Jehovah's Witnesses and Blood - Part 2

Defending the Indefensible


In the years between 1945-1961, there were many new discoveries and breakthroughs in medical science. In 1954, the first successful kidney transplant was performed. The potential benefits for society using therapies involving transfusions and organ transplants was profound. Yet sadly, the No Blood doctrine prevented Jehovah's Witnesses from benefiting from such advances. Worse, compliance with the doctrine likely contributed to the untimely deaths of an unknown number of members, including infants and children.

Armageddon Kept On Delaying


Clayton Woodworth died in 1951, leaving the leadership of the Organization to continue this precarious teaching. Playing the usual trump card (Prov 4:18) and devising "new light" to replace this teaching was not an option.  Any serious medical complications and deaths linked to the faithful's adherence to what they took as a sound Scriptural interpretation would only increase from year to year.  If the doctrine was dropped, the door could be opened for huge liability costs, threatening the Organizations coffers. Leadership was trapped and Armageddon (their get-out-of-jail-free card) was delaying. The only option was to continue to defend the indefensible. Regarding this, Professor Lederer continues on page 188 of in her book:

"In 1961, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society issued Blood, Medicine, and the Law of God outlining the Witness position on blood and transfusion.  The author of this pamphlet returned to the original sources to buttress claims that blood represented nutrition, quoting among its sources a letter from the French physician Jean-Baptiste Denys that had appeared in George Crile's Hemorrhage and Transfusion.  (The booklet did not mention that Denys letter appeared in the 1660's, nor did it indicate that Crile's text had been published in 1909)." [Boldface added]


The above quote documents that in 1961 (16 years after the No Blood doctrine was enacted) leadership had to return to the original sources to bolster their archaic premise.  Obviously, a modern medical study in a reputable journal would have served their interests far better, but there were none to be had; so they had to go back to obsolete and discredited findings, omitting the dates to maintain the semblance of credibility.
Had this particular teaching been purely an academic interpretation of scripture—just another anti-typical prophetic parallel—then the use of outdated references would have been of little consequence. But here we have a teaching that could (and did) involve life or death, all resting on outdated premise. Membership deserved to be updated with the current medical thinking.  Yet, doing so would have brought great difficulty upon the leadership and the organization both legally and financially.  Still, which is more precious to Jehovah, preserving material things or preserving human life? The slide down the slippery slope continued to a low point a few years later.
In 1967, the first heart transplant was successfully performed.  Kidney transplants were now standard practice, but required a blood transfusion.  With such advancements in transplant therapy, the question arose regarding whether organ transplants (or organ donation) were permissible for Christians.  The following "Questions From Readers" provided leadership's decision:

"Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people." (Watchtower, November 15, 1967 p. 31)  [Boldface added]


To remain consistent with the premise that a blood transfusion is "eating" blood, an organ transplant had to be viewed as "eating" the organ. Is this bizarre? This remained the official position of the Organization until 1980. How tragic to think of those brothers and sisters who died unnecessarily between 1967-1980, unable to accept an organ transplant. Moreover, how many were disfellowshipped because they were convinced that leadership had gone off the deep end comparing an organ transplant to cannibalism?
Is the premise even remotely within the realm of scientific possibilities?

A Clever Analogy


In 1968 the archaic premise was again promoted as truth. A clever new analogy (still used to this day) was introduced to convince the reader that the effect (in the body) of a transfusion was the same as ingesting blood through the mouth. The claim is made that to abstain from alcohol would mean to not ingest it nor have it intravenously injected. Therefore, to abstain from blood would include not having it intravenously injected in the veins. The argument was presented as follows:

”But is it not true that when a patient is unable to eat through his mouth, doctors often feed him by the same method in which a blood transfusion is administered? Examine the scriptures carefully and notice that they tell us to ‘keep free from blood’ and to ‘abstain from blood.’ (Acts 15:20, 29) What does this mean? If  a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcohol, would that mean simply that  you should not take it through your mouth but that you could transfuse it directly into your veins? Of course not! So, too, ‘abstaining from blood’ means not taking it into our bodies at all. (The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, 1968  p. 167) [Boldface added]


The analogy seems logical, and many rank and file members to this day believe the analogy is sound. But is it? Note the comments of Dr. Osamu Muramoto regarding how scientifically flawed this argument is: (Journal of Medical Ethics 1998 p. 227)

"As any medical professional knows, this argument is false. Orally ingested alcohol is absorbed as alcohol and circulates as such in the blood, whereas orally eaten blood is digested and does not enter the circulation as blood. Blood introduced directly into the veins circulates and functions as blood, not as nutrition. Hence blood transfusion is a form of cellular organ transplantation. And as mentioned before, organ transplants are now permitted by the WTS. These inconsistencies are apparent to physicians and other rational people, but not to JWs because of the strict policy against viewing critical arguments." [Boldface added]


Visualize a child in Africa with swollen abdomen due to a severe case of malnutrition.  When treated for this condition, what is prescribed? A blood transfusion? Of course not, because the blood would offer no nutritional value.  What is prescribed is a paranteral infusion of nutrients such as electrolytes, glucose, proteins, lipids, essential vitamins and trace minerals. In fact, to administer a transfusion to such a patient would be detrimental, not at all helpful.

Blood is high in sodium and iron. When ingested in the mouth blood is toxic. When used as blood transfused in the bloodstream, it travels to the heart, lungs, arteries, blood vessels and so forth, it is not toxic. It is essential for life.  When ingested in the mouth, blood travels through the digestive tract to the liver where it is broken down. Blood no longer functions as blood. It has none of the life sustaining qualities of transfused blood. The high amount of iron (found in hemoglobin) is so toxic to the human body if ingested it can be fatal.  If one were to attempt to survive on the nutrition the body would receive from drinking blood for food, one would first die of iron-poisoning.

The view that a blood transfusion is nutrition for the body is just as antiquated as other seventeenth-century views. Along this line, I'd like to share an article I found at Smithsonian.com (dated June 18, 2013). The article has a very interesting title: Why The Tomato Was Feared In Europe For More Than 200 Years. As wacky as the title appears, the story well illustrates how a centuries-old notion was proven to be a complete myth:

"Interestingly, in the late 1700s, a large percentage of Europeans feared the tomato. A nickname for the fruit was the "poison apple" because it was thought that aristocrats got sick and died after eating them, but the truth of the matter was that wealthy Europeans used pewter plates, which were high in lead content. Because tomatoes are high in acidity, when placed on this particular tableware, the fruit would leach lead from the plate, resulting in many deaths from lead poisoning. No one made this connection between plate and poison at the time; the tomato was picked as the culprit."


The question that each Witness must ask is: Am I willing to make what could be a life-or-death medical decision for myself or my loved one based upon belief in a centuries-old premise that is scientifically impossible?  

The Governing Body requires that we (under threat of involuntary disassociation) comply with the official No Blood doctrine. Though it can be easily argued that the doctrine has been shredded as Jehovah's Witnesses can now accept virtually 99.9% of blood constituents. A fair question is, over the years how many lives were prematurely cut short before the constituents of blood (including hemoglobin) became a conscience matter?

Tort of Misrepresentation?


In her essay presented in the Journal of Church and State (Vol. 47, 2005), entitled Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation, Kerry Louderback-Wood (an attorney who grew up as a Jehovah's Witness and whose mother died after refusing blood) presents a compelling essay on the subject of misrepresentation. Her essay is available to download on the internet.  I encourage all to include this as essential reading during their personal research. I will share just one quote from the essay regarding the WT pamphlet How Can Blood Save Your Life? (1990):

"This section discusses the pamphlet’s veracity through analyzing the Society’s multiple misquotes of individual secular writers including: (1) scientists and biblical historians; (2) the medical community’s assessment of blood-born disease risks; and (3) doctors’ assessments of quality alternatives to blood, including the magnitude of risks from foregoing a blood transfusion." [Boldface added]


Assuming the allegation that leadership intentionally misquoted secular writers is confirmed in a court of law, this would prove very negative and costly for the organization.  Removing certain words from their context can certainly leave membership with a false impression regarding what the writer intended. When members make medical decisions based upon misinformation and are harmed, there is liability.

In summary, we have a religious group with a religious doctrine that involves a life or death medical decision, founded upon an unscientific myth. If the premise is myth, the doctrine can not be scriptural. Members (and the lives of their loved ones) are at risk anytime they enter an ambulance, hospital or surgery center. All because the architects of the doctrine rejected modern medicine and chose to depend upon the opinion of physicians from centuries past.
Nevertheless, some might ask: Is not the success of bloodless surgery proof that the teaching is divinely backed by God? Ironically, our No Blood doctrine has a sliver lining for the medical profession. It is undeniable that great strides in bloodless surgery can be attributed to Jehovah's Witnesses. It is likely viewed by some as a godsend for surgeons and their medical teams all over the world, providing a steady stream of patients.

Part 3 of this series examines how it is that medical professionals could view their Jehovah's Witness patients as a godsend. It is not because they view the doctrine as biblical nor that adherence to the doctrine brings God's blessing.
(Download this file: Jehovahs Witnesses - Blood & Vaccines, to view a visual chart prepared by a member in England. It documents the slippery slope JW leadership has been on in attempting to defend the No Blood doctrine over the years. It includes references to doctrinal interpretations regarding both transfusion and organ transplants.)

Archived Comments

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

  • Comment by irene evans on 2016-01-20 04:20:36

    even if all the above is true, God makes it plain that all life belongs to him, and that the life of a person is in the blood, by taking into your system in whatever way you are taking the life of another person , you are stealing from the giver and owner of life Jehovah God

    • Reply by Rose Alves on 2016-01-20 05:27:08

      Hello MO Patterson i always suspected it was you hiding under the name of MO Paterson on Facebook. It's not nice to block people just because they don't agree with you on the blood issue. Anyway it's very nice to see you around. God bless.

      • Reply by AndereStimme on 2016-01-20 22:57:40

        Hi Rose,
        Your comment gives me just enough info to make me really curious. Mind letting us know who/what you're referring to?

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-20 07:14:30

      That is one way of looking at it Irene. However, if you consider all the Scriptural evidence laid out in this article, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the “No Blood” Doctrine, you will see that by refusing a life-saving procedure, you may actually be disrespecting God's view on life. If he gave you life, should you not respect the gift and care for it to the best of your ability?
      Yes, you should not eat blood. Just as you should not eat human flesh which would be cannibalism. We should all recognize that Jehovah wants us to abstain from cannibalism. But an organ transplant is not cannibalism, it is not the same as eating flesh. Likewise, a blood transfusion is equivalent to an organ transplant, though in this case, the organ is in liquid form. The body does not eat the foreign blood.
      The Organization would have us believe that the decision is as simple as a Yes/No choice, but there are many other Scriptural principles involved and all should be considered when making a conscientious decision.

      • Reply by Roger Kirkpatrick on 2016-01-20 20:35:06

        Well put, Meleti!, And when the Organization encouraged all JWs to carefully examine how Scriptural principles applied to accepting "minor" blood fractions, many reasoning Christians began to see the flaws in the Organization's prohibition of life-saving blood transfusions. Many long time elders faded into inactivity as JWs or have disassociated as a result of their examinations which the Organization had encouraged. It was the only time that JWs were encouraged to investigate matters for themselves and it backfired in a big way!

    • Reply by Menrov on 2016-01-20 08:15:12

      Hi Irene, in the end, everything one does is a personal choice. If you are convinced about your views (even if these views are shared by others) on the use of blood and want to act accordingly, that is a personal choice and that is all fine. Everyone is entitled to their own views.
      The point here is that the WT has imposed their views as a correct scriptural doctrine on all its members, with a punishment policy in place if a member did not support that view in their personal lives. The articles (the previous one, this one and I presume the ones coming) show the flaws in that doctrine, its non-scriptural history and the more than serious impact that doctrine had/has on many of its loyal members.
      Now regarding the contents of your comment, it is true that he life is in the blood and the verse continues to say:
      Deu 12:23 However, by no means eat the blood, for the blood is life itself – you must not eat the life with the meat!
      As I read it (personal view) with the info provide in the article, it seems that God wanted to protect his people of the danger of eating blood as it can poison a person and the person can die. Blood in the mouth is toxic. Compare: Deu 12:28 Pay careful attention to all these things I am commanding you so that it may always go well with you and your children after you when you do what is good and right in the sight of the Lord your God.
      In other words, not eating blood will add to the promise that it may go well.
      Now, does this mean that blood is prohibited as a means of medicine to save a life? I (personal view) do not see that stated in the scriptures. Only when one adds more meaning to the words / verses at stake, or to read more in the verses that actually written. In my view (again, personal view) the counsel in Acts has some reference to the use of blood in rituals as well (Gentiles). But still, to eat blood would also be harmful in the time of Acts 15. If the fact that life is in the blood would be the core issue, I would have expected that to be repeated in Acts 15.
      In contrast to this, see this:
      Joh 6:54 The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
      As I presume no-one (well, there might be exceptions....) will take literally but blood is presented here as something all should "drink" in order to have eternal life. Jesus did not change his wording despite the reaction of the Jews when they heard him speaking like this. John 6:55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood resides in me, and I in him.
      I admit, the above is a different topic but it is just there to show that blood have different purpose. Blood as food(drink) is not the same as blood as a life saver and blood of Jesus is not the same as the blood of animals etc etc. Meat with blood was used on the altar: Deu. 12:27 You must offer your burnt offerings, both meat and blood, on the altar of the Lord your God; the blood of your other sacrifices you must pour out on his altar while you eat the meat.
      My point: it is in my view wrong unscriptural) to apply the counsel or command not to eat blood to all other usages of blood. I believe the counsel not to eat blood means exactly what it says.

    • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-20 08:53:32

      Hello Irene,
      God does make it plain that all life belongs to him. Yet God has also given human express permission to use the life we have individually in certain ways. For instance, we are taught by the Master Jesus that it is a fine thing to donate our life by sacrificing it in order to prevent premature death of a fellow human being. (John 15:13) If we have permission to donate our life to save the life of another, and if the blood flowing in our veins should be held equivalent with our life, then we have God's permission to donate our blood to save the life of another. This is not taking. This is giving. When a person is given this transfusion they are not taking something from us as though committing a theft. They are accepting a gift.

      • Reply by Roger Kirkpatrick on 2016-01-20 20:23:33

        Marvin Shilmer, I always enjoy your reasonable comments. Thank you.

        • Reply by GodswordIstruth on 2016-01-21 17:20:40

          I have to definitely second this comment . Your comments brother are always balanced in my view.

    • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2016-01-20 10:17:31

      Hi Irene
      I tried to examine the implications of what you're saying in a follow up article to my original one on blood. The follow up is here: http://meletivivlon.com/2013/10/22/blood-sanctity-of-life-or-ownership-of-life/
      Other good points have been made here as well, but that was my take on it.
      Apollos

    • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-20 17:39:46

      Irene,
      I sincerely commend your effort to carefully follow the scriptures. You are right, the life is in the blood this is why Jesus' blood is so precious. His blood cleanses us from sin.
      (Matthew 26:27, 28) “Drink out of it, all of you, for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins."
      (Acts 20:28) "Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son."
      With regard to the blood of animals killed for food God told Noah, "Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat."
      Noah and his descendants could lawfully KILL and eat animals but the life of the DEAD animal, its blood, belonged to God.
      Similarly, when an animal was KILLED for sacrifice the life of the DEAD animal, its blood, was held sacred, making atonement for sin.
      Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it."
      The life of a MURDERED man, a DEAD man's life, his blood, was to be accounted for. Abel's blood, the blood of a murdered man, cried out to God.
      "I will demand an accounting from every living creature; and from each man I will demand an accounting for the life of his brother."
      However, sister, when a man stabs another but the injured man recovers is the blood that gushed from his open wound, accounted for as the injured man's LIFE? Does it cry out to God? If a goat survived a predator attack could its owner have collected the spilled blood for use at the altar? Or could Aaron have slit a bull's vein collect the blood into a vessel, bind the wound that the animal may recover, and use that blood on the altar?
      The obvious answer to these questions is no because a life was NOT taken. The man's blood gushing from his wound does not require it be spilled on the ground or accounted for. The animal's blood taken from a vein is not sufficient in itself because a life was not sacrificed.
      Sister, blood donated for transfusions is like the blood gushing from a cut, it does not take the life of the donor. The donor's life, his blood, is not calling out to God. They still live!
      Christ's blood cleanses us from sin because he gave it up for us, he gave up his life. Blood from a cut on Christ's hand would not satisfy the atonement requirement because his LIFE would not be lost.
      Yes, the life is in the blood, but it is the life LOST that calls out, that atones. Blood loss without loss of life is only blood loss.
      Your brother,
      Joshua

    • Reply by Yobec on 2016-01-20 22:03:09

      The stealing of a life would only apply if you killed them so as to take their blood

    • Reply by AFRICAINE on 2016-01-21 04:51:53

      Respectfully ... You would do well to just give this matter much deeper thought and couple that with a lot of research. Also your remark .."even if all the above is true" .....ie "all of the above is lies" - is a little bit rough to say the least - I along with probably all the other folk commenting here are very sincere in our spiritual pursuits. We want to please Jehovah and follow His Christ according the to dictates of the Bible and not exclusively according to the traditions of men. You are not taking the life of ANOTHER person into you by having a transfusion - Blood is a wonderful mechanism to allow the life force already within you to continue - See it with an analogy please : the Blood is like the cables that bring the electricity into your home to allow you to enjoy power for all sorts of things. The source of the electricity is the Power Generation system many kilometers away - By replacing lost blood you are merely replacing lost. broken or damaged cables - The original life for remains intact at the power station [Jehovah] imho

  • Comment by Rose Alves on 2016-01-20 05:25:36

    Thank you for such a great article. It has indeed helped to clarify the matter of whether to accept blood transfusions or not. You said in your first article that if your article can help one person then you will be happy of your time spent compiling these 4 series of articles. Well it surely has helped me. I also know for a fact that Jehovah has guided me to this as I have been praying for his guidance in this matter of the blood issue. Thank you once again. May Jehovah help as many see the logic and the facts you present in your articles.

    • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-20 07:52:39

      Thank you Rose for sharing how it has benefited you.
      It touches my heart.
      Your brother in Christ,
      Sopater

  • Comment by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-20 07:42:01

    Irene,
    Thank you for your comment and welcome.
    You have the honor of being first poster.
    First let me reply to your statement "even if all the above is true"..........
    I invite you to research all references I've provided, and if you feel I've unfairly represented any of the authors in their view, please advise and I will be happy to make any necessary corrections.
    I completely agree with your position that all life belongs to Jehovah, and that the life of a person (or any living creature) is in the blood.
    To be specific, given that oxygen is the key component to life in the human organism, and that hemoglobin is the transport system for oxygen to our tissues and organs, could we not view hemoglobin as the "life" that is in the blood?
    If I may, are you aware that the protein hemoglobin and water constitute roughly 95% of whole blood? Think about this Irene. When you cut yourself, 95% of what you bleed out is water and hemoglobin. Would it not be scientifically correct to consider hemoglobin the "life" that's in the blood? Can we not say that by blood volume alone, the primary components of whole blood are water and hemoglobin?
    Consider the GB's new position regarding blood fractions. A Christian may now accept 100% of derivatives (fractions) produced from blood. The GB has listed these as "minor" blood fractions. The list includes hemoglobin. The Questions From Readers (wt 6/15/04) addressed the subject of blood fractions. The article was titled as follows:
    "Do Jehovah's Witnesses accept any minor fractions of blood?"
    The fact is that next to water, hemoglobin is by far the largest constituent of blood, and it's role is by far the most vital. Knowing this, do you feel the GB's manner of including hemoglobin in articles discussing "minor" fractions fairly represented hemoglobin's vital role? Or, was hemoglobin intentionally diminished and downplayed?
    Can we not be confident that the GB used acted diligently, along with other mature and intelligent elders at Bethel, to thoroughly research hemoglobin and its vital role PRIOR to deciding it was excluded from the prohibition at Acts 15:29?
    The new ruling of the GB is that the prohibition does not apply to hemoglobin and all other fractions of whole blood, even though the sum total of these constituents totals 99.9%. I ask, exactly what are we Jehovah's Witnesses abstaining from? Is there really a difference between an intravenous injection of frozen plasma and packed red cells, or saline water and hemoglobin, in God's eyes?
    One can only deduce that the GB has now decided the prohibition at Acts 15:29 (to abstain from blood) applies only to drinking or eating WHOLE blood (which is correct). They have now decided that Christians can accept an intravenous injection of whole blood AFTER it has been fractionated, and that this is NOT eating blood.
    How logical is the notion that Jehovah views a liter of whole blood one way, but after that liter (100%) is dissected and fractionated.... he views it completely differently? This is precisely the GB's new position.
    Lastly, I'm certain that you are aware of the source of all blood fractions. They are produced from the whole blood donated by many human beings. The GB says it's acceptable for us to "take into our system" the fractions made from donor blood (100%) to sustain our life. These derivatives (including hemoglobin) represent the life of another person.
    Do you disagree with the GB's new position? Do you feel they are now guilty of enabling JW's to "steal from the giver and owner of life, Jehovah God?"
    Or is this how they should have viewed things all along?
    We welcome you, and look forward to your reply.
    Phileo,
    Sopater

  • Comment by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-20 08:47:24

    Sadly, based on current Watchtower reasoning if Denys had been correct in his assessment of the cardiovascular system then Jehovah's Witnesses would have reason to accept transfusion of blood as a God-ordained use of blood. Why?
    In his presentation Denys reasoned that transfusion of blood is taught by nature itself because, according to Denys, a fetus 1) cannot be fed by the mouth and 2) its stomach is not yet fit for digestion so 3) the fetus is instead continuously transfused with maternal blood through the umbilical cord. Denys idea was that the umbilical cord served to transfuse blood from mother to unborn child. (See: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2013/02/academic-deception-or-incompetence.html)
    Current Watchtower doctrine leverages healthy transference via umbilical cord between a mother and her unborn as a God-ordained indication of what is acceptable in God's eyes. Hence, if we accept what Denys said then we should have no objection to accepting blood transfusion. Of course, we know Denys assessment was wrong, but that hasn't stopped Watchtower from using it when it suits its purpose.
    On another note, a really telling aspect of Watchtower's usage of Crile quoting Denys 17th Century reasoning is that it failed to point out the view current in Crile's time (1909), which was that blood transfusion offered no nutritional support.

    • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-20 09:09:48

      Marvin,
      Excellent my brother, as always your expressions are respectful and you bring enlightening facts that we all need to know so that we can be diligent in making our own conscientious decision on this matter.
      Thank you,
      Sopater

  • Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2016-01-20 10:05:31

    Thanks for this Sopater. I am in the process of reading the Kerry Louderback-Wood article and it is indeed most interesting.
    Just one query - when I wrote my original article about blood on this site a few year back, I was unable to establish whether accepting organ transplants was ever a disfellowshipping offence or not. Did you find any specific information on that?

    • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-20 11:50:45

      Thank you.
      Very good query, and no, I haven't found specific information in print that it was a disfellowshipping offense.
      Given the 1967 quote in the article, the distinct connection is made between not eating blood and not eating human flesh. It would seem that the penalty would have been the same for both.
      In 1980, it was stated (3/15 Questions From Readers) that accepting an organ transplant was a conscience matter. From this I deduced that prior to this date, it was not a considered a conscience matter.
      My simple reasoning is this: Had it been a conscience matter all along, I would think they would have so stated in the 1967 article when transplants were first addressed in print. If not, very soon thereafter. It seems that the absence of any other directive suggests the matter would be have been handled the same as if one accepted blood.
      If "eating" an organ was a viewed a conscience matter in 1967, would there be any reason to restate that position in print in 1980? Typically, at that time the Questions From Readers often dealt with "new light" medical decisions.
      Anyway, just simple reasoning my brother.
      If I stumble on to anything otherwise (and if you find anything) please share so I can edit the article accordingly.
      Thank you,
      Sopater

    • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-20 12:05:09

      In 1966 the Watchtower made it pretty plain. It stated that accepting transfusion of blood is 'just as despicable as cannibalism'. (Watchtower, July 1, 1966 p. 401) In 1968 Watchtower stated categorically that all transplants between humans are cannibalism. (Awake, June 8, 1968 p. 21) Of course, later on Watchtower changed its doctrine so that transplantation of human flesh was not to be necessarily held as cannibalistic. But until that doctrinal shift...
      Under Watchtower doctrine cannibalism is an abhorrent sin lumped with other sins such as theft and murder (and blood transfusion). Though I know of no instances in Watchtower publications where it explicitly states that a JW was disfellowshipped for cannibalism the question is quickly settled by asking a JW missionary with experience in a country like, for example, Papua New Guinea. They'll tell you right away of JWs known to have been disfellowshipped for eating human flesh.

  • Comment by yobec on 2016-01-20 14:54:44

    In 2208, I was diagnosed with stage 4 blood cancer (lymphoma). On my first visit with the Oncologist, I was told that chemo... was my only hope. However, since my blood counts (platelets and hemoglobin) were so low, I would need several transfusions prior. I then stated my objection to this treatment due to not wanting to violate God's law. I had already started my awakening by then and although not having been at the meetings for 5 years or so, I still believed that blood transfusions were wrong. I was told that without it, I would soon die as they were not able to do chemo until my blood count went up otherwise the chemo would kill me. A few weeks later, the hospital called and told me to go to the emergency as my blood count had further deteriorated and they were fearful that I could have a heart attack at any time. They put me in a room for that night and told me to prepare for palliative care. Needless to say, I couldn't sleep that night. I prayed to Jehovah that night and told him that I was ready to die if that was his will. However, since I had already come to the understanding that a lot of J/W doctrines were not sound, I told God that perhaps the same was true with the blood doctrine and if it was so, could he please help me to see that. What happened next was truly amazing. My mind went to the time that God told Noah about the blood edict and was prompted to look at why that was. What was now going to be different.Well, meat was now going to be consumed but also animals were now going to be allowed by God to be KILLED. I realized that killing was the issue. God created life and was now permitting for it to be taken away. So, the pouring of the blood was a gesture of respect towards God as the giver of life. I then reasoned that in my case there was going to be no killing whatsoever. So I allowed the transfusions to proceed which allowed for the chemo and now, 6 years later, rather than being dead, I enjoy playing "snakes and ladders" and help with the raising of my 2 special needs grandchildren .

    • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-20 14:58:58

      A life saved! Thanks for sharing this experience!

    • Reply by Roger Kirkpatrick on 2016-01-20 20:11:08

      What a marvelous experience, and what astute reasoning!

    • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-20 20:14:21

      Yobec, what a moving story, You are undeniable proof that transfusion intervention saves lives.
      I am overjoyed that you are there (and will be there) for your grandchildren. Please give them both a hug from all of us here at BP.
      Jehovah is very good.
      Warmest regards,
      Sopater

    • Reply by GodswordIstruth on 2016-01-21 17:17:54

      What a testimony! Thank you for sharing. the HS is truly a comforter and no doubt recall that to your mind so that you could make a sound decision!

