do the Jehovah witness still forbids blood transfusion in this 21st century? last time i checked there is nothing wrong with blood transfusion as it saves lives. the bible didn't forbids it. dnt conclude yet until u have read this.


Sometime after Judge Rutherford's death, the
Jehovah's Witnesses decided it was sinful to
have blood transfusions, even if one could save a
life. They are so confident that this is sin that
they will die or allow their children to die rather
than to submit to a blood transfusion. Some of
them carry identification cards in their pocket or
purse saying that they want blood transfusions
under no circumstances. So we do not question
their sincerity, only whether their belief in the
matter is substantiated by the Scriptures.
But where do they get the idea that it is sinful to
have blood transfusions, since the Bible nowhere
mentions such a thing (pro or con) and since it
was not discovered that blood circulated in the
human veins until Dr. William Harvey, an English
physician, discovered it about 1615 and the first
transfusions on record do not appear until several
years later? The way they reach this conclusion is
to say that transfusions and eating blood are the
same. "Jehovah's Witnesses see no difference
between being fed blood through the mouth or
nose or intravenously" (Religions In America, Leo
Rosten, Simon and Schuster, Inc., New York,
1963, p. 101). It is defined as "intravenous
feeding, it is a feeding upon blood, An unscriptural
practice" ("Make Sure of All Things," Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society, Inc., Brooklyn, NY, p. 47).
After erroneously concluding that transfusions and
eating blood are the same, they twist the
scriptures to "prove" it is always sinful to eat the
blood of animals under any or all circumstances.
In arguing their case it is interesting to note the
"reasons" given. They tell us the practice is
dangerous but they do not refuse other medical
treatment that is equally dangerous. The dangers
involved in transfusions are relatively minor. But
the argument that is most humorous (if it were
not so serious) is the one which says that the
recipient of blood may take on the character of
the donor. Bro. Maurice Barnett quotes from
Awake; a Jehovah's Witness publication (July 8,
1969), which tells of Mr. Robert Khoury who
became a thief because the donor of a pint of
blood was a thief (the statement is quoted in
Jehovah's Witnesses, Vol. 1). I suppose a
transfusion from a genius would improve a man's
thinking if that is the case.
One of the favorite passages used by the
Jehovah's Witnesses to prove their case is Gen.
9:4. Here the eating of blood is forbidden. This, of
course, is before the law of Moses. However it
was in connection with the sacrifice for sin. Then,
and later under the law of Moses, the blood of
animals sacrificed for sin was made sacred to the
ones offering the sacrifice. Hence they were to
refrain from eating it. Blood represented the life
and thus, because of God's command, became
very sacred to them. Animal blood was shed
because the life of the animal was given in place
of the sinner. While the "type" lasted, they were
forbidden to eat the blood of animals. But now
that Jesus has shed His blood for sin, animal
blood is no longer a symbol of the life of the one
making the sacrifice. Thus, the sacredness of
animal blood was removed and there is no reason
to refrain from eating it.

Jehovah's witnesses didn't forbid transfusion.. The Bible did..

