JWHVACR
User
Gold Boarder
| Posts: 43 |   |
|
Re:Jehovah's Witnesses Are NOW Taking Blood!!! - 2007/02/23 10:09
JWHVACR wrote:
Personally, I would refuse a blood transfusion on medical grounds. However, the Society surely had to come to grips with reality, because the missionaries they were sending out had to be injected with antibodies taken from animal blood since they first wrote about not taking blood, and this has always seemed hypocritical.
And while I strongly agree that consuming animal blood is wrong, there is some question as to the translating of God's word to Noah concerning this.
Notice this rendering of those verses from the Septuagint (2001):
Genesis 9:1-16 - 1 God blest Noah and his sons, and told them, ‘Reproduce and multiply. Fill the earth and rule over it. 2 All the wild animals of the earth, the winged creatures in the sky, and everything that moves on the earth – including the fish of the sea – will dread and fear you. And I have put you in charge over all of them.
3 ‘All living and slithering animals can serve as meat for you. I have given them all to you as though they were green vegetation. 4 But, you must not eat flesh with its blood of life. 5 Otherwise, I will require your blood at the hand of all the wild animals. I will also require a man’s life at the hand of his brothers. 6 Whoever spills the blood of men will also have their blood spilled, because I made man in the image of God. 7 So, reproduce and multiply. Fill the earth and rule over it!’
8 Then God spoke to Noah and his sons (who were with him) and said, 9 ‘Look, I am establishing a Sacred Agreement between you and Me, with your seed [that comes] after you, 10 and with everything that lives… the winged creatures, the [domesticated] animals, and all the wild animals of the earth… all that are with you and came out of the chest. 11 This is the Sacred Agreement that I’m making with you and with all flesh: Never again will a downpour of water kill all flesh, and never again will a water downpour destroy the whole earth.’
12 Then, Jehovah God told Noah, ‘This is the sign that I have set [as a reminder] of the Sacred Agreement between me, you, and every living creature that is with you for ages of generations: 13 I have put My bow in the clouds. This will serve as the sign of the Sacred Agreement between the earth and Me. 14 So, whenever I gather clouds over the earth, My bow will be seen in the clouds. 15 And this will remind Me of My Sacred Agreement between Me, you, and with every living creature, and all flesh; that never again will there be a downpour of water that will blot out all flesh. 16 My bow will be in the clouds, and when I see it, I will remember the Sacred Agreement of the ages between the earth and Me, and with every living creature among all flesh that is on the earth.’
Sorry, it is a long reading, but notice some differences.
First, it appears as though the instructions concerning blood and murder weren't part of the Covenant, which came as later word from God.
Second, the eating of animal blood (like murder) came with its own penalty, "Otherwise, I will require your blood at the hand of all the wild animals."
So, while eating animal blood is wrong and it should be poured on the ground in respect for the life of the animal, the process appears to apply only when a life is taken. So, could the practice that the African Masai tribe have of collecting and drinking bull's blood while not killing the animal be ok? That they live peacefully in the midst of lions, hyenas, leopards, and elephants may indicate it is. So, inoculations from animal's blood may not be wrong at all, and forbidding the taking of human blood donations doesn't even seem to be implied.
I remember one of the first cases where Witnesses didn't allow a blood transfusion back in my home town of Chicago (early 1950s). A young couple, Tom and Barbara Grzyb (pronounced Grib) didn't want their RH factor baby to be given a small dose of blood, and all the TV news and newspapers said (it was a major story), "As the result, the baby died."
Although it really died because it had been left in front of an open window in January and caught pneumonia (I saw the death certificate), this wouldn't have happened if the parents had allowed it to be given a small portion (about a teaspoon) of blood cells.
No, I'm not saying that blood would have saved the baby, but that the doctors wouldn't have stamped its chart DNR (Do Not Resuscitate), as they did to a friend of mine who recently refused a blood transfusion, and they just allowed to die.
Anyhow, can you imagine the blood guilt on the organization if they have caused thousands to die needlessly due to misinformation? Why, you would have been disfellowshipped back then if you had taken any of the substances they allow today.
|
Forum 