    • Reply by Father jack on 2016-01-22 04:04:05

      Enjoy your life , mate

  • Comment by Anonymous on 2016-01-20 19:03:13

    Thanks for the article, Sopater.
    Blood transfusion is an extremely hurtful topic. So many have lost loved ones, including children.
    Much has been written on the wrongfulness of the Watchtower's blood policy but little by way of comfort to family who suffered terrible losses.
    Words of comfort should be offered to devastated families awake to what has occurred.
    I hope such an effort may occur in the near future.
    Joshua

    • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-20 20:04:05

      Joshua,
      Thank you brother for mentioning this. I do speak about this in Part 3.
      My own father-in-law died prematurely (before his natural time) due to the no blood doctrine. His surgeon sadly told my wife and her siblings his death was avoidable had he been able to accept blood.
      Words can not express the sadness and compassion I feel for those who've experienced such loss. My heart is heavy, I have shed many tears. Before embarking the mission of sharing my personal research with others here on BP (in these articles), I worried of the effect it could have on someone who lost a loved one taking their stand.
      I feel it similar to the American family who lost their son on the battlefield. Out of respect we honor the sacrifice made by their family and son.
      It is such a delicate and sensitive matter. But I have faith that those who have experienced such loss would want us to help others avoid the same tragedy. I pray that in time they become strong enough to share their personal story so that we can all comfort them and assure them of our love and deep regret over their loss.
      Such pain my brother, such gut wrenching pain.
      Sopater

      • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-21 09:49:00

        Brother, my heartfelt condolences to you and your family and to all who have lost loved ones to the false blood doctrine. Yes, it most certainly is like honoring a soldier killed in battle. Christians have been battling Satan inspired evil among their ranks since the first century. The blood doctrine is an evil, a Satan inspired teaching against God himself.
        Satan has influenced Watchtower leaders who in turn have instructed parents to sacrifice their own children to Jehovah God. Something abhorrent to Jehovah. We should make no mistake about it, this is exactly what has happened. Satan's tactics remain the same, child sacrifice/human sacrifice has entered the JW congregation!
        When abhorrent evil takes place, Satan is there. Satan was there at the Holocaust, he was there at the Spanish Inquisition, he was there when Jesus was put to death. Satan's aim is to destroy the Christian congregation and the most effective way to do that is to influence egotistic Christian leaders to play god. Then stumbling takes place, faith weakens, and God is blamed.
        In the resurrection those who gave their life rather than take blood will stand up among those who kept integrity and proved faithful in ALL things because he or she who gave their life over blood would also have given their life for Christ and their brother. They will stand up with honor. Whereas those who insisted on strict rule keeping and unloving practices will stand up with those who shamed both God and Christ.
        This is not our only life, we have a life to come where the righteous will be honored as righteous.
        Your brother,
        Joshua

  • Comment by Anonymous on 2016-01-20 23:49:21

    Here is the daily text for Saturday, January 23. Right on time
    I will certainly set my face against the one who is eating the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people.—Lev. 17:10.
    Jehovah commanded the Israelites not to eat “any sort of blood.” Abstaining from blood—animal or human—is a Christian requirement as well. (Acts 15:28, 29) We shudder at the very thought of having God ‘set his face against us’ and cut us off from his congregation. We love him and want to obey him. Even when confronted with a life-threatening situation, we are determined not to cave in to the pleas and demands of those who do not know Jehovah and who do not care to obey him. Yes, we expect to be ridiculed for abstaining from blood, but we choose to be obedient to God. (Jude 17, 18) Do you understand why Jehovah commands us not to eat “any sort of blood”? Do you grasp the reason why God considers blood to be sacred? He essentially views blood as equivalent to life.
    So is "knowing Jehovah" knowing that he will hate you for taking a blood transfusion? No wonder people can't relate this to a God of love.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-21 07:09:46

      You make a good point, Anonymous:

      "Do you grasp the reason why God considers blood to be sacred?"

      In his article, Apollos uses his very point in his excellent and comprehensive article to show why refusing a blood transfusion in a life-threatening situation as prescribed by the Organization is based on one-sided reasoning.
      Consider two things: First, am I showing respect for the sacredness of the life that Jehovah gave me by refusing a treatment that could save it? Is the symbol (blood) more important than the reality (the life it represents)?
      Second, if you really feel God will cut off anyone who takes a blood transfusion, then how much more will he hate those who promote the taking of blood for medical purposes. The Governing Body has permitted us to accept blood fractions such as hemoglobin which amount to over 90% of the constituents of blood. Surely Jehovah's anger does not boil for only 100% of a sin. Surely 93-95% merits at least the same percentage of his anger?
      Please read all the articles on our site under the category of Blood and examine all the Scriptural evidence. Basing a life-and-death decision on only some of the Scriptural evidence while ignoring the rest is a method often used by the Churches of Christendom to promote false doctrine. I'm saddened to admit that Jehovah's Witnesses have fallen prey to that same methodology. But you and I do not have to. Look at all the evidence, then make your decision.

      • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-21 08:08:55

        How timely this is indeed!
        Yes, Jehovah would set his face against the native or proselyte (foreigner residing in Israel) who was guilty of EATING the blood of an animal that had just been slain to be used in sacrifice. The specific blood mentioned in Lev 17:10 is "fresh" blood, from a recently slain animal. If not "fresh", the blood would have congealed and could not have been "spattered" upon the alter. It was the life in the blood, not the blood itself, that made atonement for sin. The animal had to be brought to sacrifice while it was alive.
        So, the scripture in today's daily text deals with EATING "live" blood, which came from an animal that had just been slain for sacrifice. It's blood was to be spattered on the alter, not consumed by the priest or anyone else.
        Visualize the two settings:
        The Israelite Setting
        An innocent animal is brought to the priest. The priest slays it, the animal is screaming from the agony of its pain, The priest's garment is all splattered with blood, his hands stained from the dried blood of all the animals he's slain that day. How gruesome is this picture?
        The Modern Day Setting
        A sterile hospital (operating) room, where a patient may be nearing death. Blood donated by a donor (which caused no harm to the donor) has been sufficiently fractionated and then intravenously injected in the veins of the patient (NOT INTO HIS MOUTH)
        The blood products preserve the life of another human being.
        I see absolutely no connection.
        Sopater

      • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-21 16:04:19

        Sorry, I think you misunderstood. I merely quoted the Daily Text for everyone's interest, so my apologies if you thought that was my reasoning and not the Watchtowers. My comment was at the end, and it was merely that when an organisation professes to "know" God, they also expect you to "know" him in the same way they do. And if you cannot agree that a God of love would expect you to die a painful death when there are methods available for staying alive, they say that you don't "know" God. Sometimes people honour God with their lips yet their heart is far removed from him. The Pharisees strained out the gnat yet gulped down the camel, and missed the weightier aspects of the Law, namely justice and mercy. If I were dying on a hospital bed badly in need of a transfusion, my prayer would indeed be "Be merciful to me God, a sinner". Jesus deliberately healed people when the Pharisees said it wasn't allowed to make a point, and it's good for us to reflect on this. He even gave the example of David and his men eating the loaves of bread. Does God consider life importantly? Absolutely. Reading some of the stories Ray Franz described of people being disfellowshipped on their hospital bed was astounding. I can't get out of my head the one where the woman's blood was going the consistency of thick syrup and everyone was crowding around while she was convulsing and saying words of encouragement so she died faithful. Pretty sobering stuff really.

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-21 16:37:20

          Jesus deliberately healed people when the Pharisees said it wasn’t allowed to make a point, and it’s good for us to reflect on this. He even gave the example of David and his men eating the loaves of bread.

          What an excellent point. Thank you and sorry for the confusion.

          • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-22 07:23:28

            No problem at all Meleti

    • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-21 08:06:37

      It is good to consider what God expresses, in this case of blood. The text cited of Leviticus is of a law given to one set of worshippers of the only true God, Israel. Yet Jews were not the only people with worshippers of God.
      Job comes to mind. Cornelius also comes to mind. Job lived prior to and possibly as a contemporary of the Mosaic Law. Yet Job was not under that Law. Cornelius lived contemporary to the Mosaic Law and after Jesus' death abolished it. Though the worship of both these men was recognized and accepted by God neither was bound by provisions of Mosaic Law. So in respect to blood what was required of these worshippers of God? Both were descendants of Noah and were, accordingly, accountable to the decree God issued to all mankind through Noah about blood. (Gen. 9)
      Noah was not required to abstain from eating any sort of blood. Take a close look at the Noachian Decree of Genesis 9. What is addressed to Noah is blood of animals slaughtered to eat. That is to say, blood of living creatures whose lives were taken so their flesh could serve as food. Yet there was an alternate source of blood, which was of animal carcasses found dead of natural cause. This latter source of blood was something Noah had permission to eat prior to the flood. (Gen. 6:21, bloody flesh was a sort of food eaten since creation) Nothing in the Noachian Decree of Genesis 9 addresses this source of blood as though eating it would in anyway be wrong. In fact we find embodied within the Mosaic Law a provision to supply precisely this sort of flesh to non-Jewish descendants of Noah and specifically for purposes of these men and women eating it as food. (Deut. 14:21) Hence as a provision from God worshippers like Job and Cornelius were provided with unbled meat of animal carcasses dead of natural cause as food to eat. Eating this sort of blood was illegal for Jewish worshippers of God who were bound to the Noachian Decree and Mosaic Law, but not for other worshippers of God who were bound to the Noachian Decree but not Mosaic Law.
      In respect to blood, the text of Act 15 reads as a reiteration of the decree issued to Noah rather than a reiteration of blood abstentions required under Mosaic Law. Jesus' death abolished the Mosaic Law. Accordingly we should take great care not to resurrect provisions of this Law as though binding on Christians. To do so would be a repudiation of faith in Jesus.

    • Reply by yobec on 2016-01-21 09:04:42

      However, 5 verses further, namely,Lev: 17: 15, God spells out what would happen if even an Israelite was to eat the meat of an unbled animal while in transit. The penalty was not death but simply that he or she would be unclean until the next day and that would most likely be due to having touched a dead body. In this case, the eater of the unbled meat, would not have KILLED the animal themselves. So, it becomes evident then that the issue of sacredness is that of a life taken and not that of blood. For further reading on this topic, go to ajwrb.org and go to the question from the reader. The Watchtower attempts to explain this and makes it obvious that this verse is a problem for them.

      • Reply by SopaterOfBeroea on 2016-01-21 10:16:59

        Yobec, I fully concur.
        From this we see that blood without its life (congealed in the flesh of a dead unbled carcass) was viewed very differently by Jehovah. In that the "life" in the blood had expired (oxygen carried by hemoglobin) and in that no human bore responsibility for the animal's death, the meat became was unclean due to the animal having died. It required an acknowledgement by the Israelite who ate it. If he didn't acknowledge his error he would answer to Jehovah. He would not be cut off from his people for eating "expired" blood unless he failed to acknowledge his error

  • Comment by Menrov on 2016-01-21 10:48:19

    I was just wondering. Could it be that the command in Lev and Deut not to eat blood had something to do with the blood that had to be put on the door posts in order for the angel to pass the house and their firstborn would not be killed? In other words, the blood meant life. Therefore, in order for the Jews to remember that and respect the value of blood which saved their lives at that time, the command was given not to eat blood. Just to eat the blood from killed animals would not be respectful. Later, the blood of Jesus would save their lives again.
    Also, as we know now, it is not safe to eat either. In Acts, there is no mention of life in the blood. If my reasoning makes some sense, after Jesus death, blood served its purpose and followers should now show faith. But as it was still not healthy, the counsel to abstain from (eating) blood remained.
    Just a thought.......

    • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-21 11:25:15

      Hello Menrov,
      I'm not sure I understand your premises or argument. Nevertheless, I'd argue that Jews worshippers of God under Mosaic Law were held to a different standard in respect to blood than worshippers of God aside from Mosaic Law. I say this for multiple reasons, but three conspicuous ones are 1) there is language about "any sort of blood" within Mosaic Law, 2) Jews were under obligation to use blood for something and that something was for sacred sacrifices for atonement of sin and 3) otherwise Jews were told to waste blood onto the ground. By comparison the Noachian Decree 1) neither speaks explicitly or by implication of "any sort of blood", 2) it does not require that blood be used for anything in particular and 3) it does not require that any blood be wasted by pouring it out onto the ground. Hence there is, to me, solid reason to think Jewish worshippers under Mosaic Law had to treat blood as though a special substance whereas other worshippers of God were not required to treat blood as though a special substance. This would explain why a stipulation within Mosaic Law actually provided unbled flesh of animal carcasses dead of natural cause as food to eat by non-Jewish descendants of Noah who were, in God's eyes, bound to requirements of the Noachian Decree of Genesis 9. It would also explain why the Noachian Decree addresses blood of slaughter but not blood of animals dead of natural cause, the latter of which Noah already had permission to use as food (see Gen. 6:21) which he was probably already doing anyway because of its abundance and lack of any prohibition against eating it.
      Then we get to Acts 15. The question is does language of the Apostolic Decree resurrect all the blood abstentions of Mosaic Law or is it no more than a reiteration of the more ancient Noachian Decree's requirement for blood abstention.
      I'd also like to address something else I've read lately about eating blood. It is no more unsafe to eat blood than any other edible food. But like essentially all edible foods if you overdo it or preparation is inadequate then there are consequences. From ancient times blood has been used as a staple in diets to a nutritious end. The iron content of blood, for instance, is very nutritious unless you overdo it. Safe and nutritious consumption of blood as a food item is a matter of proper preparation and balance. Eating butter beans can be lethal if they're contaminated with an unhealthy pathogen and they're not properly prepared under heat. The same for meat. The same for blood. Etc...

