal lives, was man's attitude toward their killing, and it was important enough for him to document that it be for food only (not sport) and done in a humane manner.
          Sopater

    • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-02-08 08:38:37

      QV,
      I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. It's as speculative to assert that early worshippers of God did not eat meat. It's just as speculative to think there were no carnivores among God's created animals.
      1. The written record presents a single prohibition issued to Adam, and it happens to be of a dietary nature. Adam was not to eat of the tree of knowledge. Unless we hold the tree of knowledge was meat then the sole prohibition presented to God's earliest worshipper was not against eating meat. So, if we accept the record for what I says, at the very least we have to conclude Adam was not prohibited from eating meat.
      2. The record of Genesis 1:26-30 addresses human and animal diet, and this diet includes vegetation. Yet we cannot accept this depiction as comprehensive because it lacks an essential dietary item for all mammalian creatures; milk. Another essential dietary item missing in this text is water. Without ingestion of water no human or animal can survive. Yet water is not vegetation. So language of Genesis 1:26-30 speaking to vegetation cannot be taken to mean vegetation was the only think humans were created to eat.
      3. The record of Genesis 1:26-30 presents things placed within the hands of humans and animals. There are commentators who read the language of this text to mean the giving of animals into the hands of mankind to dominate includes using animals as food. You might want to check some of this reasoning out so at least you are exposed to the reasoning. If you need references just let me know.
      4. Prior to the flood we know God did not think it wrong for humans to consume meat. If for no other reason we know this affirmatively from the text of Genesis 6:21 where Noah was told to gather every sort of food eaten. Of every sort of food eaten Noah was told by God that he could use it as food for himself and the animals. One sort of food eaten since creation is meat, specifically carrion meat of animals that died of natural cause. Since animals have always lived and died this sort of food (meat) was available and it was eaten as part of earth's created eco-system. If we accept the statement of Genesis 6:21 as literal then Noah had permission to eat carrion meat dead of natural cause because carrion meat dead of natural cause was a sort of eaten since creation.
      5. The text of Genesis 9 does not address eating carrion meat dead of natural cause. It only addresses using living animals as food, in which case they had to be killed and bled prior to eating their flesh. Because this text does not address carrion meat dead of natural cause then none of the language of this text represents a notion that this sort of food was not already part of the human diet (and animal diet for carnivores).
      6. The biblical account of Genesis 1:26-30 says humankind was granted dominion over the animal kingdom. Based on God's presentation of animals skins to humans as clothing and Abel's slaughter of sheep, we can say with a high degree of conviction that this dominion included permission to kill and enslave animals. More to the point, we know God did not think it inappropriate to place animal tissue onto human tissue. (E.g., animal skins placed on human arms and/or legs) So what precisely would have made it inappropriate for early human worshippers of God to place animal tissue onto the tissue of their tongue?
      As for biology, it tells us human are omnivores.

  • Comment by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-02-08 15:13:54

    Once past the untold mortality and morbidity caused by Watchtower's blood doctrine, one of the saddest part of this entire discussion on Watchtower's blood doctrine is that so many genuine brothers and sisters known to me have went literally begging the organization's leadership for answers to important details of this doctrinal position, and they've been turned away with something akin to 'The Governing Body has looked at this and has decided as it has and that's that.' So many genuine thinking persons who want no more than to obey God have had their scriptural questions left unanswered. It has caused untold pain and anguish.
    I've known elder who were tasked to offer encouragement to some of these men and women, and when presented with the same questions along with pleas for answers were told by those elders 'We don't know the answers to your questions, but we know the Governing Body loves you.' How exactly is that supposed to settle a conscientious person over a life-and-death issue? These same elders would be asked 'How can we teach and impose something amongst ourselves that we can't answer for? How do we know it's right to shun sister Suzy for accepting transfusion of platelets from blood but it's not right to shun Sister Jane for accepting transfusion of cryosupernatant from blood?'
    Elders don't have the answers, and they don't have the answers because the basis for these distinctions is no more than an arbitrary distinction made by Watchtower's leadership over dissection of whole blood that is unknown in the natural world and unspecified in scripture. On one hand they base a scriptural position on the fact that the Bible does not give details. Yet when asked what details the Bible gives about platelets from blood that it does not give about cryosupernatant from blood the response is stone cold silence.

  • Comment by sam on 2016-02-08 15:31:45

    I imagine eve might have felt the same way as you do but nonetheless we should not listen or adhere to Satan like persuasion because it seems to make sense, you must remember what Satan said to eve when he deceived her "
    So it said to the woman: “Did God really say that you must not eat from every tree of the garden?”
    At this the woman said to the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden.But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’”
    At this the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die. For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad.
    [However] Consequently, the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something desirable to the eyes, yes, the tree was pleasing to look at. So she began taking of its fruit and eating it. Afterward, she also gave some to her husband when he was with her, and he began eating it.
    So eve saw it was good for food and disregarded what Jehovah had commanded when he said " do not eat of it or you will positively die.
    Now the truth is the forbidden fruit was probably good for food and did not cause her death, however she did fail to live off of every "utterance" of Jehovah's mouth.
    So in essence her disobedience is what killed not only eve but Adam as well with no hope for a resurrection all due to her not abstaining from what belonged to GOD.
    Now Jehovah clearly tells us to abstain from blood it is forbidded and blood belongs exclusively to him, it is his property! just like the tree in the middle of the garden.
    Jesus said: But he answered: “It is written: ‘Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every word that comes from Jehovah’s mouth. Matthew 4:4 also read Genesis 3:.

    • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-02-08 15:43:54

      May I ask where Noah was instructed that the literal substance of blood should not be used for anything by humans as though using it were stealing from God? To the best of my knowledge Noah was to abstain from eating blood of animals slaughtered to eat. Other than abstaining from eating this blood, what was said to Noah suggesting he could not use this blood for something that is NOT eating?
      When I read the biblical account of Eden I don't see anything remotely suggesting Adam or Eve would have sinned had they eaten goat milk. Do you see anything like that in the Eden account? What about eating goat meat? Are you suggesting that eating goat meat was wrong had Adam or Eve decided to eat meat of a goat that died of natural cause just like they'd eat fruit laying on the ground?
      It seems to me someone somewhere recommended that none of us go beyond what we can prove based on what is written. So, one final question, would Noah have broken God's decree to him had he let some of his own blood drip onto the wound of a moderate free-bleeder in order to help stop a persistent bleed? If so, how so? If not, why not?
      I think those who bother to make assertions should be willing to answer for those assertions.

      • Reply by sam on 2016-02-08 16:20:04

        Long before the Law of Moses God explained to Noah that all life belonged to him and his ownership of all living things particularly involves blood; obviously since blood is life.
        Basically, God has stated that our blood belongs to him. So, it was not merely that the Israelites couldn't eat or drink blood, they could not do anything with it other than what was prescribed in the Law for official sacrifice. The blood of all animals slaughtered had to be poured on the ground, symbolizing their giving it back to God. Particularly is God's ownership of our blood demonstrated by the fact that Christ poured out his own blood to purchase us for God.
        So, if God declares that he owns our blood, who are we to give it away by "donating" it or receiving someone else's "donated" blood? Taking something that belongs to another is called stealing. And stealing from God is what got Adam and Eve in trouble in the first place. Of course, the Devil has really made it complicated with blood fractions and derivatives and complex procedures. But the basic premise is simple - God owns our blood.
        Interestingly, although medical transfusions obviously did not exist in the 1st century, the injunction against blood seems to have anticipated the practice. That is because the apostles did not merely say 'do not eat blood.' They said "abstain" from it. That would seem to encompass more than just not eating or drinking it.

        • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-02-08 16:54:23

          Only Jews were ever accountable to God to provisions unique the Mosaic Law, and Jesus death abolished that law. Noah predated Mosaic Law. When was Noah required to waste blood onto the ground by pouring it out? Where is this in the biblical text?
          Would you suggest Noah was required to abstain from using blood in ways God never required of Noah? If so, why?
          In terms of ownership, it seems to me God expressed his wishes to Noah about what he didn't want Noah to do with blood. He didn't want Noah to eat blood of animals he slaughtered for food. That's it.
          Do you think the Apostolic Decree to "abstain from blood" requires more of Christians that God required of righteous Noah? If so, why?
          When it comes to donation Jesus was pretty clear that we have God's permission to donate our life to save a life (prevent a premature death). If we equate blood with life and we have God's permission to donate our life to save a life then why is not also permission to donate our blood to save a life? Doesn't God own our life too? If we have permission to donate life then why not blood?

        • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-09 07:54:47

          Sam,
          Can you provide the reference in Genesis where "God explained to Noah that all life belonged to him and his ownership of all living things particularly involves blood'? Where in the inspired record did God tell Noah that he "owns our blood?"
          You can't quote from the Mosaic law and the Israelites, you are moving eight centuries ahead after Noah.
          The article I've presented deals specifically with the period from Adam to Noah, not the Mosaic law, because it didn't exist at the time.
          Furthermore, it is reasonable to conclude that Moses completed Genesis BEFORE beginning Exodus, so when Moses penned Gen 9:4, the Passover had not happened. Moses would therefore have no reason to hold that blood belonged to God or was something sacred when he wrote Gen 9:4.
          Your final suggestion regarding "abstain" you said:
          "Interestingly, although medical transfusions obviously did not exist in the 1st century, the injunction against blood seems to have anticipated the practice. That is because the apostles did not merely say ‘do not eat blood.’ They said “abstain” from it. That would seem to encompass more than just not eating or drinking it."
          May I ask how you explain Paul's cavalier attitude toward buying and eating idol meat, some of which had come from an animal that had been strangled in sacrifice?
          1 Cor 10:25 - "Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience."
          1 Cor 10:27 - "If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience."
          It is a fact that in Corinth (and other Gentile nations) priests would sell leftover meat to butchers for them to then sell in their meat markets. The animal may have been bled, or strangled. It really depended on the palate of the the one who brought the animal for sacrifice. Remember that the Apostolic Decree said strictly to ABSTAIN from meat from animals sacrificed to idols, whether bled or strangled. ABSTAIN means abstain, right?
          A few years later Paul is telling Gentile Christians God has no issue with their buying and eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols, including bloody idol meat, so long as they don't ask where the meat originated. Seems pretty lax to me.
          Did the Gentile converts disobey the Apostolic Decree? Did Paul enable them to break God's law?
          Was Paul and apostate?
          Sopater

          • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-09 08:20:09

            Sam, one thing further,
            Let me share some statistics you may be unaware of.
            Do you know that hemoglobin/water percentage in whole blood is about 95%? Do you know that white cells and platelets are only about .03% (3/10ths of 1 percent) of whole blood? Yet these can be fractionated and 100% of the content is acceptable?
            Did you know that JW's accept 100% of plasma (92% of which is water) when fractionated? (the remaining 8% of solids)
            What are JW's abstaining from?
            Since fractions have been allowed, 100% of the constituents in a liter of whole blood are acceptable after dissection. JW's accept 100% of the constituents of whole blood.
            Again I ask, please explain what you believe JW's are abstaining from? Is the GB enabling JW's to break God's law?
            Sopater

          • Reply by sam on 2016-02-10 04:47:28

            I will answer your question concerning the bible reference you inquired about if you answer my question and provide me with a bible reference.
            " We're in the bible does it say we can eat blood fraction?"

            • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-10 06:49:49

              Sam,
              Forgive me, but I don't understand your question.
              The means for receiving blood fractions is the same as receiving FFP (fresh frozen plasma) with RBC's, namely, an intravenous injection.
              Remember Sam, the doctrine is founded on the following:
              “Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with its being forbidden.” (Watchtower 1958 p. 575)
              As we see, it is as food and as a nutrient that leadership is concerned. If the food/nutrient connection is not there, then a transfusion is not "eating" blood.
              The context where the term "abstain" is used (Acts 15:20,29) clearly shows it is related to eating (drinking) the blood of animal's sacrificed in idol worship.
              RBC's contain no nutrition, yet they are prohibited. Fractions produced from plasma (albumin, immune globulins, clotting factors, procoagulants, cryoprecipitate) contain nutrition yet they are not prohibited.
              Can you help us make sense of this?
              Sopater

              • Reply by sam on 2016-02-10 14:19:36

                With all due respect honestly gentlemen my conscience would not allow me to drink or eat blood as well as receive a blood transfusion out of respect for Jehovah's command to "abstain" from blood and that includes blood fractions because they are from blood.
                For me it would be a direct violation of not only my own conscience but also others who might become stumbled due to my decision.
                If I should ever need a blood transfusion in order to survive then I'm afraid I must die in "obedience" to Jehovah's command, you see gentlemen weather I'm' right or wrong really doesn't matter but what does matter is my "obedience" to Jehovah's .
                Even Jesus had to learn obedience.
                Hebrews 5:8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered.
                Matthew 26:39
                39 And going a little way forward, he fell facedown, praying: “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will.”
                Philippians 2:8
                8 More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake.
                As for the watchtowers mumbo jumbo concerning blood fractions , they are double tongued and full of deception far as I can see or read and the same could be said about the science community so therefore I will stick to Jehovah's command and "abstain" from blood.
                So, then, let us pursue the things making for peace and the things that build one another up. 20 Stop tearing down the work of God just for the sake of food ./ [BLOOD FRACTIONS] True, all things are clean, but it is detrimental for* a man to eat when it will cause stumbling. 21 It is best not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything over which your brother "stumbles". 22 The faith that you have, keep it to yourself before God. Happy is the man who does not judge himself by what he "approves". 23 But if he has doubts, he is already condemned if he eats, because he does not eat based on faith. Indeed, everything that is not based on faith is sin. Romans 14:

                • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-02-10 14:45:48

                  Sam,
                  I respect that you hold your view with conviction. But to respect a view as sound I have to see evidence that it's sound.
                  Where is the evidence that God requires Christians to abstain from blood other than eating it? To Noah God arguably issued a requirement that prohibited eating blood (particularly of animals killed for food). Do you suggest the Apostolic Decree to "abstain from blood" requires more of Christians than God required of righteous Noah? If so, what is the evidence of this?
                  Saying "abstain from blood" does not tell anyone WHAT blood we should abstain from or WHAT abstention of that blood is required. Accordingly we must deduce WHAT blood and WHAT abstention of that blood is required. So far I've not read where you've offered deduction for either. You've only shared an opinion.
                  Here's some things for you to think about:
                  1. God issued a decree to Noah involving blood. Arguably this decree is binding on all humankind and insofar as I can tell it's never been rescinded. Do you agree or disagree with this? Of the literal substance of blood, did this decree require an abstention from blood other than eat it? If so, what was that and how do you prove it?
                  2. God issued multiple statutes to Jews under Mosaic Law involving blood. This Law was binding on all Jews. This Law was never binding on non-Jewish worshippers of God unless they voluntarily obligated themselves to it. Then Jesus died a sacrificial death, and that sacrifice abolished the Mosaic Law as an obligation for anyone.
                  3. Acts Chapter 15 contains a decree issued to the then Christian community involving blood, and arguably to all Christian communities since then. Was this something new? Was it a reiteration of the earlier decree issued to Noah only said in other words? Was this decree a resurrection of all the blood prohibitions issued under Mosaic Law? Which is it, and what is your argument to that end.
                  If we want our view to hold any weight it must successfully navigate critical questions.

            • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-02-10 08:18:29

              Genesis 6:21 is a biblical record of God giving Noah express permission to eat "every sort of food eaten". Whole blood (and constituents of whole blood) is a sort of food eaten since creation. We know this because animals have always suffered death and carcasses of deceased animals have always been decomposed by scavengers eating and metabolizing the matter.
              In the post-flood world Noah was given more instruction about life around him. But Noah was told nothing whatsoever that would cause him to wonder if he could continue using carrion flesh of animals dead of natural cause as food. This sort of food would contain whole blood (including constituents of whole blood). In fact centuries later God himself made prevision precisely of this very sort of food that it could be either given or sold to non-Jewish descendants of Noah for them to eat it. (Deut. 14:21) Faithful worshippers like Job and Cornelius could have eaten unbled flesh like this had they wanted to, and it was provided at the direction of God.

        • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-02-09 08:56:15

          One more thing, Sam,
          You wrote:
          -- "Interestingly, although medical transfusions obviously did not exist in the 1st century, the injunction against blood seems to have anticipated the practice. That is because the apostles did not merely say ‘do not eat blood.’ They said “abstain” from it. That would seem to encompass more than just not eating or drinking it."
          What you write is false. Watchtower leadership has suggested something similar by asserting that contemporary transfusion medicine was not practiced by the ancients. But the underlying premise that ancient text was presented to account for future developments of humane and therapeutic medicinal applications of blood (other than eating it as food) is false because the ancients were using blood for healing purposes, including transplantation of it. Yet, despite this then contemporary use of blood among the ancients we don't see anything said to non-Jewish descendants of Noah in the way of prohibiting the practice when it did not involve killing of a human. All we find is a reiteration of the Noachian Decree to abstain from eating blood in the Apostolic Decree of Acts. In the case of Christians what we don't find is a resurrection of Mosaic Law provisions because followers of Jesus understood his death abolished that Law for Jews, and they also knew that non-Jewish peoples were never accountable to Mosaic Law in the first place.
          So, for example, had God wanted Noah to abstain from a medicinal transplantation of fresh blood of a slaughtered animal to help stop a persistent bleed from an open wound of a moderate free-bleeder there was a present need for God to so inform Noah. He didn't. When it came to abstaining from the literal substance of blood the sole prohibition was of eating.

        • Reply by Vassy on 2016-02-10 05:14:08

          Much ado is being made about the issue of ownership, namely, that God owns the blood and we should not steal from God. I think this is a silly argumentation.
          First, nowhere does the Bible say that blood (the liquid) is the ownership of God. If it did, then our discussion would be over. It would be very clear that to use blood even in a medical context would be wrong.
          The Bible shows that something can belong to God either in a general sense or in an explicit, specific sense. Let me illustrate. The Bible says that “To Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it, the productive land and those dwelling in it” (Ps 24:1). Obviously, this must be understood in a general sense, because people use/take advantage of the earth and everything that fills it (resources, animals etc). So, the fact that Jehovah owns the earth does not, in itself, prevent people from extracting what they need in order to live. Despite being the ownership of Jehovah, the earth was GIVEN to mankind to benefit from it (Isaiah 45:18).
          Likewise, the land of Canaan where the Israelites were brought after the exodus belonged to God. That is why it could not be sold “in perpetuity” (Lev 25:23). From Jehovah’s standpoint, the Jews were viewed as alien residents and settlers. So they could use the land, cultivate it, although within certain limits (respect the Sabbaths, respect the right of buying back).
          In Haggai 2:8 Jehovah says “the silver is mine and the gold is mine”. Does this mean we cannot use gold for jewelry or other purposes? No, of course not. This is a general ownership as in the case of the whole earth and the land of Israel. Ultimately, EVERYTHING in the UNIVERSE and in the unseen realm is the OWNERSHIP of JEHOVAH.
          What about the following Scriptures? “And Jehovah spoke further to Moses, saying ‘Sanctify to me every male firstborn that opens each womb among the sons of Israel, among MEN and BEASTS. IT IS MINE.’” (Exodus 13:1,2) Should this be understood in a general sense or in a specific sense? I think it is the latter because the firstborn males were indeed dedicated to Jehovah, they belonged to Jehovah in a very definite context. The firstborn animal males were offered as a burnt offering to Jehovah and the Levites (who replaced the firstborn human males) were dedicated exclusively to Jehovah. In this sense, they belonged to Jehovah. They could not be used for ANY other purpose.
          Then we have the following Scripture that states: “All the fat belongs to Jehovah” (Lev 3:16). Is this a general ownership or a specific ownership? Again, the context suggests it is the latter. The fat belonged exclusively to Jehovah because it was put on the altar. The Israelites were not allowed to eat fat at all, not even the fat of animals found dead or torn by beasts (Lev 7:24).
          What about blood? Does the blood belong to Jehovah in a specific sense, as in the case of firstborn males or fat? Or in a general sense as in the case of the earth, the land, the gold and silver? Interestingly, as I said, the Bible nowhere says that “blood is mine” or “blood belongs to Jehovah”. Why? Here’s why. “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it on the altar FOR YOU to make atonement FOR YOUR SOULS, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it” (Lev. 17:11). Notice that blood was not to be viewed as the exclusive property of Jehovah, although in a general sense, all souls belong to Jehovah (Ezek 18:4). Although being the property of Jehovah in a general sense, the blood of the animals was GIVEN for the benefit of the Israelites, “FOR YOU to make atonement FOR YOUR SOULS”.
          Today, we are no longer under the Law of Moses. We can eat and use for whatever purpose that which sometime in the past belonged exclusively to Jehovah, that is, FAT. But what are we allowed to do with blood? God made a prolongation of the prohibition to eat blood into the Christian era. But on what grounds? Is it because blood is His exclusive ownership as was fat and the firstborn males? No, for two reasons. (1) Nowhere it is said that blood “belongs to Jehovah” (or something similar for that matter). (2) Since the arrangement of the Mosaic Law where fat and blood was burned/poured on the altar is no longer in existence, one cannot state that we should not eat blood because it was used for atonement. By the same line of reasoning we should not eat fat because it was used exclusively for Jehovah on the altar. Therefore, the only reason behind God’s prohibition against eating blood must be the one implied in the command given to Noah. And a careful analysis of this command reveals that it is not the OWNERSHIP of BLOOD (the liquid) but the SANCTITY of LIFE which mankind has to take into account and RESPECT when taking an animal life. Since blood represents life and life can be donated to safe another one’s life after Jesus’ example (see 1 John 3:16), there is no stealing whatsoever from God when one takes a PART of his life to save another one’s life. Since all souls (the Bible in Ezekiel does not say ‘the blood of all souls’) belong to God (Ezek 18:4), surrendering our souls for our brothers (1 John 3:16) would equally mean stealing from God, if we were to interpret these verses as some do in the case of blood. But we see this is not the case.

          • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-10 07:50:29

            Vassy,
            You've written an excellent post. I agree with everything you've said, though I may not fully agree on one fine point:
            You said:
            "And a careful analysis of this command reveals that it is not the OWNERSHIP of BLOOD (the liquid) but the SANCTITY of LIFE which mankind has to take into account and RESPECT when taking an animal life."
            I agree the command says nothing about the ownership of blood. I agree that the command was to show respect when taking the life of an animal. This respect is shown by the manner (bleeding) of hastening the animals death after wounding the animal (by bow, a blow, drowning, or in a trap, etc.) Whatever the means used to bring the animal to the ground, bleeding should immediately follow. Most certainly one should not allow the creature to suffer unnecessarily, nor, tear and consume any of its raw flesh while the creature is still breathing.
            I see nothing in the Noachian Law that relates animal blood to the sanctity of life. And you may not have been making this connection. Of course the Mosaic Law clearly makes the connection.
            For the sake of objectivity, I didn't allow myself to think beyond Genesis chapter 9 when attempting to get inside of Noah's mind at that moment. To insert concepts of the Mosaic Law into the Noachian Law is backward. We should rather work to find concepts found in the Noachian Law represented in the Mosaic Law (Deut 14:21 is an example).
            Until proven otherwise, I hold that Moses penned the Noachian Law in the wilderness BEFORE the Passover occurred (Exodus 14). If this is true, Moses would not yet have viewed the liquid blood as sacred or a special substance when carving Gen 9:4 on his stone tablet. He would not have at that time conceived that God wanted blood sprinkled on an alter, or poured out on the ground and buried. Until the Passover, blood could have been used for utilitarian purposes (perhaps even as food as some theologians suggest - Gil's Exposition):
            "The flesh with its life in its blood" (m); while there is life in the blood, or while the creature is living; the meaning is, that a creature designed for food should be properly killed, and its blood let out; that it should not be devoured alive, as by a beast of prey; that raw flesh should not be eaten, as since by cannibals, and might be by riotous flesh eaters, before the flood; for notwithstanding this law, as flesh without the blood might be eaten, so blood properly let out, and dressed, or mixed with other things, might be eaten, for aught this says to the contrary; but was not to be eaten with the flesh, though it might separately, which was afterwards forbid by another law. The design of this was to restrain cruelty in men, and particularly to prevent the shedding of human blood, which men might be led into, were they suffered to tear living creatures in pieces, and feed upon their raw flesh, and the blood in it. The Targum of Jonathan is,"but the flesh which is torn from a living beast at the time that its life is in it, or which is torn from a beast while it is slain, before all its breath is gone out, ye shall not eat.
            Note Gen 31:54 (Jacob offering a sacrifice and using it for food):
            "He offered a sacrifice there in the hill country and invited his relatives to a meal. After they had eaten, they spent the night there."
            This sacrifice occurs centuries AFTER the Noachian Law, and centuries BEFORE the Mosaic Law.
            Nothing is said regarding Jacob building an alter. Nothing is said regarding how the blood was disposed of. Nothing is said regarding Jacob cutting off the "fatty pieces" and offering those to Jehovah. Or that he offered any part of the sacrifice to Jehovah.
            Absent any other dialogue, the verse suggests Jacob bled an animal (following Noachian Law), cooked it and the entire animal was the evening meal.
            Pretty basic stuff. This could very well have been his normal daily practice.
            Thank you again for such a well written post.
            Again, we may be on the same page on this minor detail.
            Warm regards,
            Sopater

            • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-02-10 08:09:21

              This is a point on which Apollos and I disagree. You can see his article on the matter here.
              I believe blood represents God's ownership of life. Therefore, we only take the life of an animal because Jehovah has permitted us to do so. Not eating the blood is an acknowledgement which we make to God that we do not possess the power of life and death, he does.
              That being said, we should not confuse the symbol with the reality. The symbol isn't the blood but the eating of the blood. By eating it willfully (not in ignorance) we deny God's ownership of life. However, using blood in other ways is not a denial of that ownership. It could be argued that if we recognize that God owns life, then we have an obligation not to take it except as proscribed by God's law. When it comes to human life, We can take it directly, by killing someone; or indirectly, by denying someone the means to preserve life. Withholding the symbol of God's ownership, while violating that ownership by taking (indirectly) a life, hardly seems to be what God had in mind when he gave Noah the law.

              • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-02-10 12:30:21

                Hello Meleti,
                Your view reminds me of the biblical presentation in Eden of what God required in respect to the tree of knowledge. A presented in the Genesis account God instructed Adam not to eat from it. When Eve is propositioned she expresses God has having said not to eat from or even touch the tree. The divine order of things has the woman subject to the man (as in husband and wife), and in this case Eve was subject to Adam as her husband. So their is a question of whether God issued 1) a prohibition on eating of and touching the tree of knowledge or 2) a prohibition on eating of the tree of knowledge.
                It could be the case that Adam exercised a prerogative of headship and augmented God's requirement by, as Eve's head, requiring that she not even touch the tree. Essentially this would make the augmented requirement of God because it was appropriately imposed through His divine order of things. Or, it could be the case that the initial prohibition was stated more loosely than given but compensated for within the text based on the account of what Eve said.
                But when it comes to whether language of the Noachian Decree would include a prohibition against transfusion of blood we can't find it inherent to the text because IV transplantation of blood does not equal eating of blood by any objective measure, plus there were then existing non-eating medicinal uses of blood that language of the Noachian Decree would have had to address were it the intent to prohibit those uses. Hence by leveraging language of the Noachian Decree to impose a prohibition on blood transfusion the Watchtower organization has, in effect, attempted to assert a headship prerogative by augmenting it to include a prohibition that is not inherent to the presentation. The problem with this that the divine order of things nowhere places leading figures among Christians in a place of headship over Christian families as though having authority to augment what God has stated as His requirements.

            • Reply by Vassy on 2016-02-10 08:21:13

              Sopater,
              I said "And a careful analysis of this command reveals....". Well, I was a little bit wrong here. What I had in mind was the entire context of Genesis 9 that reveals the sanctity of life. I think God instilled into Noah's mind the fact that life is sacred and should not be treated as a trivial thing when telling him that the life (blood) of the animal should not be eaten and the life of man should not be taken without punishment. To me, this indicates that in God's eyes life is sacred and must be treated as such. I think Apollos has built a strong case over this issue: http://meletivivlon.com/2013/10/22/blood-sanctity-of-life-or-ownership-of-life/

              • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-02-10 08:44:56

                Of course, it follows that God's ownership imparts sanctity on anything owned by him. It's a fine distinction in the issue of blood as a symbol of that life. In fact, IMHO, whichever position one holds to does not change the outcome. Both lead to the same conclusion, which is that there is no way we can respect God's ownership of life nor the sanctity of the life itself by withholding a potentially life saving treatment based solely on our interpretation of what it means to eat blood beyond the very obvious meaning of consuming it as we would the flesh in which it is found.

              • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-10 09:16:54

                Vassy,
                I agree that life is represented in the life-blood of an animal or human, and that under Noachian law, specific attention is given to the circumstance involving man taking the life, be it animal or human.
                Even animals were held accountable for taking the life of a human and were to be slain. For a human to take the life of another human was murder, with the penalty of death. (Gen 9:5-6) These are very powerful precepts in the Noachian Law.
                As for verse 4, I continue to hold it specifically deals with the "alive" blood, the blood of a "living" animal that man was responsible for killing.
                Flesh with its life is LIVING flesh, that is, blood circulating from its heart throughout the circulatory system. An animal that is dead does not have flesh with life. Its blood is not life-blood, for the life sustaining characteristics of hemoglobin and oxygen deteriorate rapidly after death.
                Therefore, the carcass (and dead-blood) of an animal man was not responsible for killing was outside the scope of the Noachian Law. Nothing was said regarding this circumstance.
                As I see it, the Noachian law is dealing with two things: First, man was given official permission to hunt and kill animals for food with the proviso that he must not eat the flesh while the life-blood is circulating (the animal is breathing). If he ate the bloody flesh while the creature was breathing, he broke Noachian law and would answer for his error.
                Second, that an animal or man responsible for taking the life of a human must be put to death. As regards sanctity and ownership of blood, I don't see this specifically spelled out in these few verses. Of course we see it addressed in fine detail some 800+ years later in the Mosaic Law,
                IMO, the question of ownership vs. sanctity seems to be a finer detail relating to the Mosaic Law, and I see merit on both sides of the discussion.
                Sopater

              • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-10 09:53:07

                Vassy,
                I wanted to add..... something that is crucial to understanding is to consider the situation which prompted the need for Genesis 9:2-7.
                "The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil, all the time." (Gen 6:5)
                This violence of man against man and against animal was fresh in Noah's mind (and Jehovah for that matter). In that this moment represented a new start for man, and, in that the original start anticipated man would be perfect, what is said in the Noachian Law had not been stipulated as law to Adam. It was simply not necessary in a perfect world.
                So we have a fresh start, in an imperfect world. Jehovah provided this law to prohibit sinful man from ever degrading to the abhorrent level existing just before the flood. The law prevents this from happening.
                The law addresses the very situation before the flood. The violent, wicked, evil attitude of sinful man had to be contained, nipped in the bud as it were. Such actions could never be allowed to cascade into the norm of human society again.
                This is the rationale behind Jehovah giving Noah the law.
                Sopater

                • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-02-10 11:53:31

                  Sopater,
                  To what you wrote I'd add that beyond the violence Noah observed among humankind prior to the flood Noah and his family also were firsthand witnesses to arguably the most massive taking of human and animal life ever experienced in biblical history. That's a lot of life-taking, and God did the taking. Justifiable, but nevertheless a lot of life-taking. Humans being what they are, such an exposure could easily have led later humans (including Noah) to trivialize killing. With the Noachian Decree we find a mitigation (of sorts) of this kind of thinking because with animal and human killing we see something in each case spelled out as a reminder that a life has been taken and that should not be minimized.
                  For unjustified killing of a human the consequence was to forfeit one's own life (which made killing a murderer justifiable).
                  For killing an animal as food the consequence was, arguably, that Noah was not to eat the blood of such an animal as food. He was free to use it for other purposes. But not as food. Not when obtained by killing. We may not tend to think of this as much of a consequence. But think of it in terms of ancient peoples who toiled for food. Being told that something that's right in front of you and available as food cannot be eaten would serve as a sobering reminder that this got into my hands by taking a life. An animal life. But a life nevertheless. Hence I can't eat it because I took it's life.
                  In the end the Noachian Decree was an instrument to remind humankind not to minimize the value of life.

          • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-02-10 11:38:11

            Hi Vassy,
            Just to further the thought a bit, it should not go unnoticed that a provision within Mosaic Law made unbled animal carcasses found dead of natural cause available specifically as food to non-Jewish descendants of Noah either for purchase or as a gift. (Deut. 14:21) Among these non-Jewish descendants of Noah were worshippers of God. Think of men like Job, Elihu and Cornelius. Ancients like these worshipped the true God. The Mosaic Law provision outlined at Deut. 14:21 provided for worshippers like Job and Cornelius to purchase unbled flesh of animal carcasses found dead of natural cause specifically to eat as food. Flesh like this is incapable of being bled; hence eating this as food unavoidably involved eating whole blood. And, here's the thing: as food to non-Jewish descendants of Noah this was a provision made by God.
            Watchtower leadership has addresses this issue by suggesting this is an instance where God allowed something contrary to his own standards of what is right and wrong, similar to allowing divorcing among Jews on grounds other than adultery. But this explanation by Watchtower assumes as a starting premise that it is against God's standard of right and wrong for non-Jewish descendants of Noah to eat unbled flesh of animal carcasses found dead of natural cause. However, a review of the biblical record of what God actually said to Noah does not support this assumed premise because the Noachian Decree does not address the eating of animal carcasses dead of natural cause. When it comes to using animal flesh as food the Noachian Decree only addresses the use of living animals as food. LIvign animals had to be killed prior to using them as food, and the blood fo that flesh was not to be eaten. That's it. Additionally, when we look at the immediate pre-flood period we see where God instructed Noah to gather "every sort of food eaten" and use it as food for himself and the animals on the ark. Unbled flesh of animals dead of natural cause has been a "sort of food eaten" since creation. Hence, if he was not already aware of it, Noah now had a directive that gave him permission to gather and eat as food the unbleedable flesh of animal carcasses found dead of natural cause. What God told Noah after the flood did not change this because, again, the Noachian Decree does not address the use of animal carrion found dead of natural cause. Watchtower's explanation is unsound because it asserts a primary premise that is unevidenced.

  • Comment by markchristopher on 2016-02-09 15:22:48

    Sopater.Hi.You quoted the "The Scavengers , Manifesto". to give us an idea of the "Ecosystem" before the fall and said " When Adam came alive, he awoke to the most amazing wildlife retreat one could imagine. The global ecosystem was established and thriving.
    If I came to life and saw for the first time, say a "pride of Lions ripping apart a live wildebeest and then having to listen to its agonising cries of pain whilst being eaten alive and fully conscious. My first thought would not be "this is good".More like "Get me out of here!"
    For me, a literal translation of Gen 1:30 will suffice for now.Animal life according to palaeontologists was very different in past epochs.And there seems to be a debate as to what they ate. it may be that that some animals were scavengers of the dead rather than the predators we have today.
    Anyway.I appreciate your thoughts.Thank you.

    • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-09 18:40:33

      Mark,
      As mentioned in the article, I lean toward belief in the premise that Adam was initially a vegetarian (before the fall). Not being aggressive to animals within the Garden, I visualize something much different than would be the case with the wild preditorial beasts of the field (outside the Garden). In my mind, Adam wouldn't have witnessed the visual you describe? At least not until he trekked outside the Garden.
      Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I haven't visualized Adam with dinosaurs in the Garden, or that they were even around at the time man came along. I don't see that much has changed in just 6000 years. Perhaps 50,000 to 100,000 years ago. But 6000 years seems so recent.
      Again, as you know, I'm not dogmatic about this, I can't be. I'm not attempting to teach anything. I'm only connecting dots with something I have found to be logical, and at the same time harmonizes the eco-system we witness today with the inspired record.
      As regards a literal view of Gen 1:30, I struggle with the literal view because then I must conclude the food chain I mentioned in the article (the ant to the hawk) wasn't thriving man was created. That would mean it somehow changed. I struggle finding anything that remotely suggests it has ever changed.
      In the example provided, grass is the producer, the ant is the primary consumer. All others in the sequence are secondary consumers. The ant ate grass, the rest did not. Do I believe it is possible Jehovah created all of them to eat only grass and vegetation? Such a concept is possible, but believing that puts several kinks in the line down the road.
      Not the least of which is..... when did the hundreds of thousands of creatures involved in food webs (other than the producer - grass and vegetation) change? What triggered such a paradigm change? Where is evidence this change occurred? And, all the animals in the sequences had to change instinctively and simultaneously, as if turning by on a light switch.
      Its just much easier for my simple mind to believe that nothing has changed, and that Gen 1:30 is to be understood in a general sense.
      Thank you for your comment, I also appreciate your thoughts.
      Sopater

    • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-02-09 21:02:24

      Hi Mark,
      The consumption of animal flesh was not the original plan for man, this is true.
      Your brother,
      Joshua

    • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-02-09 21:10:06

      As humans we tend to look at the world around us and draw conclusions based on what we see with the naked eye. In the case of what-eats-what we tend to think of, in this case, creatures like humans, lions, tigers, apples, oranges, and the list goes on. But this is not nearly the universe of what-eats-what under God's eye.
      When we consider the size of the known universe, humans and bacteria are near equals in size. Take a look at the scale available at the web link following this sentence and use the slide bar to see the relationship of size between humans and bacteria in the context of our known universe. At: http://scaleofuniverse.com/
      According to the Bible God created the known universe. An essential piece of this universe is a dizzying array of bacteria that eat away at basically everything around us whether as matter it's composed as "flesh" or as "vegetation". Life on earth known to us would be impossible without bacteria. Insofar as we know bacteria has no contemplation of right or wrong. We can say much the same of larger life forms such as lions, tigers, leeches, etc. In God's eyes bacteria is essentially the same size as a lion in the context of the whole universe before Him. I see no reason to think God thinks it somehow inappropriate for a lion to eat a wildebeest to death yet its perfectly appropriate for a Micavibrio aeruginosavorus to eat a Pseudomonas aeruginosa to death. God created all these. They are predators. They prey upon and eat living things to death.
      The biblical depiction of Adam was of a man who had assurance that his life was not in danger, unless he put it in danger by disobeying his Creator. Contemporary man does not have this immediate assurance. Hence were Adam to have observed a lion killing and eating a wildebeest I don't know that he'd have had any more fear raised in his mind than one of us observing by microscopy a Micavibrio aeruginosavorus eat a Pseudomonas aeruginosa to death. In this situation we'd not feel immediately threatened though the predation and subsequent death would be just as death dealing. Adam might have wondered about what he was observing. But since he had assurance his life was not immediately threatened his wonderment would have been more of curiosity, like a contemporary scientist watching predation from a relatively safe position.
      Today we can spend all day discussing whether lions were created as predators of other animals versus what we see today somehow the result of human sin. But I dare say none of us would think Micavibrio became predators the result of human sin. Why? Because it's just too far fetched. Earth's eco-system teaches us something. The Bible tells us so. (Ps 19:1) Without carnivorous bacteria biological life on planet earth would be impossible. In the grand scheme of things bacteria are essentially equivalent to lions. God created both. Predatory carnivores are part of God's creation.
      Of Genesis 1:26-30, we cannot look at it as a comprehensive table of food for either humans or animals (as though created as herbivores) because it fails to contain at least two essential foods for mammals. Milk and water. Accordingly, Genesis 1:26-30 cannot be taken to mean that either humans or animals were created as herbivores. If we believe humans were created to eat only vegetable matter then why on earth does the human female have lactating mammary glands, and why is eating water so vital to life when neither milk nor water is on the table of foods in the text? Any conclusion we reach of this written piece of God's record must also find at least remote agreement with the physical record of God creation around us. It is outside remote possibility that carnivorous predation was not always part of earth's eco-system supporting biological life.

  • Comment by sam on 2016-02-13 14:33:03

    Leviticus 3:17
    17 “‘It is a "lasting statute" for your generations, in all your dwelling places: You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’”
    Leviticus 17:13
    13 “‘If one of the Israelites or some foreigner who is residing in your midst is hunting and catches a wild animal or a bird that may be eaten, he must pour its blood out and cover it with dust.
    Deuteronomy 12:23
    23 Just be firmly resolved not to eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the flesh.
    Acts 15:20
    20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood.
    Acts 15:29
    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!”
    Leviticus 3:17
    17 “‘It is a lasting statute for your generations, in all your dwelling places: You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’”
    Leviticus 17:13
    13 “‘If one of the Israelites or some foreigner who is residing in your midst is hunting and catches a wild animal or a bird that may be eaten, he must pour its blood out and cover it with dust.
    Deuteronomy 12:23
    23 Just be firmly resolved not to eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the flesh.
    Acts 15:20
    20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood.
    Acts 15:29
    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!”
    “‘You must eat nothing containing blood. Leviticus 19:26.

  • Comment by Jehovah's Witnesses and Blood - Part 3 - Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2020-09-28 22:25:21

    […] into scripture. We will consider Noachian law, the Mosaic law, and finally the Apostolic Decree. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood – Part 4I examine only a few key texts with references to avoid redundancy with the excellent and […]

Recent content

Addendum to What Did Thomas Mean When He Said "My Lord and My God"?

In a recent video titled What Did Thomas Mean When He Said “My Lord and My God"? it seems that I did a less than adequate job explaining how Scripture shows that Thomas couldn’t have been calling Jesus his God. I say…

What Did Thomas Mean When He Said “My Lord and My God"?

You’ve heard me use the term “cherry-picking” when referring to people who try to prove the Trinity using the Bible? But what exactly does that term, cherry-picking, mean? Rather than define it, I’ll give you an…

Confusing Essence and Identity: Why the Jesus-Is-God People Get It Wrong

In my experience, people who believe that Jesus is God do not believe that he is God Almighty. How can that be? Are there two Gods? No, not for these folks! They believe there is only one God. Both Yehovah and Jesus are…

The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is a Named Defendant in a NY Court Child Sexual Abuse Case

Hello Everyone, In case you are not aware of it, I wanted to let you know that it appears something unprecedented is happening. The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses is actually being held accountable for…

How to Deal with SLANDER

Hello everyone,Let’s talk about slander for a moment. We all know what slander is, and we’ve all experienced it at some point in our lives. Did you realize that slander is a form of murder? The reason is that the…

If We Are Saved by Grace Then Why Does Truth Matter?

Hello everyone,If I were to ask you, “Why was Jesus born? Why did Jesus come into the world?” how would you answer?I think many would respond to those questions by saying that Jesus was born and came into the world to…