No arguments

Keep the above thought in mind as we now
consider another favorite passage of the
Jehovah's Witnesses, Lev. 17:11-12. Again the
eating of blood is prohibited, but notice in verse
11 that it is stated, "For the life of the flesh is in
the blood: and I have given it to you upon the
alter to make an atonement for your souls: for it
is the blood that maketh an atonement for the
soul." The New American Standard translation
says, "for it is the blood by reason of the life that
makes atonement." In this verse, God told the
Israelites why they were not to eat blood. But the
law of sacrificing animal blood for sins is no
longer binding, as we are saved by the blood of
Christ. Thus the reason for considering the blood
such a sacred thing has been removed. The blood
of animals will not take away sins (Heb.
9:12-14).
Coming to the New Testament, we again come to
a favorite passage of the Jehovah's Witnesses,
Acts 15:2029. This is of course after the new
covenant was effective; a brief look at the
background of the statement is helpful here. The
problem prompting this statement was one which
involved the relationship between Jew and
Gentile, a problem that had arisen after Cornelius
was baptized (Acts 10:48). False teachers had
come from Judea teaching that it was necessary
to be circumcised in order to be saved (Acts 15:
i ). Paul and Barnabas were dispatched to
discuss the matter with the elders and apostles in
Jerusalem. There Peter told them how God had
shown him that the Gentiles should also have the
gospel. The multitude then kept silent as
Barnabas and Paul told of the great wonders God
had wrought among the Gentiles. Then James
spoke. He reminded them that what Peter had
said was in harmony with the prophets of old.
Now the time had come for the decision regarding
what to tell the brethren at Antioch. These were
Gentile Christians (vs. 23). As already noted,
there had been misunderstandings from the
beginning in the Jew-Gentile relationship. Notice
that the four things here prohibited (pollutions of
idols, fornication, things strangled and blood)
were items of heathen worship with which the
Gentiles were familiar. It did not bother them to
eat in the temples of the idol worshiper. Paul told
the Corinthians that whatever is sold in the
shambles, eat, asking no questions (1 Cor.
10:25). Thus it was obviously not wrong to eat
meat sacrificed to idols under some conditions.
But sometimes it was wrong (1 Cor. 10:28). It
was wrong if it caused a weak brother to eat
meats in violation of his conscience (see also 1
Cor. 8:13).
Then why did James now tell them to abstain
from pollutions of idols, . blood, etc.? The answer
comes in verse 21. "For Moses from generations
of old hath in every city them that preach him,
being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."
Here is another reference to the Jew-Gentile
relationship. Love and restraint must be practiced
(1 Cor. 8:9; 10:32; Rom. 14:13-15). These four
things were linked together on the basis of the
Jew Gentile relationship, not because they were
equal morally. These were especially
objectionable to the Jews. Thus in the letter they
were forbidden. So out of deference to the Jewish
brethren and in an attempt to maintain the unity
of brethren, they were to abstain from these
things. See Acts 15:21.
But is it not wrong, to practice these things now
under all conditions? What about fornication? Is it
not wrong under all circumstances? Yes, many
other passages tell us it is (1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:19,
etc.). But in the passage before us it is connected
with the heathen worship with which the Gentiles
were familiar and no doubt refers to the practice
of the heathen religious worship. Even fornication
was an act of worship among the pagans. Lenski
says, "It was a part of their idol
worship" (Interpretation of the Acts of the
Apostles, Lenski, p. 615). He then continued, "The
wisdom of some of the Corinthian Christians
argued that fornication was merely an external
matter. The old pagan ideas about sexual
impurities not being impurities kept clinging to the
converts from paganism in some form or other.
Hence this warning appears as the second on the
list of Peter" (Ibid., p. 615).
Thus, it is the belief of this writer that the things
prohibited here were not meant as restrictions
under all circumstances and to all generations,
but were stated in view of the strained Jew-
Gentile relationship at that time. As already
stated, we know eating meat sacrificed to idols
was not sinful. So this would explain why
sometimes it was wrong and sometimes it was
not. Since these things were pagan religious
practices, the Gentile Christians were to refrain
out of love for their Jewish brethren who objected
to them.
In conclusion we believe that the Jehovah's
Witnesses are wrong in their position on several
counts. (1) They cannot show that eating blood
(even if sinful now) and blood transfusions are
the same. Blood transfusions save lives; they do
not destroy life. (2) The scriptures they use show
(even under Moses' law) that the prohibition
concerned animal blood, not human blood. (3) In
misusing the Old Testament they fail to see that
the blood was sacred; for this reason, they were
to refrain from eating it. (4) And, finally, they
misapply Acts 15, which does not make a blanket
prohibition.

Poster, go for English lessons. Your spelling and diction are atrocious. Really, forget about the bible for a while and go try and improve yourself.

ROSSIKE: Poster, go for English lessons. Your spelling and diction are atrocious. Really, forget about the bible for a while and go try and improve yourself.

who be this one sef

spankyflex: who be this one sef

Someone far more intelligent than a tout like you.

ROSSIKE: Poster, go for English lessons. Your spelling and diction are atrocious. Really, forget about the bible for a while and go try and improve yourself.

i think u shud go and fry urself in hot oil. i know u are too dull to debunk the write up. finding an easy way of escape.

ROSSIKE:

Someone far more intelligent than a tout like you.

u can't even engage in intelligent discussion. what a waste of space.

ROSSIKE:

Someone far more intelligent than a tout like you.

intelligent my foot;wonder what you kind benefits from trolling

JW's have understood God's view of blood from the bible. When it comes to the Law to abstain from blood, we see it given to Noah and his family - Genesis 9:4,5. We also see it given to the israelites - Leviticus 17:10, 11. We also read of it in the early christian congregation - Act 14:28, 29.

The question is, was it just animal blood alone? What is the principle behind God's telling his people in the past to abstain from blood. Lev 17:10, 11 explains the principle behind the Law, it says: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonment for your souls". In truth, the life of the flesh is in the blood. Medical science totally agrees with this. The blood contains red and white blood cells as well as plasma and plateletes. It is said that in the absence of one of these components, life cannot continue. Blood plays a vital role in life, so for that reason the bible equates blood to life.

If blood = Life, then it shld be respected, not misused because it is God's, hence the law to pour it out to the earth after cutting the throat of an animal. That Formed the basis for the Law to abstain from blood. And that includes human blood, for Lev 17:10 starts by saying "as for any man...who eats ANY SORT OF BLOOD...I shall indeed cut him off. This was not simply refering only to animal blood.

