tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post6011822198479044339..comments2024-03-15T19:59:22.975-05:00Comments on DISMYTHED: Do the Scriptures Really Take a Stand on Blood Transfusions? [Opposers Dismythed]Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-32838284701153451832021-01-18T20:32:57.921-06:002021-01-18T20:32:57.921-06:00This is a good Documentary from Englewood Health a...This is a good Documentary from Englewood Health about Bloodless surgery and JW's <br /><br />https://youtu.be/vzHhHcs08So<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-28810719442064188832018-11-13T01:18:26.829-06:002018-11-13T01:18:26.829-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Opposers Dismythed / JW Advisorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497322949880289903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-25849336943527623342018-07-31T05:21:36.061-05:002018-07-31T05:21:36.061-05:00It’s very telling that people have to look for bib...It’s very telling that people have to look for bible verses in which God is said to passively allow the eating of blood. Ok let’s roll with that for the sake of argument, that forgiving a sin is allowing said sin. Would that same Christian minister say it’s ok to have sex with a person of the same sex, murder a person, sexually abuse a child, just because the sin is forgivable? Logical consistency is important here, and so is biblical consistency. Yet that same person likely believes that all gays and murderers are automatically condemned to hell for their actions. This just shows that if your goal is to simply contradict us, you will contradict the Bible AND your own beliefs.<br />Opposers Dismythednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-89868306211516998232018-07-31T04:35:38.737-05:002018-07-31T04:35:38.737-05:00To be clear, this means no actual forgiveness by J...To be clear, this means no actual forgiveness by Jehovah ever took place. Though he might have indeed forgiven them, he did not pardon them from the consequences of the Mosaic Law. In fact, there are NO prescribed sacrifices in the Law for covering over the sin of eating blood along with the animal. If an Israelite ate blood, the consequence was death or never returning to the land. In fact, idol worship and eating blood are the ONLY laws in which Jehovah swore that he himself would cut individuals off from the land. (Leviticus 17:10; 20:3-6)Dismythedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-40479713774889836022018-07-31T04:02:35.892-05:002018-07-31T04:02:35.892-05:00I found a statement by one of Christendom's mi...I found a statement by one of Christendom's ministers about our stand on blood transfusions and I thought I would put my reply here. He cited the account in 1 Samuel 14 as proof that eating blood to save one's life could be forgiven.<br /><br />However, Saul not only created the situation, he presumptuously spared his men, calling for unprescribed sacrifices apart from the tabernacle without consulting Jehovah, and was going to kill his own son who did not sin by eating blood, nor did he even know about his father's edict. This was after Saul's kingship had already been rejected in the previous chapter for his presumptuously offering up unprescribed sacrifices away from the tabernacle. When Saul did finally consult Jehovah, Jehovah did not respond to him!<br /><br />Besides this, his men did repent, demanding that he spare Jonathan, Saul's son, despite their having to break their vow to do so, because their vow was unjust, thus earning their own deaths a second time. But Saul once again spared them without them even asking for forgiveness.<br /><br />In response to finding out about his father's declaration for the soldiers not to eat until the battle was won, Jonathan said, "My father has brought great trouble on the land," because he could seethe obvious result. This event merely highlighted that Saul was unrepentant for his offering unprescribed sacrifices away from the tabernacle. Saul eventualy died in battle by Jehovah's decree.<br /><br />Saul did not speak for Jehovah in any way on that matter, but acted presumptuously, and Jehovah never again spoke to Saul after he rejected Saul the first time.Dismythedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-80957988973614752902018-07-27T15:13:48.420-05:002018-07-27T15:13:48.420-05:00Anonymous:
You have made up a principle that is n...Anonymous:<br /><br />You have made up a principle that is not in the Scriptures. The law is absolute that says: “You must not eat the blood OF ANY SORT OF FLESH because the life of every sort of flesh is its blood. ANYONE eating it will be CUT OFF.” (Leviticus 17;10-14) That is an unambiguous statement with a clear punishment. It does not mention anything about respecting the life returning to God.<br /><br />The laws in Leviticus 11:39-40 and 17:15 show that Israelites could eat an animal found dead, but this could only mean this would be a domestic either killed by a wild animal, thus bled, or killed by an eviscerating accident, thus bled, or recently dead so that it could be bled. Other laws forbid these things, (Exodus 22:31; Deuteronomy 14:21) but Leviticus 17:15 shows that there are no punishments for doing so as long as they bathe before the morning, and so they are merely seen as “unclean” until the next morning, and are not allowed to eat the sacrifices while they are unclean. (Leviticus 7:21) However, a priest who ate such things could never again present sacrifices or he would be cut off. (Leviticus 22:1-8) But it is abundantly clear that such things were not to be eaten along with the blood.