      • Reply by SopaterOfBeroea on 2016-01-21 14:17:56

        Marvin,
        I agree with your thoughts.
        Just the other day I saw a program where the narrator was in a third world country and a dish was prepared using whole blood. It looked awful in its raw state, but after cooked sufficiently and diluted with other spices and vegetables, it was edible. There are many food products made with whole blood.
        My understanding is that the iron (heme) in RAW uncooked blood is toxic. The amount of raw blood one would have to consume to gain enough nutrition to sustain life would result in iron-poisoning that would be fatal. We're talking about raw blood, not dressed blood.
        The Noachian law did not prohibit Noah eating the dressed blood (of an animal that was slain for food), nor from eating the congealed blood found in the flesh of an animal that had died. The prohibition was for one thing, and one thing only:
        "Only flesh WITH ITS LIFE, its blood you must not eat."
        What does this mean? Let's restate the sentence to add clarity:
        "Only an animal that is alive, its blood you must not eat"
        "Only you must not eat the blood of an animal that you kill for food while it is alive"
        "You must make certain the animal you kill for food is dead (by bleeding) before you eat its flesh"
        The way I understand this command is simply this: An alive animal slain by man for food must be dead before eating its flesh. After it dies, the flesh and the blood drained out could be edible as food to Noah.
        I comment on this at length in Part 5 of this series (and I will be repeating some of this there) but the design of the Noachian law was a humane act to protect animals from cruelty (and by extension humans, as the mind of a man that could be so cruel to tear a limb off an animal could degrade to the same with humans).
        To make the connection, we must understand that before the flood, limbs of animals and humans were eaten while the creature was yet alive. To eat the flesh of an animal while alive would cause the creature excruciating pain and suffering. Imagine the cries of pain from an innocent animal.
        On the other hand, to bleed the animal as soon as it was slain was a humane act, which hastened unconsciousness so it that it no longer felt pain. It was out of its misery using the most expedient means possible at that time, namely; bleeding the life out. Bleeding brings about unconsciousness rapidly. How humane this law was. I'm reminded of God's law to Israel that they should not boil a kid in its mother's milk. How our God is.
        The life is in the blood while the creature is alive. When its blood is drained out, the animal is no longer living and its blood no longer represents life. It's blood is no different than its dead flesh.
        I realize this is a different way of looking at things to many. When I first grasped this understanding. it helped me see that the law given to Noah wasn't about the blood. I could then harmonize Deut 14:21 and Lev 17:15. If the animal had already died, there was no "life" in the blood. Eating the congealed blood was the same as eating the dead flesh in God's eyes. No symbolic meaning whatsoever.
        Our JW indoctrination has us focusing on the BLOOD in the Noachian law. In reality, it's about the animal. Live blood is that which is present only when circulating in an alive animal. The animal's welfare is what the law is all about.
        Prior to the flood, God had not given a specific law that forbid the eating raw animal flesh torn off an animal while it was yet alive. God made certain that the cannibalistic acts of barbarians before the flood would never occur again. To prevent such cruelty, Jehovah forbid Noah and his sons from eating the blood and flesh of an animal while it was still alive.
        "Only flesh with its life [an alive creature], it's blood you must not eat."
        Sopater

        • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-21 15:44:25

          Sopater,
          The understanding you articulate is arguably true, and you are not alone in holding that view. I think, though, there is an alternate understanding that is also arguably true. The latter understanding would include a notion that eating blood of a slaughtered animal was prohibited, though no other use of that blood would be prohibited.
          We could have a long discussion about these alternate views, but for me the point is that neither prohibits the modern medical use of donor blood for transfusion. Hence no matter which of the two understandings a person accepts neither would have them needlessly place their life in jeopardy over accepting donor blood for transfusion. If anything is in need of resolution its a thing that threatens life and/or health.
          Watchtower's blood doctrine is a direct threat to life and health because it forbids conscientious acceptance of certain (but not all!) blood products under threat of the religion's very harsh organized communal shunning policy. This threat has led to tens of thousands of avoidable deaths (at least!) hence it must be conclusively proven true or else dispensed with. So far Watchtower's leadership has failed at every turn to conclusively prove the important details of this policy, and these days the top leadership refuses to hold a public discussion of the issue by fielding learned questions that challenge its religious position. If today's Governing Body went on public record that they would sit, take and respond to questions in full public view from me on this topic I'd rent the facility and leave right now to do it. But they won't. They won't even give a private audience to have the discussion. They only want to tell their religious position; they don't want to have to defend it down in the details where it matters, and particularly not in public view. It's on occasions like this I recall and yearn for the ancient practice of city elders holding public discussion at the city's gate for all to see and hear. Oh if it could only be so. I'd even settle for minutes documenting deliberations of Governing Body sessions where competing views are articulated, discussed and recorded for posterity. That's how the first century Christians did it, isn't it. We have these minutes recorded at Acts 15. But we don't have any record like this when it comes to Watchtower's peculiar version of blood abstention. Honestly, I can't utter the phrase "Jehovah's Witnesses abstain from blood" without feeling like a liar! JWs use mightily from the donor blood supply each and every day of the week, including in so-called bloodless medicine clinics. Of course, you know all this. I just couldn't help but repeat it. Sorry if it causes offense to anyone. But I've been there when innocents have died over this thing. It's not pretty. It's not a happy occasion. It demands evidence proving conclusive that the policy is true and correct to the same detail to which it's enforced by the organization's shunning policy. So far that hasn't been done, and it's long, long overdue. Again, my apologies if I've offended any reader. In my defense I'll only say my interest is in whatever can be proven true, whatever that is, and whether it means I'm wrong or right. I'm not interested in proving myself right. I'm interested in learning what is right, even if that means learning I'm wrong first.

          • Reply by SopaterOfBeroea on 2016-01-21 17:11:05

            Marvin,
            I agree I've introduced an alternate view and that it there are certainly other valid alternatives. I think all should do research and decide for themselves. I will present my research and reasoning as one of the views available, then the reader can decide. I do want the reader to be aware this view exists and has merit. I'm not dogmatic, I can't be.
            I will be sharing some additional references in in Part 5. Here's one:
            Note the 7th precept given to Noah in the Jewish Targum. Note how it precisely matches Gen 9:4.
            1.Idolatry is forbidden
            2.Blasphemy is forbidden.
            3.The shedding of blood, or murder is forbidden.
            4.Uncleanness, or unjust carnal copulations is forbidden.
            5.Rapine or robbery is forbidden.
            6.The administration of justice to malefactors is required.
            7.The eating of any member or flesh of a creature while alive is forbidden.
            I will share more references in the article.... if I keep my fingers on this keyboard, I won't have anything else to say :)
            I want to thank you and everyone who has commented on this thread for providing such insightful comments. This issue hits home for so many of us. Many of us have lost dear ones, some may have stood aside out of ignorance and allowed an innocent child to die. I can't count the number of No Blood cards I've signed over the years. I'm haunted.
            Sopater

            • Reply by Willy on 2016-01-22 04:43:00

              Hello Sopater, Thank you for the articles, looking forward to the whole series. You know now, what you didn't all those years and now you know better and you act accordingly, no you are certainly not haunted!
              Love Willy

              • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-22 07:26:39

                Thank you dear sister.
                I agree with Joshua as he said so eloquently in his earlier post. I too am 100% certain that Jehovah will treat with special honor all who've been victims of this tragic injustice.
                This includes those who "coached" their loved ones and friends to stand faithful as martyrs to the death in compliance with the doctrine. They are victims also. Including those who sacrificed their children to a teaching that is founded upon nothing more than an antiquated notion embraced by paranoid leadership during WW2...... who had an agenda to keep JW's separate from the world?
                Armageddon was so nigh in their minds that their delusion blinded them from realizing that what they published in the July 1945 Watchtower was actually a premature death sentence for tens of thousands of human beings, including innocent infants and their mothers.
                Warm Christian love,
                Sopaater

      • Reply by Menrov on 2016-01-22 04:04:37

        Hi Marvin, sorry if my post was not clear / confusing. Let me try to explain. First, I read your reply to Willy, I thought it made sense: not to eat blood from animals that are not dead yet.
        However, I am not yet sure if that command is the same type of command as stated in Lev. and Deut. The Jews were HIS special people and the Law was given to them and to all that joined them Yes, it is true that there were people who would do the things of the Law without even knowing they were ( Romans 2:13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous before God, but those who do the law will be declared righteous. 14 For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves. 15 They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them). Though it remains to be seen if these people were therefore considered worshippers of od. Nevertheless, if they did not do the things of the Law, it could not be hold against them as they were not under that Law and where there is no law, there is no trespassing.
        Anyway, my point(s): is the command given to Noah different in meaning / purpose from the command given to the Jews via the Mosaic Law? If not, then both laws refer to not to eat meat from animals still alive (not dead yet).
        But if both commands are not equal, what would be the purpose of the command under the Mosaic Law? As the Law was the guardian until Christ (Gal. 3:24), I can see that blood had more of a symbolic meaning than just as a fluid that transports oxygen to keep a person / animal alive or as a kind of food. Blood saved their first born (Exodus). Blood of Jesus saved them again.
        That was the thought I originally tried to express :-), that the command under the Mosaic Law was to remind them that blood was meant to save lives, and not just to be seen as food. Hence the Jews should not eat blood. If this reasoning makes some sense, it would even support blood transfusion as that is a very moral way to use blood: to save the live of a person.
        Again, it is just a thought for now.

        • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-22 07:01:16

          Menrov,
          If I may join, the law given to Noah (Universal Law) dealt specifically with the humane treatment of an animal slaughtered for food. Jehovah officially approved "alive" animals for food (Gen 9:3) but in verse 4 added the caveat that the animal (whether hunted or trapped) must be dead before its flesh could be eaten. God had not forbid eating meat from animals before the flood. But barbarian men were violent and had little respect for the life of animals (even humans), and would tear a limb off an animal and eat the raw bloody flesh while the animal was screaming in agony, still alive.
          To tell Noah he could hunt animals for food and eat them would not have been something new to Noah. Having not said otherwise since the days of Adam, Noah would have assumed that Jehovah had no issue with this. The caveat Jehovah added in Gen 9:4 was that the animal MUST BE DEAD before eating any part of its flesh. Jehovah said:
          "ONLY flesh with its life, its blood you must not eat."
          The word "only" suggests that what follows is segregated from something else. For clarity we could add a sentence to precede this:
          Flesh WITHOUT its life, its blood you can eat." ONLY flesh with its life, its blood you must not eat.
          It is logical that the animal that was hunted and killed would be immediately dressed and prepared as a meal for that day. With regard to an animal that had been trapped and had died, it was approved for consumption with its blood congealed in its flesh. It was "dead" flesh. As for animals trapped and still alive, Noah had lived for centuries prior to the flood, and would have been knowledgeable regarding the most expedient means of "killing" an animal. To slaughter would involve slashing and severing key arteries of the animal and letting its lifeblood bleed out quickly.
          So, when Jehovah gave the command to Noah, he would understood that any "alive" animal he hunted or trapped should be bled to hasten its death. I personally believe that Noah, having witnessed the brutality and cruel treatment of animals before the flood, would have appreciated this loving and humane command from Jehovah. It shows respect for the life of the animal and compassion to end its misery as quickly as possible.
          As I currently understand it, this is the essence of the law given to Noah.
          The Israelites were under the same command as Noah, but comparing the Mosaic law to the Noachian law is like comparing apples with oranges. They Israelites were a holy people. Blood had a sacrificial purpose. While blood to Noah represented the life of an animal used for food, blood was much more precious to the Israelites. I wasn't just the life of the animal. Shed blood atoned for the sins of the Israelites and ultimately was used to atone for the sins of all mankind.
          Chapter 17 of Leviticus is a transitional chapter. Chapters 1-16 were addressed primarily to the priests, this chapter is addressed to the people of Israel in their secular day to day life. The chapter is divided into four sections:
          Regulations concerning the slaughter of animals (vv. 3-7)
          Regulations concerning other sacrifices (vv. 8-9)
          Regulations concerning the eating of blood (vv. 10-13)
          Regulations concerning one who eats an animal that has died or been killed by another animal (vv. 14-16)
          I'm currently preparing an article devoted to chapters 11 and 17.
          In the way of a brief overview, any domestic animal (from the herds of Israelites) could NOT be slaughtered by the Israelite himself for food. The law said he had to bring the living (and healthy) animal to the doorway of the tent of meeting to the priest. The design of this was to ensure that the animal was not used in sacrifice to pagan gods. ( Lev 17:5-7) It was also to confirm that the priest received his portion of the sacrifice (the breast and right thigh) which would provide food for him. The rest of the animal would be consumed by the offerer and his guests as a meal.
          So under law, every domestic animal of the Israelites used for food had to be slaughtered by the priest. In this way the animal could not be used in pagan ritual, and the animal would be properly bled (and its fat being segregated during preparation).
          As for wild animals, the Israelite was not required to bring the animal to the priest for slaughter. It was sort of an "honor system" left to the Israelite to properly bleed the animal, and then pour the blood on the ground and bury it. An animal already dead could be used for food, but under law its flesh would be unclean (touching a dead carcass) and fall under the regulation of Lev 11:40.
          We can appreciate that Noah was not bound by any of these regulations. To Noah, there was no differentiation between domestic and wild animal. He was not required to take the animal to a priest who would offer the animal as a sacrifice to Jehovah and sprinkle its blood on an alter. He was not required to cut off the fat before eating the meat. He was not required to give any portion to a priest. He did not have to declare himself unclean if he ate the bloody flesh of an animal that had already died.
          Again, from my study comparing how Noah viewed blood with how the Israelites viewed blood is like comparing apples with oranges.
          Hope this is helpful.
          Sopater

          • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-22 08:48:49

            I want to clarify that the above is focusing on Chapter 17 which applies to the slaughter of "sacrificial" animals. The Israelite could not kill an animal from his herd that was used in sacrifice. He could of course kill animals not used in sacrifice (used only for food) in the same way as wild animal, namely, to bleed it and pour it's blood out on the ground and bury it.
            IN this case, it was apples and apples as the law given to Noah applied. In the above, I was focusing on the differences.
            Sopater

          • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-22 15:08:01

            Sopater,
            I would like to state a personal view with regard to Genesis 9:1-7.
            Noah and his sons were given instructions for the second start, the "present heavens and earth".
            2Pe 3:5-7 'For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men."
            Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.
            Gen 9:2 "The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given.
            Gen 9:3 "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.
            Gen 9:4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
            Gen 9:5 "Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man,from every man's brother I will require the life of man.
            Gen 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.
            Gen 9:7 "As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it."
            Like Adam and Eve, they were to be fruitful and multiply this being emphasized twice (9:1, 9:7).
            Like Adam and Eve, they were given dominion over all other living things (9:2).
            Like Adam and Eve, they were given instructions on what they could eat (9:3).
            Like Adam and Eve, they were given instructions on what they could not eat (9:4)
            Jehovah God gave Adam and Eve green vegetation for food, to Noah God grants the eating of animal flesh. In so doing God is giving the line of Seth, the line of the descendants of Adam and Eve who survived the Flood (the line that had remained worshipers of Him) the legal right to kill animals for food and to justly kill a murderer.
            In the Garden there was no killing until Adam and Eve sinned against God and in his loving kindness God made garments of skin for them. The first killing of an innocent animal covered Adam's physical nakedness, the killing of an innocent man covered the nakedness of our sinful nature.
            Gen 9:4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its LIFE, that is, its blood."
            Adam was allowed to eat from every tree but one, the Tree of LIFE. He was not prevented from eating of the Tree of Good an Evil, but he was prevented from eating of the Tree of Life. Life belongs to the Originator of Life, Jehovah God. (Vegetation does not have "life", "and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so." Gen. 1:30).
            Adam could not eat from the Tree of Life he lost that opportunity. Noah in effect had the same restriction in that he had to respect that very same principle; LIFE belongs to God, we cannot eat an animals lifeblood. LIFE belongs to God and HE decides how and WHEN it can be consumed.
            Gen 9:5 "Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's brother I will require the LIFE of man."
            It is clear that God's stipulation with regard to blood is DIRECTLY connected to LIFE. The LIFE belongs to God.
            Gen 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man."
            God protected Cain, he was not to lose his life for killing his brother. But to Noah it was granted to exercise justice. Life for life was now legally allowed.
            And again like Adam and Eve it is stated that man is made in God's image.
            Genesis 9:1-7 institute the instructions for a "present heavens and earth" far different than Adam and Eve's. The heavens and earth that would be blessed by the only one whose blood may be legally consumed: the SON of GOD! Who LIVES!
            Life belongs to the Originator of Life, Jehovah God. Jehovah sent His Son so that we may have LIFE. So that we may have life by eating his flesh ALONG with his BLOOD.
            John 6:54 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
            Yes, the LIFE is in the blood. If we hope for a life eternal that hope is by means of the flesh AND blood of Jesus Christ.
            That PRINCIPLE was first whispered to us in Genesis 9.
            Joshua
            ___________________
            To the descendants of Seth (appointed in place of Abel killed by his brother); in the line of Abraham, Issac and Jacob; appeared the Son of God.
            Gen. 4:25 "Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, "God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him."
            1Ch 1:1-4, Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth.
            1Ch 1:24-28, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abram, that is Abraham. The sons of Abraham were Isaac and Ishmael.
            Matt. 1:1, "The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham:"
            Luke 3:23, "When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,
            Luke 3:38, "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

            • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-23 05:41:47

              Joshua,
              Thank you for sharing. You have an interesting perspective. For me to make the connection between the Tree of Life in the garden and Genesis 9:4 requires a large leap of faith. In my younger days I was a very good long jumper and may have been able to make that leap, but I’m too old now :) Could you share the reference work that supports your view? There is certainly diversity of thought among scholars regarding whether the command to Noah was to not eat ‘live” blood, or any blood at all.
              In the past I shared much of your view. I now realize that I was looking at things through my filtered JW lenses. Something that forced me to rethink my position was the fact that Jehovah did not include with the command (at Gen 9:4) that Noah must “pour the blood on the ground and bury it.” I feel this is a very relevant point. Some may say, surely Noah would have read Jehovah's mind without him saying it....... I’m guilty of being too black and white to accept that.
              So I asked myself, why didn’t Jehovah give Noah the command to pour it on the ground? In the Mosaic law he repeatedly commanded the Israelites to pour the blood out like water (Deut 12:16,24; 15:23; Lev 17:13) Why wasn’t this important detail conveyed to Noah?
              We must understand that the Mosaic law did not exist until some eight centuries after Jehovah spoke to Noah (Gen 9:4). Are we to presume that Noah understood the full scope of the law given to Israel regarding the sanctity of blood, though Jehovah never spoke a word about it? To go there requires I put on my leaping shoes again.
              I choose not to over think this very simple verse. To infer that from these few words, Noah grasped all the nuances regarding the sanctity of blood (as manifest in the law) requires imagination. I put myself in Noah’s shoes and ask myself how I would have understood it. Given that as recent as a year earlier, he had witnessed horrific violence and brutality and shedding of innocent blood, including that of animals and of humans. This was the very recent backdrop when Jehovah spoke in Gen 9:1-7.
              It was a new day. The commands given dealt with humans acting humanely toward animals and acting humanely toward other humans. The exact opposite of what was going on before the flood. Noah knew nothing about the Mosaic law. He could act only upon what Jehovah spoke to him at that moment in time. We must therefore detach the Noachian law from the Mosaic Law, because it didn’t exist until eight centuries later. In hindsight, yes we can connect them, there are certainly elements of the precepts given to Noah incorporated in the law. But we can make that connection only in hindsight.
              The command speaks for itself. The impetus of vs 4 is....... an “alive” animal slain for food. It's not about blood. Noah was commanded that he must make certain the animal was dead before eating any of its flesh. Bleeding the animal of its lifeblood was the most expedient means of putting it out of its misery and hastening death.
              Here’s a question, since Noah was not commanded to pour it on the ground, could he have used the blood for another purpose other than food? Perhaps as a tinting dye for clothing? In fact, there are many industrial uses for blood (not implying that Noah had knowledge to use it in this way but just to back up my point). Note an excerpt from the book “Animal By-Product Processing Utilization” (p.326):
              “Industrial uses of blood include as an adhesive and for its film-forming properties in the paper, lithographic, plywood, veneering, fiber, plastics and glue industries. It also finds use in insecticide and fungicide formulations, in foam fire extinguishers, in molded and ceramic products, in leather finishers, in cork crowns, in porous concrete, and as a stabilizer for biological material and drugs. Blood is also useful as a fertilizer and, in addition to contributing nitrogen, it aids in humus formation and improves the soil structure. Blood is also useful in seed coating and regulating soil pH.”
              I ask, could Noah have used the blood drained for any other purpose than food? If we hold that the blood of the animal represented its life to Jehovah and is sacred, the answer must be no, Noah could not have “used” the animals blood. To use it for any purpose (perhaps in agriculture or as a paint product) would have shown disrespect for the sanctity of blood and life itself.
              But again, Jehovah did not command Noah to pour the blood on the ground, did he? Where is the command that he could not use the drained blood for purposes other than food?
              Absent any command otherwise, I must conclude that Noah could have used the blood as he so desired. If this is true, where is the command that he could not use it as food (dressed, mixed with sausage, pudding, etc.)? Many early cultures mixed blood with food dishes (some still do today).
              To grasp what Jehovah commanded Noah, we must place ourselves standing beside Noah when he heard the command. Remember, as we're standing there beside Noah, we have no knowledge of anything found in the Mosaic law.
              So what about the animal that had died by means other than man? There was no way to properly bleed this animal. To eat its meat would be to eat its blood. Did Jehovah forbid Noah from eating an animal that had died? Some say this is implied in the words of Gen 9:3:
              “Every moving creature that is alive shall be food for you….. ”
              I understand Jehovah saying this, for the high percentage of Noah’s meat diet would unquestionably come from killing a living animal not from roadkill. It would be by chance that Noah stumbled onto an animal that had recently died. Rigor mortis sets in within a few hours of death. The point is not to portray that Noah made a habit of eating roadkill, no more than we eat roadkill today. The point I’m making is that he COULD have eaten it. That is all. To show that he could eat the congealed blood in the dead animal and not break God's law. The point I'm attempting to make is: The command was not about blood.
              I can appreciate that Jehovah would feel no need to mention dead animals, no more than we mention roadkill today. What was the issue was that prior to the flood, flesh was torn from the animal and eaten while the animal was alive. Jehovah told Noah he could eat the animal, but he could not act as those violent barbarians before the flood, and eat its flesh while it was alive.
              How do we know that Noah could have eaten an animal that died without being properly bled? In that Noah was NOT under the Mosaic law, we can consult Deut 14:21 to confirm Jehovah’s thinking for those not under the Mosaic law:
              “You shall not eat anything which dies [of itself]. You may give them to the alien who is in your town so that he may EAT it, or you may sell it to the foreigner, for you are a holy people to the LORD….”
              Some say Jehovah “allowed” this violation of his law. But where is such a notion found in God’s Word? In the case of allowing polygamy, Jesus said it was an allowance. Do we not feel that if Jehovah was allowing a violation of his law, it would be so stated in the law, or, by Jesus himself?
              I hope this adds a new perspective. I have more which I will share in Part 4.
              No matter, at the end of the day we are in union regarding the big picture.
              Warm regards,
              Sopater

              • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-23 12:11:01

                Sopater,
                My point distilled is that LIFE belongs to God and He decides who will partake of life whether it be the Tree of Life in the Garden or Life by means of Christ's blood. God regards the blood of slain animals as the animals life, this also belongs to God.
                In my opinion, if Genesis 9:1-7 is left to speak for itself it is associating the blood of an animal killed with life. Bible Commentaries make this point as well, but Bible Commentaries are written by men. They may provide alternate views but nothing more. It is the Bible that has the answers.
                When Noah slaughtered an animal for food he was forbidden from eating its blood, did he use the blood for other purposes? As you said brother, let us put ourselves in Noah's place. He witnessed the end of a world. He witnessed God's power and loving kindness, he came through a horrific event only because God saved him through it. Afterward God instructs Noah he may eat meat but not the blood, its life, "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood."
                I myself, brother, having experienced all that Noah experienced, would not have risked using what God had forbidden me to eat, the life, the blood, for use as a stain on my animal enclosures or for anything else, how much less Noah! Noah was the best of his generation, he found favor with God, he was obedient, he respected God's word and instructions. Noah was a man of God, nothing like the Jews who came out of Egypt. Integrity and obedience were traits which had to be inculcated step by step, rule by rule, in a people who truly had forgotten Abraham and his God. Noah and Abraham did not need a manual to know how to be a servant of God. How to live decently and cleanly, how to live what we call a "Christian" life where humility and love of God exist in good measure.
                Let me please, test your patience a little more. :)
                Animal sacrifice began after the exit from the Garden, Abel being the first man recorded as sacrificing an animal.
                "Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions." (Gen. 4:4)
                Abel killed the firstlings and included their fatty portions in his sacrifice. Abel gave his best, how would he know the fat portions were of particular worth? Perhaps he knew because they had already fallen to eating meat, BUT, this is conjecture, it is putting an idea in the text that is not there. It just as easily could be assumed that Abel knew the odor of fat burning was a pleasant one, the text though does not inform us why or how Abel knew the fatty portions were good or preferred. Jehovah did not cause the writer to include ALL the details only what was necessary for the lesson learned.
                It matters not WHY the text was written as it was. What matters is what is being said and taught, nothing more. Abel gave God the best he could offer, is the immediate take away lesson in that verse. Later events in the Bible may enlarge our perception of Abel and his sacrifice but it MUST come ONLY from the Bible.
                If Genesis is an inspired record, if the Pentateuch was guided by God, then what is contained within it is a running account of lessons important to understanding our Lord and Christ, Jesus. Events our God, Jehovah, deems important for our spiritual health and salvation because without Genesis and the Pentateuch we cannot know His Son.
                You are correct, brother, we agree on the big picture: When it comes to blood transfusions Witnesses are dying on the word of men not God.
                Your brother,
                Joshua

                • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-23 15:19:17

                  Joshua,
                  Iron is sharpening iron my brother. By the way, I failed to mention that another feature of the Noachian law was to prevent the inhumane killing of animals for sport. Jehovah allowed the killing or animals for food, but not to kill for sport.
                  I agree with most everything you say. Life does belong God and in the end, he decides who will partake of it. I agree that Abel's sacrifice came willingly, and foreshadowed the sacrificial arrangement in the Mosaic law.
                  To add a little side note to the "fat portions"..... some view that this could refer to the fattest of his flock, his firstlings, the best lambs he had. These would be the fattest and the plumpest (free of defects and blemishes) vs. one lame, torn, or sickly. What Abel gave to Jehovah was perfect and without spot. My point is, the value is not simply the LIFE of the sacrifice (as represented by its blood) but more importantly, the "QUALITY" of the sacrifice.
                  Abel could have offered a sickly, lame animal and its blood would have still represented LIFE, but would that blood have had much value to Jehovah? Had Abel done this, might his blood sacrifice meant even less than Cain's offering? As I see it, the lesson from Abel's account is really about the quality of the offering. Shed blood is involved yes, this is necessary when offering a living creature in sacrifice.
                  From our warm dialogue thus far, I think our difference in view narrows down to how we individually interpret Genesis 9:4. Various translations render this verse differently. So let's compare yours.... and the RNWT (which I happen to like in this case):
                  "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” (Yours)
                  "Only flesh with its life, its blood you must not eat." (RNWT)
                  Let's discipline ourselves to refrain from venturing to any other texts. Let's apply simple logic to this verse and this verse alone.
                  1. How we define flesh with its life?
                  2. How we define blood in flesh that has life?
                  Question 1
                  Flesh with its life is "flesh that is alive", flesh from a living creature. An animal that has died no longer has flesh with its life. For this reason, the command can not apply to eating flesh without its life, that is, a dead animal. Flesh with its life in a living organism has its blood circulating from its heart to the rest of its body.
                  This blood has life (oxygenated from breathing and transported by hemoglobin) as it passes through the circulatory system vitalizing the flesh with life. When blood no longer circulates in the organism, the blood is no longer oxygenated, and no longer travels through the circulatory system, vitalizing the living flesh. The creature no longer has flesh with its life. It is dead.
                  Question 2
                  The command involves only "flesh with its life". In living animals, the blood is oxygenated by its breathing. When breathing ceases, oxygenation ceases. If not refrigerated, red cell degradation begins within 4 hours. Within eight hours (at room temperature) the red cells are unstable and likely unusable.
                  Scientifically speaking, there is a marked difference between "living" blood (fully oxygenated), and "dead" blood. It's apples vs. oranges.
                  Jehovah was concerned about "living" blood, because it sustained the life of the organism. He was not concerned about "dead" blood. This is shown clearly in the Mosaic law. The blood in the flesh of an animal that had died was simply part of the dead carcass. It had no symbolic meaning whatsoever. The penalty for eating that blood was the same as touching the dead carcass. (Lev 11:39,40)
                  Think about my this brother: If eating BLOOD itself was such a serious matter, why was the penalty under law for eating the bloody flesh of an animal that died unbled the same as if one only touched its carcass? Morover, to the man not under law, he could eat the bloody flesh, not be unclean, and use carcass for any purpose. Noah was not under law. Could he not have done the same?
                  You still haven't answered the question: Why didn't Jehovah command Noah to pour the blood of an animal he killed for food on the ground and bury it? Again, the law didn't exist. As I see it, Jehovah didn't care what happened to the blood after the animal died. The animal and its blood was no longer "living".
                  If I could, I'd give you a bear hug right now and then we could arm wrestle some more :)
                  Sopater

                  • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-23 17:17:17

                    Hi Sopater,
                    Lest I tire you with a long post, here is just a few more words: :)
                    With regard to there being no direct command to Noah regarding the pouring out of blood on the ground I have no answer except to say that perhaps for Noah it was a given. Even today, many hunters do not bother to collect the blood of their eviscerated kill, it is discarded.
                    An animal found dead was not slaughtered for food. The one who found it dead did not take its life. It is for this reason, in my opinion, that he was permitted to eat but with the required repentance. He did not take its life, which is also true of blood transfusions.
                    Your brother,
                    Joshua

                    • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-23 20:55:46

                      Joshua,
                      After considering several commentaries, I am most at peace with the explanation found in Gil's Exposition regarding Gen 9:4:
                      "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat. This is the only exception to the eating of flesh; it was not to be eaten with the blood in it, which is said to be its life; not that the blood is of itself the life, but because it is a means of life, and that being exhausted, the creature must die, and because the animal and vital spirits appear to us most vigorous in it; yea, it is the ailment and support of them, and which furnishes out the greatest quantity of them: or rather it may be rendered, "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.''And the Jewish writers generally interpret this of the flesh of a creature taken from it alive, which, they say, is the seventh precept given to the sons of Noah, over and above the six which the sons of Adam were bound to observe, and they are these;1. Idolatry is forbidden. 2. Blasphemy is forbidden. 3. The shedding of blood, or murder is forbidden. 4. Uncleanness, or unjust carnal copulations is forbidden. 5. Rapine or robbery is forbidden. 6. The administration of justice to malefactors is required. 7. The eating of any member or flesh of a creature while alive is forbidden."
                      Note the 7th precept of the Targum of Jonathan matches Gen 9:4 precisely. As noted,
                      The blood was not to be eaten with the flesh of the animal slaughtered, but might be eaten separately, dressed, and mixed with other things.
                      This is my understanding today. I remain open minded, just wanted you to know where I'm coming from.
                      Happy studies,
                      Sopater

                      • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-23 21:34:12

                        Joshua,
                        Another reference for Gen 9:4
                        Barnes Notes
                        "The first restriction on the grant of animal food is thus expressed: 'Flesh with its life, its blood, shall ye not eat.' The animal must be slain before any part of it is used for food. And as it lives so long as the blood flows in its veins, the life-blood must be drawn before its flesh may be eaten. The design of this restriction is to prevent the horrid cruelty of mutilating or cooking an animal while yet alive and capable of suffering pain. The draining of the blood from the body is an obvious occasion of death, and therefore the prohibition to eat the flesh with the blood of life is a needful restraint from savage cruelty."
                        Draining the blood after slaughtering brings about rapid death. The prohibition was a restraint from savage cruelty to animals.
                        Our JW No Blood mindset has us thinking the command is about not eating blood. After reading the command over and over, I realized the command is about not eating the flesh of an animal while still alive.
                        It's really that simple.
                        Sopater

                      • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-25 13:26:24

                        Brother Sopater,
                        I have taken a little time away in order to let clarity enter the discussion.
                        First, dear brother, I believe in letting the Bible speak for itself. I trust in Jehovah's ability to give us what we need.
                        Second, the words of men mean nothing. Just as we have learned that lesson in our religion we must continue to apply that hard earned lesson to the words of ALL men. Commentaries are written by men, no Bible commentator is inspired of God. We can peruse the words of men all we want but we must worship God according to His word alone.
                        Here are a few more words of men to be read and discarded not because they have no value but because they are the words of men, the views of men. Whether we agree with them, or not, whether our hearts want to cling to what is said, matters not. Only the written word of God matters.
                        The Oxford Bible Commentary (2001):
                        Comment on Genesis 9:4.
                        "Verse 4 prescribes the manner of their slaughter, once more carrying back the institution of a Mosaic law to the primeval period; this is the kosher law prohibiting the consumption of an animal's blood."
                        This Bible Commentary more often than not uses a modern approach to scripture; a secular approach. Biblical miracles, history and events are all given the cold surgical treatment of a corpse in a morgue. A Witness coming out of his religion might be influenced to believe what he was reading, that this blood instruction (and others) were backdated from a much later time possibly resulting in the Witness losing trust, faith, in the Bible. Then eventually in God, himself. This commentary is the effort of modern man to explain what he does not understand to a modern Christian. It is a very informative and useful commentary but it is not from God.
                        Having said that, as you see this commentary, though more secular than religious in nature, supports the view that verse 4 is about the blood prohibition, not animal cruelty. But, again, it is only the word of men, nothing more.
                        The New American Bible-Revised Edition (2010)
                        Comment on Genesis 9:4.
                        "Because a living being dies when it loses most of its blood, the ancients regarded blood as the seat of life, and therefore as sacred. Jewish tradition considered the prohibition against eating meat with blood to be binding on all, because it was given by God to Noah, the ancestor of all humankind; therefore the early Christian Church retained it for a time (Acts 15:20,29)"
                        This Catholic Bible repeatedly likes to have its cake and eat it too. The comments appeal to modern thinking- saying "the ancients" rather than saying "God", puts the Church on solid secular ground. Then they turn around and teach the flesh and blood of, God the Son, literally enters the body of every Catholic. Too sophisticated to say God told Noah not to eat the meat with the blood but then so very mystic. They entertain only those mysteries which support their traditions but the mystery of God instructing Noah on blood is too foolish for them.
                        Yet, as you can see they do make a direct connection with not consuming blood for religious reasons, not animal cruelty. Still, this again, is only the word of men, not God.
                        Josephus- The Antiquities of The Jews, Book 1, Chapter 3
                        According to Josephus, of the animals God said to Noah:
                        "...I have made you lords of them all, both of those that walk on the land, and those that swim in the waters, and of those that fly in the regions of the air on high--excepting their blood, for therein is the life,"
                        Josephus also connects the blood prohibition to life, not animal cruelty. But like the other commentators his word is the word of men, not God.
                        The same can be said of all commentaries including the targumim. Where in Genesis does God say verse 4 is about animal cruelty? This must be read into the text.
                        Gen 9:4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
                        Gen 9:5 "Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man.
                        9:4 and 9;5 are both addressing LIFE. The life of man and animal is in the blood. Neither verse is about avoiding cruelty but rather acknowledging that all life belongs to God.
                        Well, brother, I think we have both exhausted this topic. :)
                        How wonderful it is to freely and openly discuss our views. A pleasure and a blessing. My sincere thanks and deep appreciation to all those here who made this possible.
                        Joshua

                        • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-25 14:28:16

                          Joshua,
                          I want to echo your words about commentaries. They are useful to an extent, but in the end when it comes to biblical conclusions it's best to let biblical text speak for itself. On that note we have essentially two ways of letting the Bible speak for itself. 1) By accepting unambiguous biblical statements at face value and 2) forming logical arguments based on unambiguous biblical statements. We can also make certain assumptions based on biblical texts. We can, for instance, assume that God always acts according to His own sense of right and wrong unless we have an unambiguous biblical statement otherwise (e.g., God allowing Jewish men to divorce on grounds other than adultery).
                          My view is God gave us the Bible and our mind, and He expects us to use both. We use out mind by learning how to form logical conclusions and then applying that rigorously. Logical constructs have no friend and does not care what we believe. Rigorous logical constructions strip biases away, including our own (and we all have them!).
                          On the Noachian Decree, as I've said earlier in this discussion, there are two viable logical conclusions that can be reached based on the biblical text. ONE is as Sopater has asserted, which is that the Decree to Noah was to prevent humans from becoming barbaric in how it treated life. Of animals humans had to make sure an living animal was killed before eating it, and of humans not to kill them at all with the sole exception of a murderer. The SECOND is that Noah was prohibited from eating blood of living animals slaughtered to eat as food, and of humans not to kill them at all with the sole exception of a murderer. Of these TWO conclusions the difference is how the stipulation of Genesis 9:4 is understood. Does it mean not to eat blood of slaughtered animals, or does it only require not eating blood of slaughtered animals along with the flesh of slaughtered animals. I've seen both argued as viable.
                          What I've not seen argued with any viability is conclusions that the Noachian Decree required Noah to treat blood as a sacred substance, or that language of the Noachian Decree prohibits the contemporary medical practice of blood transfusion. As you say and I agree, we should take care not to read things into a text. If we look at what Noah was told at face value then we have no choice but to accept that Noah was not required to abstain from using blood for needs other than eating it. Perhaps most important is the Noachian Decree nowhere suggests anything whatsoever about what can or can't be done with donor blood, and donor blood is what's used in contemporary hematological medicine for transfusion.
                          As an agrarian Noah would have learned of certain benefits of fresh whole blood. For example, he would have learned humans suffered less from sunburn when their arms were covered with blood during periods of slaughter. He would also have learned that fresh whole blood would have had a soothing effect of burned skin and ulcerated wounds. At some point in his life he was also likely to have observed the effects of fresh whole blood on the wound of a moderate free-bleeder, that exposure to xenogeneic (or allogeneic) whole blood had a peculiar ability to stem the bleeding. Yet none of the beneficial uses of fresh whole blood would possibly have been construed as eating to Noah. Hence we have no reason to think Noah would not have used blood for any and all these needs as necessary, not to mention other non-medical uses of blood.
                          My point is that you and I agree we must not let the words of any man persuade us on this topic. Instead we have an obligation to let God be found true by accepting what the Bible says at face value for what it actually says without us reading things into the text. We also have an obligation to use our mind, something we do by learning and then using the well-known and proven constructs of logical thinking.

                          • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-25 16:16:49

                            Hi Marvin Shilmer,
                            The Bible is a collection of books inspired/guided by God in order that a progressive revelation of His purposes, laws and principles, may be revealed.
                            What we know of sin we know not only from Genesis alone but from the whole.
                            What we know of the seed of the woman is also not from Genesis alone but the whole.
                            Almost everything in Genesis finds its end, its completion, its fullest prophetic understanding, in the whole.
                            Genesis is the introduction, the cipher, if you will, to everything that follows.
                            What Genesis relates with regard to blood; Abel's blood crying out or the life/ blood of animals also finds its end, its fullest understanding in what follows. Genesis is the primer.
                            Brother, Moses taught the Egyptian Jewish slaves what to eat and not eat, what to wear, and even how to dispose of their excrement but neither he, nor the prophets, nor the kings, nor the Christ, said it was fine to use blood for personal use. Now, that does not mean it never happened but it DOES mean it was never sanctioned by God.
                            Joshua

                            • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-25 16:47:00

                              Dearest Joshua,
                              Take great care of what your understanding makes of Mosaic Law. Our Master, Jesus, paid a price to abolish that law, which consisted of many detailed decrees, including additional requirements in respect to blood. To ply tenets of this Mosaic Law as though Christians are somehow obligated to obey those tenets is to repudiate faith in Jesus.
                              You wrote:
                              "Brother, Moses taught the Egyptian Jewish slaves what to eat and not eat, what to wear, and even how to dispose of their excrement but neither he, nor the prophets, nor the kings, nor the Christ, said it was fine to use blood for personal use. Now, that does not mean it never happened but it DOES mean it was never sanctioned by God."
                              The Master, Jesus must have understood that all life belongs to our Creator. Our Master also understood that humans had permission to use their individual life by donating it in order to prevent premature death of a fellow human being. (John 15:13) If we have permission to donate our life to save the life of another, and if blood represents our life, then we have God’s permission to donate our blood to save the life of another. This is not taking something without the sanctioning of God. This is giving with the blessing of Jesus. When a person is given a transfusion of donor life/blood they are not taking something from as though committing a theft against what God expects. They are accepting a gift.
                              Regardless, if you want me or anyone else to think accepting transfusion of donor blood is somehow immoral then it's your burden to prove that true based on a solid scriptural argument. So far you've gone as far as asserting this use of donor blood is not sanctioned (read: done with express permission) by God. But you've not asserted this use of donor blood is prohibited by God. If you are unable to prove this use of donor blood is somehow against what God requires then what are readers to do, just accept your view of what is wise?
                              God did sanction (expressly approved) eating of blood and flesh of animals dead of natural cause by His non-Jewish worshippers. (Gen. 6:21; Deut. 14:21) God has never required non-Jewish worshippers to treat blood as a sacred substance.