There is also the account in 2samuel 23:15-17 where David was very thirsty, 3 of his men forced their way into the enemy camp, drew water from a cistern, and brought it to him. How did David react? He asked: "shall I drink the blood of the men going at the risk of their souls?" In Davids eyes, the water was, in effect, the lifeblood of his men. So despite his thirst he "poured it out to God".

David understood the prínciple behind the Law to abstain from blood, JW's also do thus their respect for blood(Life).

OP were you a JW before?

Religion is the ONLY reason some people won't make heaven.

henrychubayo: OP were you a JW before?

i'm not. one of their member told me that they dnt do blood transfusion.

there is absolutely nothing wrong with blood transfusion.

Efere701: JW's have understood God's view of blood from the bible. When it comes to the Law to abstain from blood, we see it given to Noah and his family - Genesis 9:4,5. We also see it given to the israelites - Leviticus 17:10, 11. We also read of it in the early christian congregation - Act 14:28, 29.

The question is, was it just animal blood alone? What is the principle behind God's telling his people in the past to abstain from blood. Lev 17:10, 11 explains the principle behind the Law, it says: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonment for your souls". In truth, the life of the flesh is in the blood. Medical science totally agrees with this. The blood contains red and white blood cells as well as plasma and plateletes. It is said that in the absence of one of these components, life cannot continue. Blood plays a vital role in life, so for that reason the bible equates blood to life.

If blood = Life, then it shld be respected, not misused because it is God's, hence the law to pour it out to the earth after cutting the throat of an animal. That Formed the basis for the Law to abstain from blood. And that includes human blood, for Lev 17:10 starts by saying "as for any man...who eats ANY SORT OF BLOOD...I shall indeed cut him off. This was not simply refering only to animal blood.

There is also the account in 2samuel 23:15-17 where David was very thirsty, 3 of his men forced their way into the enemy camp, drew water from a cistern, and brought it to him. How did David react? He asked: "shall I drink the blood of the men going at the risk of their souls?" In Davids eyes, the water was, in effect, the lifeblood of his men. So despite his thirst he "poured it out to God".

David understood the prínciple behind the Law to abstain from blood, JW's also do thus their respect for blood(Life).

are u a Jehovah witness? so u wud choose rather for someone to die than to do blood transfusion?

Yes, I am one of Jehovah's witnesses and I have just presented to you the bible's thought on the blood issue. Obeying God even when it comes matters of life and death brings great blessings.it is even as the bible says: "For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it".- matt 16:25

Ukutsgp: there is absolutely nothing wrong with blood transfusion.

I tell you, the bold section is plain false! Please talk to a professional Medical doctor and see if there is really nothing wrong with blood transfusion medically.( Ask what really happened to Pope John Paul).

Blood transfusions like any medical procedures has its risks, not limited to these; it does not save life 100% rather it is 50-50, it holds the risk of infections such as HIV, hepthatitis,etc, it causes complications between the new blood and the old- organ failure (No two humans have exactly the same blood components), it is difficult to screen blood samples (100% disease free).

In the bible book of Acts, Why were christians urged not to eat "anything strangled", what do you think is the principle behind that instruction?

Over Man history, men have been consuming human blood for medicinal purposes- research about that, but is our life more important than obeying God's law?

Taking alcohol/drugs through the veins is still like ingesting it- it affects the body the same.


JW put their Faith in Jehovah's law "Do not eat blood- because it is sacred/life", Whether they survive medical procedure without taking blood or not, they are not afraid of death after all they have the hope of everlasting life in a perfect new world if they obey Jehovah, what is better than that.

Efere701: Yes, I am one of Jehovah's witnesses and I have just presented to you the bible's thought on the blood issue. Obeying God even when it comes matters of life and death brings great blessings.it is even as the bible says: "For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it".- matt 16:25

d truth is what i have shown in d write up above.

RikoduoSennin:

I tell you, the bold section is plain false! Please talk to a professional Medical doctor and see if there is really nothing wrong with blood transfusion medically.( Ask what really happened to Pope John Paul).

Blood transfusions like any medical procedures has its risks, not limited to these; it does not save life 100% rather it is 50-50, it holds the risk of infections such as HIV, hepthatitis,etc, it causes complications between the new blood and the old- organ failure (No two humans have exactly the same blood components), it is difficult to screen blood samples (100% disease free).

In the bible book of Acts, Why were christians urged not to eat "anything strangled", what do you think is the principle behind that instruction?

Over Man history, men have been consuming human blood for medicinal purposes- research about that, but is our life more important than obeying God's law?

Taking alcohol/drugs through the veins is still like ingesting it- it affects the body the same.