<br /><br />Yes, the sacrifice must die in order for the atoning blood to have any value, which further highlights the ridiculousness of comparing transfused blood to Christ’s blood. (Heb 10:29) However, that does not in any way undermine the law that says that blood must be poured out regardless of whether it is used in sacrifice or not. (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; 7:26, 27; 4:25, 30, 34; 5:9; 17:10-14; 19:26; Numbers 19:5; Deuteronomy 12:16, 23, 27; 15:23; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) In fact, it is one of the most oft-repeated laws in the Bible. (Leviticus 8:15; 9:9; 1 Samuel 14:32-34; 2 Samuel 23:16, 17; 1 Chronicles 11:18, 19; Eze 24:7; 33:25) Add in all the mentions of the use of blood for atonement and cleansing (I will not enumerate them here,) and the value of blood becomes the most important subject outside the Shema.<br /><br />But to answer your question clearly, David poured out the water his men brought to him from the cistern that he expressed craving for, calling it the blood of his men, because his men risked their lives, yet not one of them died doing so. (2 Samuel 23:16, 17; 1 Chronicles 11:18, 19) Also, an animal could easily lose its leg and survive, but that does not preclude pouring the blood out and cleansing it before eating the leg.<br /><br />It is not because the animal is dead that the blood should be poured out. It is because "the life is in the blood." (Leviticus 17:14) Clearly then, the law is about the life of the creature, not the death. Why? The reason it actually gives is in verse 11, saying that it is on account of the atonement provided through the sacrifice, namely of Jesus Christ, not the life returning to God. It gives clear direction and makes the punishment clear. It applies to all flesh and all God's people in all circumstances. If the carcass could not be bled, it was a violation of this law.<br /><br />Stop contacting us on this point. You are going in circles like a broken record on something that the Scriptures are unambiguous about. We are not your masters. If you wish to sidestep Jehovah's word, that is your prerogative. We will serve Jehovah in faithfulness. You are trying to justify your wayward thinking by looking for Pharisaic loopholes. That is not what Jehovah's people do. (Matthew 15:3-11; 23:23, 24)<br /><br />The fact that you are reduced to looking for a microscopic loophole means that the article has successfully done its job. You have no excuse.Dismythedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-71919668885378777172018-07-24T11:24:31.328-05:002018-07-24T11:24:31.328-05:00To put it simply: in order to judge a matter, a li...To put it simply: in order to judge a matter, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The line they drew it at was simply the point at which blood becomes blood.Dismythedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-35185921116576172112018-07-24T03:51:39.710-05:002018-07-24T03:51:39.710-05:00Well, eating the ham would be eating the ham sandw...Well, eating the ham would be eating the ham sandwich. But the other parts, yes, are not needed to qualify.<br /><br />We could think of it also this way: if I put a boat on the water, then is the water the boat? No. But if I take a mast from the boat, then I have taken part of the boat. Likewise, if I take the fuel from a motorboat's engine, has the motorboat ceased being a motorboat? Obviously not. Nor can the fuel be counted as the motorboat any more than it can be counted as the reservoir from which it originated nor the crude oil from which it was extracted, as the oil remained to be oil once the fuel was extracted.Dismythedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-76561984533221641692018-07-23T18:09:02.616-05:002018-07-23T18:09:02.616-05:00Apostates that claim taking fractions is the same ...Apostates that claim taking fractions is the same as taking whole blood, are also claiming that if a ham sandwhich is made of bread, cheese, mayo, and ham, then eating just the cheese, or just the bread, or just the ham, is the exact same as eating a ham sandwich. Opposers Dismythednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-57288121504876465372018-07-23T16:17:43.567-05:002018-07-23T16:17:43.567-05:00That requires addressing many individual details o...That requires addressing many individual details of blood transfusions that I will address at a future time. But remember, we leave it up to individual conscience. If a person refuses anything farmed from blood, then we accept their choice. They do not have to accept lesser fragments.<br /><br />The splitting hairs on transfused materials is simply about putting a line in the sand. For instance, if you distilled blood in a water distillation set, you could draw out fresh water and it would not have any blood material with it. So the question becomes what constitutes the blood material? I will answer that question in a future post. In the meantime, you might find something on one of Elijah Daniel's pages linked at the bottom of the page on the following link: http://godsviewofblood.blogspot.comDismythedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-51967250332027758052018-07-22T18:18:18.662-05:002018-07-22T18:18:18.662-05:00Hey thanks for this article;