                              • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-25 17:08:06

                                Marvin Shilmer,
                                I do not believe Christians should follow the Law of Moses.
                                I do not believe it is wrong to donate blood or receive a blood transfusion.
                                I am at a loss how it is that after such a long interchange on this thread you should believe that I do.
                                I am sorely disappointed.
                                Joshua

                                • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-25 17:57:32

                                  Dear Joshua,
                                  It occurred to me that you somehow thought it wrong for a Christian to accept transfusion of donor blood because of blood you wrote, "Wisdom would say, let it alone." I guess I misunderstood what you were attempting to say.

                                  • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-25 18:07:12

                                    Thank you, brother.
                                    Joshua

                        • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-25 15:47:52

                          Joshua,
                          I agree it is wonderful to openly discuss our views. Iron sharpens iron. I do believe there is merit in considering bible commentaries. The fact that there is diversity in opinion allows me to choose which opinion seems most logical, and contains the least amount of conjecture.
                          Personally, a view that doesn't have the support of any secular source would (for me) be highly speculative and lack substance. I was aware there are two schools of thought in the case of Gen 9:4. I believe those sources you quote would agree that the verse itself applies to the blood found in "flesh that is alive", a living animal. There is no other explanation.
                          Here's how I approached this, I ask myself:
                          1. If the law intended to prohibit the eating of bloody flesh of an animal already dead, why didn't Jehovah make this clear? If not eating BLOOD was the focal point, would not Jehovah had added the following:
                          "And, flesh WITHOUT its life [a dead animal], its blood you must not eat."
                          2. If the law intended that Noah not use the blood in any way (for food or otherwise), why didn't Jehovah make this clear? Consider the following:
                          "Only flesh with its life, its blood you must not eat. You must pour it out on the ground and bury it."
                          3. You mentioned Abel's sacrifice..... does the scripture indicate that he properly bled the animal before sacrificing? Did he sprinkle the blood somewhere? Might he have strangled it and then ate the meat? Does the scripture indicate that Able understood blood to be a sacred substance?
                          My brother, in making a judgment call as to which line of reasoning I'm going to hang my hat on, I chose to not presume. For example, to presume that Noah surely knew this or that...... or that Abel surely knew this or that.
                          To conclude the verse about not eating the member of an animal while it is yet alive requires no assumptions. To say it's about this or that requires assumptions.
                          To hold a view that the verse teaches that Noah (1) understood blood as a sacred substance,(2) understood he could not use the blood drained for any purpose, and (3) understood he must not eat the congealed blood in a dead animal...... requires me to put my leaping shoes on.
                          It goes beyond what the scripture is saying.
                          Do you like tennis? I just served the ball to your court :)
                          Your brother and friend
                          Sopater

                          • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-25 16:31:35

                            Brother Sopater,
                            No, I do not play tennis. Checkers maybe? A slower game. :)
                            Well, brother, I think we're beating a dead horse (pun intended). ;)
                            Brotherly love and a warm handshake to you and yours,
                            Joshua

                            • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-25 17:26:47

                              Well, at least it's not an alive horse :)

                • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-23 16:31:24

                  Joshua, when deliberating what God asks of us humans it we should not forget to display respect for what He bothered to tell us. What I mean is this: God is intelligent and assuming there are things he wants his worshippers to either do or avoid then He is more than capable of communicating that to us without us having to leverage a principle that would, in effect, demand more than God explicitly stated.
                  So, for example, Noah was told not to eat blood of slaughtered animals. If God wanted humans to abstain from other uses of blood he had every opportunity to say so. But He didn't. God could have said something as simple as "pour the animals blood into the dust" to Noah/. But He didn't. God told Noah not to eat blood of animals slaughtered for food. In terms of the literal substance of blood that was the sole abstention God required of Noah. Hence there was nothing whatsoever stated to Noah that required him to abstain from using blood, for example, as a sun blocking agent to protect against sunburn, or as a salve to sooth a severe burn of a suffering child, or for any other purpose other than eating. By attempting to further what God would require of Noah we suggest God was not telling Noah everything Noah needed to do to please him.
                  On a little different note, it's unsound to suggest that worshippers of God were not already eating flesh and blood prior to the Flood. Take a close look at Genesis 6:21. See: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2010/01/pre-flood-food.html and http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/12/genesis-and-meat-eating.html

                  • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-23 18:03:09

                    Marvin Shilmer,
                    You're right God did not stipulate any other restriction on blood other than eating it. But neither did He tell Noah he could do whatever he wanted with the blood except eat it.
                    Wisdom would say, let it alone.
                    Joshua

                    • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-23 18:59:12

                      My best guess is that what God wanted of Noah and his descendants He took time to inform them. When it comes to the substance of blood nothing God said to Noah required Noah to treat it as though a special substance. This is particularly the case with the blood of animals dead of natural cause. Unlike blood of slaughtered animals, there was no prohibition whatsoever placed on Noah that he should not eat blood of animals found dead of natural cause. Later on God provided this very sort of unbled meat to descendants of Noah specifically for them to eat it. (Deut. 14:21)
                      Neither the biblical account of Eden or the immediate post-flood era offer an exhaustive list of what humans could eat as food. For instance, the Eden account talks about eating vegetation but it says nothing whatsoever about eating milk. Yet the natural world of created works tells us milk was a food item since creation. The same is true of flesh and blood. Since creation flesh and blood have been a sort of food eaten. Noah was given permission to gather every sort of food eaten and use it as food for himself and the animals. (Gen 6:21)
                      Because the Noachian Decree did not require Noah or his children to treat blood as a sacred substance then it is unsound to suggest blood's "status" recommends abstentions over and beyond what God stated. Someone somewhere once offered very good advice recommending that we not go beyond what is written.

  • Comment by yobec on 2016-01-21 11:41:43

    Here is the link to The Watchtower's answer to Leviticus's scripture permitting an Israelite to eat unbled meat. Their skating around the issue is truly remarkable
    http://ajwrb.org/bible/questions-from-readers

  • Comment by Willy on 2016-01-21 12:32:30

    Once there was this documentaire about trible in the Maasai . They showed a cow who was shot in the neck in a vain to get blood and they mixed it with milk also from the cow and there was this tribleboy about ten years old, and he had to drink it also, but he didn't want to and he we disgusted by the idea, but the older man gave it and so he had to drink it, and I so felt sorry for this little tribleboy. The cow didn't die, you could see this was a normal thing to do.

    • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-21 14:28:03

      Hi Willy,
      I once held a one-on-one conversation with Fred Rusk about this. At the time Rusky was over Watchtower's writing correspondence department. Not sure if he's still around or not. But he was a longtime fixture inside Watchtower. Anyway, the discussion was about whether the requirement of Noah to abstain from blood was applicable only when an animal's life was taken. He raised the tradition of Maasai eating blood from an animal without killing the animal. My response was to say a literal reading of the text of Genesis 9:4 told Noah to abstain from eating an animal's flesh while the animal still had life. Think about that. Of living, breathing animals the text required Noah to kill the creature before eating it. As presented, the text of Genesis 9:4 says, "Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat." What the Maasai practice is arguably contrary to this text because they are eating flesh of an animal that still has its life.
      My view is that the Noachian Decree stipulates what it does because of the massive killing that humans had just witnessed, not to mention an apparent disregard for life that existed prior to the flood by earth's then inhabitants. The Noachian Decree stated requirements that forced humans to hold life in high regard. Even when it came to killing animals, there was a consequence in that humans were not allowed to eat the liquid tissue (blood) of these slaughtered creatures. Prior to this human worshippers of God were already killing animals and using their flesh for practical needs, and there was no prohibition whatsoever on what they could or could not do with the animal tissue including the eating of it. Moreover, when it came to unjustified killing of humans the consequence was even higher. The killer forfeited his right to life, which is what justified the killing of a murderer.
      The Noachian Decree was all about life, and when it came to animals it required humans to kill them before assaulting their flesh for a meal.

      • Reply by Willy on 2016-01-21 15:49:06

        Marvin,
        Thank you for the additional information and the Biblical view ? That little boys look I will always remember, and I saw this on t.v. about 25 years ago.
        Kind regards.

        • Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-21 16:04:08

          Hi Willy,
          I have a memory(s) I wish I could forget. It's of a small child dying for lack of a blood transfusion. I'll never forget the terror in the child's eyes. I'll never forget the utter horror suffered by the parents. I knew then what I know now. Something is rotten about Watchtower's blood doctrine. This is only made worse by the organization's leadership refusal to stand and answer for details critical to the doctrine's underpinning.
          That said, I want you to know I appreciate and value the memory you've shared. Circumstances such as the one you've shared force honest persons to consider perspectives that could have a bearing on conclusions we should reach.
          Thanks,

          • Reply by Willy on 2016-01-22 02:37:27

            A lot is terribly wrong and by correcting our view, and reading articles like these and to follow Jehovah and not these wrong doctrines or men, we can make a change one person at a time, I know my view has changed.

  • Comment by Father jack on 2016-01-21 18:54:43

    Why on earth have they laid the rules down for others to follow . ? The whole argument in the watchtower runs against the whole chapter of romans 14 . Just crazy they have made themselves liable because they have made peoples decisions for them .

  • Comment by Buster on 2016-01-22 05:20:32

    So wait a minute if Saul's Men ate blood, I mean they killed the animals and ate the blood, I don't remember Yahweh striking them down 1 Samuel 14:31-35, sure Saul built a altar for god after he killed more animals, but the people did not Die...OK so we can build a altar after we have a blood transfusion and it saves our lives...I think I get the picture.
    But going to all the fractions and fraction's, I love when I made a comment about taking blood fractions a year ago or so, I was the only one that mentioned it, why??? No elders even hinted at it. And after this a few sisters came up and asked me where I got the information, I kindly said from the Watchtower, you know the 2000 one, and they said I had no idea this was changed, I looked at them with a mixture of sadness and a little bit of weirdness, so you don't know what your religion is teaching, of course I said this part in my head.
    So all this new light is we all know , well I think we all know what really it is. Guess what we have our Lord Jesus to thank. No I am not being funny or making fun of our Lord and Master. But to jump ahead to next week Supposed Spiritual Food ( spiritual food has expiration dates) it says Jesus has been king you know since 1874, I mean 1878, I mean 1914. And that the King still Trains Us, that line is in the last paragraph, Yes he trains us in i dont know maybe generations , i mean watchtower says Jesus Evidently did this or that. It is just so foolish, but hey, Watchtower know best...New Light Face Palm
    Love to all
    Buster

  • Comment by yobec on 2016-01-22 10:25:55

    I had morning coffee yesterday with my friend an ex elder who was put out of the organization some 15 years ago because of questioning the 1919 doctrine. We got on the subject of blood. He brought back to my attention something he had told me once before. It happened some 20 years ago. His daughter had given birth to a boy who was born with a defective heart valve. At the time, they were all living in a third world country (under the serving where the need is great promotion)The doctor gave the baby a 33% chance of survival if they performed a series of operation, 3 in all, but they would not proceed unless they received consent to a blood transfusion which was not given them. Because of his spiritual awakening , he now wonders if perhaps this little baby might have survived had the okay for the transfusion been given. He still has a hard time talking about it and told me that his daughter, the mother, has an even greater time with it every year on the baby's birthday. He feels a degree of guilt to this day because as he puts it" I was the spokesman between my daughter and the doctors".
    Although most of us would all have done the same thing prior to our awakening, it's a heartbreaker for sure.
    Later on yesterday afternoon, I brought this subject up with my wife who is still a staunch defender of the G.B's teachings. Her response was that 33% chances was not that high and more damages might have been caused the baby should it have received a transfusion. I reminded her of my own experience which I posted earlier on this thread, and told her " look at me , I had 12 transfusions and it has had no negative effects on me ". She said " Not that you know of". I kind of shrugged it off and reminded her that I was now still alive and doing well some 6 years later and that I was near death before the transfusions and chemo and that should I have not taken blood, I would surely be dead now to which she replied, " You don't know that for sure". At that point I decided to keep quiet because I thought if I pursue this I will " lose it ".
    What on earth does it take?

    • Reply by Willy on 2016-01-22 11:11:27

      I am in the kind of same situation with my husband, I asked him the same question just now and he pointed with his index finger upwards and says let Jehovah show me. He says I am changing and how do I know this website is from well meaning brothers and sisters and they are not misleading me. It's the internet and you don't know these people at all, well I sigh. This the hard bit of awakening isn't it.

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-22 12:36:29

        Isn't it interesting that they always focus on motives and never on facts.

        • Reply by Willy on 2016-01-22 12:48:05

          Meleti , why is that?

          • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-22 17:10:19

            It is always easier to attack a person's motive or character than to meet the problem head on and answer the question at stake. People do this when they are cornered and fear of being proved wrong starts to well up inside them, so they will lose control and lash out at you on a personal level. People get confused with facts, as it unsettles them and creates extreme cognitive dissonance. This cognitive dissonance then needs to be settled. Most people end up using confirmation bias to reaffirm their original view, studying the scriptures using a method called eisegesis. We hold onto our cherished beliefs for dear life, because the thought that we might have been wrong can be too much to bear. No wonder some householders dismiss us from their homes when we turn up on their doorstep on a Sunday morning and tell them their religious beliefs are wrong. Interestingly, when the role is reversed for Witnesses, a change comes over us. Our eyes narrow, we stare accusingly, and before long the perjorative A word (apostate) is being used. This is usually sufficient to shut down the conversation. Ad hominem (attack the man) attacks are very successful if you aren't prepared for them.

            • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-23 15:16:08

              A fine post, good for JW and exJW.
              No one is completely free from bias.
              Thank you,
              Joshua

      • Reply by Father jack on 2016-01-22 14:22:00

        When we think about that reasoning willy . That its the internet and we dont know these people . Thats true , and we could be misled . But we also have to say how many of us actually know the governing body . And how do we know they are not misleading us as well . Even if we did know them can we say for sure what thier motives are do any of us know what goes on in anothers heart in private . Im convinced the best way to find out if we are being misled as a christian is to keep reading and pondering over the NT in context . This is the advice paul gave to timothy at 2 Timothy 3 FJ

        • Reply by Willy on 2016-01-22 15:10:13

          Thank you Father Jack for your response and advice, I will read your reply to my husband. The motives from this website is written on the front page and I myself trust this for certain. It's difficult when you as couple not awake at the same time.

          • Reply by Father jack on 2016-01-22 16:33:38

            Just go easy on him sister . The most important thing is loving one another . Remember proverbs 25 ; 11 about the apples of gold and the word spoken at the right time . Dont let the religion drive in a wedge between you . Christian blessing to you and your hubby .

            • Reply by Willy on 2016-01-23 04:30:00

              Thank you!

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-22 14:55:12

        Willy,
        You might give your husband this scenario. Say he's standing in the middle of the street and someone he doesn't know calls out from the sidewalk to tell him a truck is bearing down on him. Would he a) question the man's motives, b) ask the man where he comes from, c) ask by what authority the man makes this warning, or d) turn around and see if the man it telling the truth or not?

        • Reply by Willy on 2016-01-22 16:52:19

          Thank you Meleti. My husband choose answer d) and I had to tell you, he understood the message.
          Kind regards
          Your sister in Christ

    • Reply by Willy on 2016-01-22 12:11:35

      I wish I knew the answer to that question myself. Maybe someone can give us directions?

    • Reply by Willy on 2016-01-22 12:39:55

      Yobec, I guess love and understanding is the key, and to pray and ask Jehovah to open our spouses hearts .
      Have a wonderful day.

    • Reply by Jacqueline fowler on 2016-01-22 15:50:09

      Yobec, glad you took the transfusion and living proof that it saved your life. Your wife is possessed with the spell of this gang of men.
      Like you I don't talk to witnesses anymore. It is no use if they aren't awake on their own. I also will not read any books, mag or their bible. I didn't read this article completely but comments only. You have to not submerge oneself as it makes you just throw your hands up in the air like you just don't care.

      • Reply by yobec on 2016-01-22 17:36:22

        Hi Jacqueline.
        I don't think it is a case of being afraid as much as it is a case of having had their investigative faculties hijacked by a group of men who have been successful at convincing them that they are God's spokesmen. If anything is said or any action is taken that goes against the G.B's edict, it just cannot be so. For instance, if someone is not doing financially well and has been missing many meetings, the reasoning will be along the lines of "Well, what do you expect, Jehovah is not blessing them. Whereas if the opposite is true and someone flourishes , the reasoning will be " Yeah, Satan sure has him where he wants."

  • Comment by Father jack on 2016-01-22 14:41:25

    The brothers can go on and say terms like we should not eat blood , we should not transfuse blood . The blood stands for life . We should not misuse it . I personally believe though that the whole premise is flawed every time we eat animal flesh . The red meats look like they contain blood to me where do we draw the line with this policy of no blood . Theres just something that we are missing here isnt there

  • Comment by Jacqueline fowler on 2016-01-22 15:43:21

    I guess I need to ask why is that so many witnesses at threat of death from refusing blood would obey men?
    Why are witnesses so afraid of being disfelliwshipped.
    My father in 1959 a black man under segregation and a 3rd grade education stood up to them and took 8 pints of blood. He spoke out against this doctrine. Yes he was disfelliwshipped. He refused to let them reinstate him after one year. When he was dying even he refused to consent to reinstatement and said he would die df because. Nathan Knorr was wrong.
    What is wrong with theses modern day witnesses, afraid to stand up to a governing body when he stood up to the president. What type of people become Jehovah witnesses? I ask because some still dissect every word they write as if these men are somebody. Theses same people glories at children dying at Armageddon so I don't feel sorry for the adults that are perishing from following men. Normal people don't act this way.

    • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-23 14:01:19

      Jacqueline, are Jehovah's Witnesses the only people you know who follow religious leaders, kings and politicians, and all manner of reckless ideas, to their deaths?
      What has happened to Jehovah's Witnesses is common to men since the beginning of man. A sad but true reality.
      Joshua

      • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-23 16:25:48

        Jacqueline,
        I am happy to know that your father realized the teaching was flawed back then and in so doing continued living, hopefully to a ripe old age.
        What is wrong with these modern day witnesses, afraid to stand up? Realize Jacqueline that the vast majority, out of ignorance of the facts, do not see any need to stand up. They believe the teaching is from God and do not question it.
        And that is why we here at BP (and other internet sites) devote much of our time to help educate those who are beginning to have doubts. The sad truth is, we have to remain anonymous if we are to reach some of them. If we attempt to educate in person, we are considered a threat and will be expelled from association. We will be viewed as apostate, and they will never speak to us again.
        Our only hope is that something triggers them to do research before they face a life or death decision.
        I do hope you'll reconsider your comment that you "don't feel sorry for the adults that are perishing from following men."
        Are you agnostic or atheist? If so, we all have our opinion.
        But if you're a Christian, we can't feel that way.
        Sopater

  • Comment by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-25 12:12:04

    The opening sentence of this article strikes me hard. It reads, "In the years between 1945-1961, there were many new discoveries and breakthroughs in medical science." The reason this sentence strikes me so hard is because so many tens-of-thousands (if not hundreds-of-thousands!) have needlessly suffered morbidity and mortality the result of following Watchtower blood doctrine, and during the very period mentioned in this opening sentence it was well known and established that transfusion of, for example, red cells offered no nutritional benefit to a patient in need of nutrition. It had been tried and found ineffective, and the inefficacy was for multiple reasons.
    In 1887 Dr. William Hunter found that starvation occurs despite blood transfusion. Dr. Hunter was a world renowned and well published expert in the field of hematological medicine. (Ref: Hunter, The Duration Of Life Of Red Blood Corpuscles After Transfusion, In Its Bearing On The Value Of Transfusion In Man, The British Medical Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1361 (Jan. 29, 1887), pp. 192-200.)
    In 1909 Dr. George Crile informed that theoretically and by experiment, transfused blood is of very little, if of any, value as a food for the recipient. Crile was a world renowned and well published expert in the field of hematological medicine. (Ref: Hemorrhage and Transfusion; An Experimental and Clinical Research, by George W, Crile, New York and London, D. Appleton and Company, 1909, Chapter XIII, The More Modern Theories and Practice of Transfusion, pp. 271-2)
    In the 1930s and 40s Drs Wipple, Holman and Madden demonstrated that transfusion of plasma proteins offered nutrition but transfusion of red cells did not. All these were world renowned and well published experts in the field of hematological medicine. (Ref: Vinnars et al, History of Parenteral Nutrition, Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2003, pp. 225-231)
    In 1956 Drs Allen, Stemmer and Head conclusively demonstrated that IV administration of plasma proteins was a means of feeding patients but that transfusion of red cells was completely worthless as parenteral nutrition. All these were world renowned and well published experts in the field of hematological medicine. (Ref: Allen et al, Similar Growth Rates of Litter Mate Puppies Maintained on Oral Protein with Those on the Same Quantity of Protein as Daily Intravenous Plasma for 99 Days as Only Protein Source, Annals of Surgery, September 1956, pp. 349-354)
    So many of us depended on leadership within Watchtower to carefully verify what they were teaching, and especially about a doctrine with immediate impact on life and health during crises. Either they didn't bother to verify the notion that transfusion of, for example, red cells offered nutritional value to a patient or else they knew it and failed to pass along the information. Either way, insofar as I'm concerned that represents a gross dereliction.
    I want to thanks each of one of Jehovah's Witnesses who own or otherwise contribute to this BP project for standing up on this issue, not to mention other doctrinal positions also in need of fresh air. Each of you are rendering a service of love to your brothers and sisters within the community of Jehovah's Witnesses. Thanks!

  • Comment by Anonymous on 2016-03-18 09:36:50

    The author of Blood - Vital for Life wrote: “Scientist Joseph Priestley concluded: 'The prohibition to eat blood, given to Noah, seems to be obligatory on all his posterity ...'” He really should have written: “Priestly summarized the argument of many Christians by saying: 'we cannot but conclude, that it was intended to be absolute and perpetual; for blood was not eaten by any Christians for many centuries ...” Kerry Louderbach Wood complained on page 109: “The Society has grossly misrepresented Joseph Priestley’s writing.” Then she shows that she misunderstood both Priestly and the Watchtower writer, thinking the word “conclude” meant “finished” instead of “came to the conclusion.” She says how Priestly BEGAN Section II of his book, quoting the first sentence of his writing, and then on page 110 how he “actually CONCLUDED his discussion,” quoting the end of Section II. I can understand how the Watchtower accepts poor writing. But how could such poor writing be printed in an academic journal? Maybe the Journal of Church and State is not really a professional, peer-reviewed journal.

  • Comment by Anonymous on 2016-03-19 17:17:43

    Kerry LouderbacK-Wood wrote on page 112 of her Tort of Misrepresentation article: “Clearly, Tertullian was not claiming that it was against God’s commandments to eat blood in an emergency situation. At a normal meal, early Christians (many were Jewish) did not usually eat unbled meat or blood. It does not follow from this, however, that they would refuse such food if faced with starvation.” But she was wrong, and what she SHOULD have said was: “Cleary, Tertullian WAS claiming that it was against God's commandments to eat blood even in an emergency situation. Christians, whether Gentile or Jew, NEVER ate blood. They wouldn't even eat blood EVEN IF THE CONSEQUENCE WAS DEATH.” Joseph Priestley, paraphrased a passage from Tertullian's Apology as follows: “... Tertullian observes, with respect to it, that it was well known that no Christian would eat blood at all; insomuch, that it was usual with Heathens, when they wanted to know whether any person was a Christian, to set blood-puddings before him, as a very sufficient test.” The blood was not given to the Christian just as a mean joke. Christianity was illegal. It was to entrap the Christian into revealing himself, so he could be punished. Following KLW's logic that a Christian could sin to save his life, Christians should have denied Jesus before Roman magistrates. It would have been even easier to deny Jesus than to eat blood, and it really would save a Christian lives. Tertullian's book De Fuga in Persecutione describes what happened when a Christian was revealed as a Christian, and when he was taken to a Roman magistrate. Tertullian though martyrdom was glorious, and that a Christian should not flee from it or pay off officials to avoid martyrdom. KLW should have avoided bringing up Tertullian, of all people, to prove her point.

  • Comment by Anonymous on 2016-03-20 16:08:25

    Some people might read Kerry Louderback-Wood's article and accept her opinion that Tertullian would eat blood in a life-or-death situation. Tertullian describes the kind of persecution that was also described in Matthew 10:32,33 in “De Fuga in Persecutione.” That is, Christians were persecuted merely for acknowledging being Christian. Section 5 of Fuga repeatedly shows that the choices under persecution were confession or denial. Tertullian says in Section 6. “ ... we shall not be brought into Jewish councils, nor scourged in Jewish synagogues, but we shall certainly be cited before Roman magistrates and judgment-seats.” In section 9 of Fuga, he says: “... seek not to die on bridal beds, nor in miscarriages, nor in soft fevers, but to die the martyr's death, that He may be glorified who has suffered for you. In Section 7, Tertullian quotes: “Fear not them who are able to kill the body, but are unable to do ought against the soul ... He who will value his life more than Me, is not worthy of Me ... ”So Christians were taken to magistrates. They were punished or freed according what they said, whether they confessed or denied Jesus. And the punishment was often death. [See From the Ante-Nicene Fathers; Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors. American Reprint of the Edinburgh Edition. Volume IV. 1926. Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall; pages 116 - 125.]

  • Comment by Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood - Part 1 - Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2020-09-28 22:19:10

    […] Part 2 we continue with the history from 1945 to the present. We will note the subterfuge employed by the […]

Recent content

Why Is Isaiah 9:6 Different in the Septuagint Old Testament?

Hello everyone,In a recent video, I discussed Isaiah 9:6 which is a “proof text” that Trinitarians like to use to support their belief that Jesus is God. Just to jog your memory, Isaiah 9:6 reads: “For to us a child…

We Have Some Great News to Share and We Need Your Help!

Hello everyone.I have some wonderful news to share with you.It is now possible for us to spread the good news that we share in these English videos to a much wider audience. Using some newly available software services,…

Isaiah 9:6 -- How Does Jesus Christ Become "Mighty God" and "Eternal Father"?

I made a mistake in responding to a comment made on a recent video titled “What Is Really Wrong About Praying to Jesus?” That commenter believes that Isaiah 9:6 is a proof text that Jesus is God.That verse reads: “For a…

What Is Really Wrong About Praying to Jesus?

Hello everyone.My last video has turned out to be one of my most controversial. It asked the question: “Does Jesus Want Us to Pray to Him?” Based on Scripture, I concluded that the answer to that question was a…

Does Jesus Want Us to Pray to Him?

Two years ago, I posted a video in which I tried to answer the question: “Is it wrong to pray to Jesus Christ?” Here’s how I concluded that video:“Again, I’m not making a rule about whether it is right or wrong to pray…

2024 Annual Meeting: “Show Me the Money!” What the Latest Governing Body Appointments Reveal

Hello everyone. The 2024 annual meeting of Jehovah’s Witnesses was perhaps one of the most significant ever. For me, it constitutes a turning point. Why? Because it gives us hard evidence of what we have long suspected,…