JW put their Faith in Jehovah's law "Do not eat blood- because it is sacred/life", Whether they survive medical procedure without taking blood or not, they are not afraid of death after all they have the hope of everlasting life in a perfect new world if they obey Jehovah, what is better than that.

refusal to take drugs or do a blood transfusion to save your life amount to suicide. when u refuse to take medication to get well, what u are doing is suicide. and suicide is a sin.

this is what i said regarding dat book of acts.
Coming to the New Testament, we again come to
a favorite passage of the Jehovah's Witnesses,
Acts 15:2029. This is of course after the new
covenant was effective; a brief look at the
background of the statement is helpful here. The
problem prompting this statement was one which
involved the relationship between Jew and
Gentile, a problem that had arisen after Cornelius
was baptized (Acts 10:48). False teachers had
come from Judea teaching that it was necessary
to be circumcised in order to be saved (Acts 15:
i ). Paul and Barnabas were dispatched to
discuss the matter with the elders and apostles in
Jerusalem. There Peter told them how God had
shown him that the Gentiles should also have the
gospel. The multitude then kept silent as
Barnabas and Paul told of the great wonders God
had wrought among the Gentiles. Then James
spoke. He reminded them that what Peter had
said was in harmony with the prophets of old.
Now the time had come for the decision regarding
what to tell the brethren at Antioch. These were
Gentile Christians (vs. 23). As already noted,
there had been misunderstandings from the
beginning in the Jew-Gentile relationship. Notice
that the four things here prohibited (pollutions of
idols, fornication, things strangled and blood)
were items of heathen worship with which the
Gentiles were familiar. It did not bother them to
eat in the temples of the idol worshiper. Paul told
the Corinthians that whatever is sold in the
shambles, eat, asking no questions (1 Cor.
10:25). Thus it was obviously not wrong to eat
meat sacrificed to idols under some conditions.
But sometimes it was wrong (1 Cor. 10:28). It
was wrong if it caused a weak brother to eat
meats in violation of his conscience (see also 1
Cor. 8:13).
Then why did James now tell them to abstain
from pollutions of idols, . blood, etc.? The answer
comes in verse 21. "For Moses from generations
of old hath in every city them that preach him,
being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."
Here is another reference to the Jew-Gentile
relationship. Love and restraint must be practiced
(1 Cor. 8:9; 10:32; Rom. 14:13-15). These four
things were linked together on the basis of the
Jew Gentile relationship, not because they were
equal morally. These were especially
objectionable to the Jews. Thus in the letter they
were forbidden. So out of deference to the Jewish
brethren and in an attempt to maintain the unity
of brethren, they were to abstain from these
things. See Acts 15:21.
But is it not wrong, to practice these things now
under all conditions? What about fornication? Is it
not wrong under all circumstances? Yes, many
other passages tell us it is (1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:19,
etc.). But in the passage before us it is connected
with the heathen worship with which the Gentiles
were familiar and no doubt refers to the practice
of the heathen religious worship. Even fornication
was an act of worship among the pagans. Lenski
says, "It was a part of their idol
worship" (Interpretation of the Acts of the
Apostles, Lenski, p. 615). He then continued, "The
wisdom of some of the Corinthian Christians
argued that fornication was merely an external
matter. The old pagan ideas about sexual
impurities not being impurities kept clinging to the
converts from paganism in some form or other.
Hence this warning appears as the second on the
list of Peter" (Ibid., p. 615).
Thus, it is the belief of this writer that the things
prohibited here were not meant as restrictions
under all circumstances and to all generations,
but were stated in view of the strained Jew-
Gentile relationship at that time. As already
stated, we know eating meat sacrificed to idols
was not sinful. So this would explain why
sometimes it was wrong and sometimes it was
not. Since these things were pagan religious
practices, the Gentile Christians were to refrain
out of love for their Jewish brethren who objected
to them.

Ukutsgp: refusal to take drugs or do a blood transfusion to save your life amount to suicide. when u refuse to take medication to get well, what u are doing is suicide. and suicide is a sin.

Now who told you JW don't take drugs?

Who told you blood transfusion is a quarantee for life to be saved during medical procedure

Yes, suicide is a sin. JW just want the best medical treatment without violating God's law in the process, just because they want to save themselves now to die later (Gen 2:21- God performed BLOODLESS surgery).

Now as par the book of Acts;

Acts 15:1,2,24 - The issue raised was about circumcision and keep the Law. Note: the Gentiles were not under the Mosaic law, they don't obey the command on Blood.

Acts 15:20,29- Here the Gentiles were adopt some part of that Mosaic law not all/every part. This few parts include "do not eat STRANGLED animals, and ABSTAIN from blood".