But am also interest...Hey thanks for this article;<br /><br />But am also interested if you have some good advice to help defend against those who challenge our view that transfusing any of the blood's four main components. Plasma, WBCs, RBCs, or platelets, still constitutes as whole blood (or Gk. "hima"). And therefore also a violation of God's laws on blood.<br /><br />Our critics have long claimed this definition of the four individual main blood components as defacto whole blood is arbitrary and without scriptural support. And like or policy on lower partial blood product derivatives, should be left open to individual choice.<br /><br />Do you have any good points to address this issue, as it has admittedly bothered me over a good number of years to come up with a more legitimate defense of it?<br /><br />Thanks ...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01908158157448140324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-75187203322120504092018-07-22T03:56:15.488-05:002018-07-22T03:56:15.488-05:00This is why opposers claim, by an open interpretat...This is why opposers claim, by an open interpretation, that transfusing blood to save a life is “respecting life”. Well, then it could be argued based on that logic, that breaking ANY of God's laws to preserve your life is also “respecting life”. It’s ridiculous to argue that way. But it goes to show how they cannot scripturally refute God's command to not take blood into the body at all. Opposers Dismythednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-17212392330793197832018-07-21T20:35:41.402-05:002018-07-21T20:35:41.402-05:00Thank you for your contribution, FTP. We both enjo...Thank you for your contribution, FTP. We both enjoyed it.Dismythedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-66497766499913501272018-07-17T21:57:06.828-05:002018-07-17T21:57:06.828-05:00If the prohibition on blood is only dietary, I gue...<br />If the prohibition on blood is only dietary, I guess that makes the prohibition on eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and bad only dietary too right?<br /><br />Picture this: Adam purees the fruit and transfuses it into his veins and Jehovah says "that's OK because I didn't explicitly outline every scenario about using that fruit to support your life...<br />By-the-way, since I didn't say you couldn't use the rest of the tree, I would have also allowed you to chop the tree down and use the wood for various purposes."<br /><br /><br />Before anyone tries to claim that the laws on vegetation (Ge 2:16,17) and blood (Ge 9:3,4) have no parallel, just swap the words concerning vegetation with animal flesh and tree of knowledge of good/bad with blood - you will end up with the parallel law. Both are at a beginning of a human society. Both are directed at the then patriarch of humankind. Both concern what can be eaten and what cannot. Both are linked with life and death. Both concern obedience and respect for life. Also note God himself drawing the parallel at Ge 9:3 ("just as I gave you").<br /><br />We make inferences all of the time when communicating. Inferences are logical extensions of what is actually stated. Both the aforementioned laws were given to Adam and Noah respectively. There is no mention that they apply to anyone else. But the general understanding, or inference, is that these laws apply to their descendants too. Could an inference, or expanding meaning, be attributed to the term "eating blood"?<br /><br />To make it plain that an expanded meaning of "eat" can be understood is the context. <br />1) At Genesis 9, Jehovah just finished destroying all human and animal life on earth by means of the Flood. Life was therefore a major theme in the subsequent conversation with Noah. Ge 9:3 explicitly tells us that blood is special – it is linked with life. Since food is vital for life, God was telling Noah not to prolong his life by "eating" blood. To obey this edict, Noah and his offspring would have to recognize Jehovah as the Source of Life and respect His authority regarding such matters. Obedience was also vital for life (Deut 8:3; Mt 4:4) - something which Adam failed to appreciate. So something more than just "eating" is involved here. Why do people want a blood transfusion? To prolong their life - the very same scenario that is discussed in Ge 9:3,4.<br /><br />2) Could the term "eat" have been understood by Noah as meaning something other than oral ingestion? At Ge 3:14 God tells the Serpent that he would "eat dust" all the days of his life (we are back in Eden again). "Eat" here has a non-literal meaning. So Noah knew there were other meanings for the term "eat". Couldn't he (and by extension us) have applied an alternate meaning to "eat" to mean "take into your body"?<br /><br />3) In Ge 9:5,6 God refers to shedding man's blood. The inference here is to take this to mean killing - not just killing by means of shedding blood but killing in general - otherwise I could kill someone by poison or strangulation and not break this law. So if this phrase means more than the literal term "shedding blood", why limit the phrase "eating blood" to mean just 'taking it through the mouth and chewing it'?*<br /><br />*BTW, I can argue that drinking does NOT fall under the uber-literal meaning of "eating" because other scriptures differentiate between "eating and drinking"—See Mt 34:37-39 which references the days of Noah, the same time period of Ge 9. Once I interpret things this way, then I can drink blood without consequence. I don't think even opposers of the blood issue would argue that it is OK to drink blood.<br /><br />By defining words as I see fit, I can do anything I want and, by my estimation, not break any of God's laws.WitnessFTPhttps://www.jw.orgnoreply@blogger.com