Why should they not eat Strangled animals? Because the blood in this animals have not been bled out! Meaning the Gentiles where instructed to respect the use of blood.

"Abstain" from blood. The word abstain says it all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your thread raises two questions!

1) Is it against the bible to consume blood (both human and animals).

2) Is our life more important than obeying God's command? Keep in mind Jesus words "he who loses his life for my sake will gain it".

RikoduoSennin:

Now who told you JW don't take drugs?

Who told you blood transfusion is a quarantee for life to be saved during medical procedure

Yes, suicide is a sin. JW just want the best medical treatment without violating God's law in the process, just because they want to save themselves now to die later (Gen 2:21- God performed BLOODLESS surgery).

Now as par the book of Acts;

Acts 15:1,2,24 - The issue raised was about circumcision and keep the Law. Note: the Gentiles were not under the Mosaic law, they don't obey the command on Blood.

Acts 15:20,29- Here the Gentiles were adopt some part of that Mosaic law not all/every part. This few parts include "do not eat STRANGLED animals, and ABSTAIN from blood".

Why should they not eat Strangled animals? Because the blood in this animals have not been bled out! Meaning the Gentiles where instructed to respect the use of blood.

"Abstain" from blood. The word abstain says it all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your thread raises two questions!

1) Is it against the bible to consume blood (both human and animals).

2) Is our life more important than obeying God's command? Keep in mind Jesus words "he who loses his life for my sake will gain it".

u need to know that blood transfusion is not against God's commands. u need to understand this fact.

is blood transfusion wrong? the answer is no.
Is Receiving a Blood
Transfusion a Sin? – Part 1
Definitions:
eat vt 1: to take in through the
mouth as food: ingest, chew,
and swallow in turn.
ingest vt: to take in for or as if
for digestion.
intravenous adj : situated,
performed, or occurring within
or entering by way of a vein.
transfuse vt 1a: to cause to
pass from one to another:
TRANSMIT… 2a: to transfer (as
blood) into a vein of a person or
animal.
transfusion n 1: an act, process,
or instance of transfusing; esp:
the process of transfusing fluid
into a vein or artery.
digestion n: the action, process,
or power of digesting: as a: the
process of making food
absorbable by dissolving it and
breaking it down into simpler
chemical compounds that
occurs in the living body chiefly
through the action of enzymes
secreted into the alimentary
canal.
(Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate
Dictionary, 1983, pp. 393, 621, 635,
1253, 354).
“It shall be a perpetual statute for your
generation throughout all your dwellings, that ye
eat neither fat nor blood” (Leviticus 3:17, KJV).
This law, given by God, forbids the eating of
blood, and of fat. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe
that accepting a blood transfusion is a sin worse
than theft or adultery. Indeed, thieves and
adulterers are more quickly forgiven by
Watchtower judicial committees than individuals
found guilty of taking blood. A Witness must
refuse blood in all circumstances, even when this
is certain to result in death. The organization
also requires adults to refuse transfusions for
their minor children. But, is accepting a blood
transfusion really the same as ‘eating’ blood?
What exactly defines ‘eating’? According to the
above definitions, eating entails a process, which
begins with ingestion —or the taking in of food for
digestion—into the mouth where it is then
chewed, and swallowed. During and after this
process, the food is digested—starting partially
by the saliva and the chewing in the mouth, and
then ending completely by the hydrochloric acid
in the stomach. But isn’t blood a liquid, and
aren’t liquids drunk? The eating of blood means
the eating of flesh containing blood. This goes
into the mouth as a solid, and the term ‘drink’,
here, does not apply. But drinking entails the
swallowing of liquid, and the drinking of blood is
therefore, also, included in the above
commandment.
What exactly defines ‘blood transfusion’ ?
According to the above definitions, a blood
transfusion is the process of transferring the
blood of one person into the vein or artery of
another person. This is done in emergency
situations where a person is in need of life-
saving blood to replace or replenish his body’s
own blood supply. A Jehovah’s Witness will
argue that receiving a blood transfusion is the
same as ‘eating’ blood, because it resembles
intravenous feeding. They claim it is intravenous
ingestion. But is ‘ingestion’ the same as
‘eating’ ? Hardly. Eating involves ingestion, but
ingestion does not necessarily involve eating.
So, according to the definitions given above, is
receiving a blood transfusion the same as eating
blood? Before this question can be answered,
another must be asked: Does the process of
receiving a blood transfusion follow the process
of eating, as defined above? Let’s examine the
facts and then ask ourselves: Does one receive a
blood transfusion through the mouth? Does the
blood received undergo the mouth-action called
‘chewing’? Does it then undergo the mouth-
action called ‘swallowing’? Will the blood
received undergo ‘digestion’? If the answer to the
above questions is NO, then receiving a blood
transfusion is NOT the same as eating blood. If
you could stuff a drumstick into your vein, would
you call that ‘eating’ chicken?

What, does the Bible say, is the penalty for
eating blood? According to Genesis 9:4, Leviticus
7:24-27; 17:14-4, and Acts 15:8, God forbids the
eating of blood. The punishment for eating blood
was “cutting off”—excommunication—outlawed
from the people. Eating blood, fat or flesh of an
animal not properly killed was atoned for by
washing one’s clothes and person, and remaining
unclean until evening. But, is this how the
Watchtower interprets the Bible?
The Watchtower contradicted the Scriptures
when it first dreamed up this ban on blood
transfusions. To enforce the Society member’s
adherence to this ban, the Jehovah’s Witness
president was quoted as saying that, in the
Bible, “Deliberate violation of this law regarding
the sacredness of blood meant ‘cutting off’ in
death ” (AID TO BIBLE UNDERSTANDING pg.
244). Is this what the Bible says? Definitely not!
And there is no law in the Bible forbidding blood
transfusions. Jesus said, “nothing from without
a man, entering into him can defile him” (Mark
7:14, KJV). Since there is no law in the
Scriptures forbidding blood transfusions, the
Scriptural rule applies: “for where no law is,
there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15).
According to Numbers 15:32-36, the punishment
for breaking the Sabbath was death. This was a
more serious crime than eating blood. But, why
did Jesus work on the Sabbath? The answer is
found at Matthew 12:11-12, Luke 14:5 and Luke
6:9. Jesus, the “Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew
12:8, Luke 6:5, KJV), permitted work on the
Sabbath, which was necessary to save life. Why,
then, won’t the Watchtower allow the lives of
needy Jehovah’s Witnesses to be saved? This
cult is, in effect, killing its own members!
Therefore it is good to donate blood, and it is
lawful to receive a blood transfusion, if it will
save life.
The Watchtower has been a confused
organization since its inception. The president of
Jehovah’s Witnesses once declared, “Organ
transplants are forbidden by God as they are
equivalent to cannibalism” ( The Watchtower ,
11/15/67 & 6/8/68). This later became, “Organ
transplants are not forbidden by God as they are
not equivalent to cannibalism” ( The Watchtower ,
3/15/1980). God changed His mind. Finally,
“Blood transfusion is essentially an organ
transplant” (JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES AND THE
QUESTION OF BLOOD, pg. 41). By their own
logic, since God lifted the ban on transplants,
blood transfusions are no longer forbidden by
God. Unfortunately, the Watchtower contradicts
its own words—and also the divinely inspired
words of the Scriptures: Why does the
Watchtower forbid the eating of blood (as
Leviticus 3:17 states), but allows the eating of
fat (as Leviticus 3:17 also states)? Christians!
Don’t let Jehovah’s Witnesses fool you! Their
beliefs are scripturally illogical. Believing them
could kill you!

Ukutsgp: Christians!
Don’t let Jehovah’s Witnesses fool you! Their
beliefs are scripturally illogical. Believing them
could kill you!

Ndi uka akpa aka Jehovah Witness, over to you

Lilimax: Ndi uka akpa aka Jehovah Witness, over to you

na true. thank God u understand. those that follow their doctrines will die before their time.

Ukutsgp: u need to know that blood transfusion is not against God's commands. u need to understand this fact.

is blood transfusion wrong? the answer is no.
Is Receiving a Blood
Transfusion a Sin? – Part 1
Definitions:
eat vt 1: to take in through the
mouth as food: ingest, chew,
and swallow in turn.
ingest vt: to take in for or as if
for digestion.
intravenous adj : situated,
performed, or occurring within
or entering by way of a vein.
transfuse vt 1a: to cause to
pass from one to another:
TRANSMIT… 2a: to transfer (as
blood) into a vein of a person or
animal.
transfusion n 1: an act, process,
or instance of transfusing; esp:
the process of transfusing fluid
into a vein or artery.
digestion n: the action, process,
or power of digesting: as a: the
process of making food
absorbable by dissolving it and
breaking it down into simpler
chemical compounds that
occurs in the living body chiefly
through the action of enzymes
secreted into the alimentary
canal.
(Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate
Dictionary, 1983, pp. 393, 621, 635,
1253, 354).
“It shall be a perpetual statute for your
generation throughout all your dwellings, that ye
eat neither fat nor blood” (Leviticus 3:17, KJV).
This law, given by God, forbids the eating of
blood, and of fat. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe
that accepting a blood transfusion is a sin worse
than theft or adultery. Indeed, thieves and
adulterers are more quickly forgiven by
Watchtower judicial committees than individuals
found guilty of taking blood. A Witness must
refuse blood in all circumstances, even when this
is certain to result in death. The organization
also requires adults to refuse transfusions for
their minor children. But, is accepting a blood
transfusion really the same as ‘eating’ blood?[\color]
What exactly defines ‘eating’? According to the
above definitions, eating entails a process, which
begins with ingestion —or the taking in of food for
digestion—into the mouth where it is then
chewed, and swallowed. During and after this
process, the food is digested—starting partially
by the saliva and the chewing in the mouth, and
then ending completely by the hydrochloric acid
in the stomach. But isn’t blood a liquid, and
aren’t liquids drunk? The eating of blood means
the eating of flesh containing blood. This goes
into the mouth as a solid, and the term ‘drink’,
here, does not apply. But drinking entails the
swallowing of liquid, and the drinking of blood is
therefore, also, included in the above
commandment.
[color=#000099]What exactly defines ‘blood transfusion’ ?
According to the above definitions, a blood
transfusion is the process of transferring the
blood of one person into the vein or artery of
another person. This is done in emergency
situations where a person is in need of life-
saving blood to replace or replenish his body’s
own blood supply. A Jehovah’s Witness will
argue that receiving a blood transfusion is the
same as ‘eating’ blood, because it resembles
intravenous feeding. They claim it is intravenous
ingestion. But is ‘ingestion’ the same as
‘eating’ ? Hardly. Eating involves ingestion, but
ingestion does not necessarily involve eating.
So, according to the definitions given above, is
receiving a blood transfusion the same as eating
blood? Before this question can be answered,
another must be asked: Does the process of
receiving a blood transfusion follow the process
of eating, as defined above? Let’s examine the
facts and then ask ourselves: [color=#000099]Does one receive a
blood transfusion through the mouth? Does the
blood received undergo the mouth-action called
‘chewing’? Does it then undergo the mouth-
action called ‘swallowing’? Will the blood
received undergo ‘digestion’? If the answer to the
above questions is NO, then receiving a blood
transfusion is NOT the same as eating blood[\color]. If
you could stuff a drumstick into your vein, would
you call that ‘eating’ chicken?

the colored are some question begging for answers and some things to take note of.

Op where is your faith?

A lot of the commands God gave the Israelites might not have made sense back then but those who obeyed kept living.
Eg Noah was commanded to build an ark when as yet no rain had fallen to the extent of flooding

Also

instead of fighting the Egyptians the Isrealites were told to head for the red sea.... imagine if you were among them then would you have followed that order?

JW's never stop any of their members who want to receive a blood transfusion, each member makes that decision personally Gal 6:5.

As you are not a witness nothing stops you from taking blood but the word of God at Acts15:28,29 stands.
Read Dan 3:13-18.

gmaribel: Op where is your faith?

A lot of the commands God gave the Israelites might not have made sense back then but those who obeyed kept living.
Eg Noah was commanded to build an ark when as yet no rain had fallen to the extent of flooding

Also

instead of fighting the Egyptians the Isrealites were told to head for the red sea.... imagine if you were among them then would you have followed that order?

JW's never stop any of their members who want to receive a blood transfusion, each member makes that decision personally Gal 6:5.

As you are not a witness nothing stops you from taking blood but the word of God at Acts15:28,29 stands.
Read Dan 3:13-18.

i know that Jehovah witness excommunicate any member who does blood transfusion. many lives have been lost as a result of this practice. like what i pointed out up there, there is nothing wrong with doing blood transfusion. blood transfusion is different from eating blood.

Ukutsgp:
i know that Jehovah witness excommunicate any member who does blood transfusion.

The christian Organisation of JW disciplines individuals who err against God's law according to their deeds. Fighting,lying, etc are also frowned upon too just like abuse of blood.

One who takes blood into his:her body has defied it, we need to seperate from what is not holy/bad/ or sin.

Ukutsgp:
many lives have been lost as a result of this practice.

Please talk to a doctor ( a consultant in surgery) about blood transfusion. Blood transfusion does not always save life, its 50-50, plus it does not quarantee there won't be medical complications that they kill the person later.

Everyone dies eventually, with or without blood transfusion, but dying after violating God's command sometimes means "no ressurection".

Is our life more important than obeying God's law. Remember "to obey is better than sacrifice".

Ukutsgp:
like what i pointed out up there, there is nothing wrong with doing blood transfusion. blood transfusion is different from eating blood.

.

Nothing wrong with blood transfusion both medical and religiously ? Please research again!

Medically- there are complications associated with it just like any other medical procedure. You will find out that Bloodless surgery are more modern, technology advanced quality procedures that JW opted for. Drugs that trigger blood production in ones own body are better substitute to blood transfusion.

Religiously- Since we are under the new commandment Acts 15: 28,29 "For it seems good to the Holy spirit,...that ye ABSTAIN .... From BLOOD and from things STRANGLED....."

Please review the meaning of the word "Abstain". We are not talking about eat here. Also reseach the lifes of early christians/christianity, if they consumed blood like the nations of that time.( Josepheus and Jerome are good references).

Illustration: God said abstain from Alcohol/ wine or Drugs/cocaine (or God says, do not Drink Alcohol/Wine/Drugs/Cocaine). Does that mean we can take Alcohol/Wine/Drugs/Cocaine INTRAVEINOUSLY just because he uses the word "eat" and not transfusion?. The principle behind why we are not to eat blood still applies- which is blood is life and his sacred.

Would a jew be ok with inject Pig fats into his body just because the command is "eat"? Think deeply,

Every member of JW is aware of their decision, they are not force to forsake their life. They simple view their life as little compared to obeying Jehovah's law just like Meshack, shedrach and Abednego. If Jehovah decides to save us or not, we still want to obey him.

They forbid blood transfusion because 1. they are not vampires 2. blood is thicker than water. On a serious note, if Christ would sanction saving life on a Sabbath day even when it contradited the Sabbath day regulations, why would mortal man prevent the saving of live via blood transfusion?

NIGERIALOLoCOM: They forbid blood transfusion because 1. they are not vampires 2. blood is thicker than water. On a serious note, if Christ would sanction saving life on a Sabbath day even when it contradited the Sabbath day regulations, why would mortal man prevent the saving of live via blood transfusion?

dnt mind them.

RikoduoSennin:

The christian Organisation of JW disciplines individuals who err against God's law according to their deeds. Fighting,lying, etc are also frowned upon too just like abuse of blood.

One who takes blood into his:her body has defied it, we need to seperate from what is not holy/bad/ or sin.




Please talk to a doctor ( a consultant in surgery) about blood transfusion. Blood transfusion does not always save life, its 50-50, plus it does not quarantee there won't be medical complications that they kill the person later.

Everyone dies eventually, with or without blood transfusion, but dying after violating God's command sometimes means "no ressurection".

Is our life more important than obeying God's law. Remember "to obey is better than sacrifice".

.

Nothing wrong with blood transfusion both medical and religiously ? Please research again!

Medically- there are complications associated with it just like any other medical procedure. You will find out that Bloodless surgery are more modern, technology advanced quality procedures that JW opted for. Drugs that trigger blood production in ones own body are better substitute to blood transfusion.

Religiously- Since we are under the new commandment Acts 15: 28,29 "For it seems good to the Holy spirit,...that ye ABSTAIN .... From BLOOD and from things STRANGLED....."

Please review the meaning of the word "Abstain". We are not talking about eat here. Also reseach the lifes of early christians/christianity, if they consumed blood like the nations of that time.( Josepheus and Jerome are good references).

Illustration: God said abstain from Alcohol/ wine or Drugs/cocaine (or God says, do not Drink Alcohol/Wine/Drugs/Cocaine). Does that mean we can take Alcohol/Wine/Drugs/Cocaine INTRAVEINOUSLY just because he uses the word "eat" and not transfusion?. The principle behind why we are not to eat blood still applies- which is blood is life and his sacred.

Would a jew be ok with inject Pig fats into his body just because the command is "eat"? Think deeply,

Every member of JW is aware of their decision, they are not force to forsake their life. They simple view their life as little compared to obeying Jehovah's law just like Meshack, shedrach and Abednego. If Jehovah decides to save us or not, we still want to obey him.

blood transfusion is not the abuse of blood. it is done to save lives.

one who takes blood into his or her body to save his or life has not defiled it. What exactly defines ‘blood transfusion’ ?
According to the above definitions, a blood
transfusion is the process of transferring the
blood of one person into the vein or artery of
another person. This is done in emergency
situations where a person is in need of life-
saving blood to replace or replenish his body’s
own blood supply.

blood transfusion has saved many lives. some who are now used of God have been saved through blood transfusion. they wouldn't have been alive.

blood transfusion is not d same as eating blood. read the d definition of eating i gave above.

Jesus said that what goes into d mouth dnt defile a man but what comes out of that man.

blood transfusion is ok. embrace technology. dnt kill people because of ur ignorance.

^^^ You just quote me without even reading anything I wrote.

Well, since you mind is made up already about you own opinion of JW believes on blood and blood transfusions, I will leave you be.

Lastly we are not ignorant of the advances in medicine, it is people like you who are stuck in the old ways. JW continue to review current medical procedures/techniques regarding bloodless surgery. Even people who do not share our beliefs are embracing bloodless surgery. The number of medical doctors who carry out bloodless surgery are on the rise.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
What enters a man mouth does not defy him? Then why the restriction not to eat pig? Did jesus eat pig meat? And why? *** wrong application of scriptures***