Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

[Miles]

.


After reading another thread mentioning Jehovah's Witnesses I became interested in their beliefs about blood. They reject blood transfusions and don't eat meat with more than a trace of blood in it. Searching around a bit I came across the following from a pro-JW web site.

"Do Jehovah's Witnesses Eat Red Meat Since it May Contain a Trace of Blood?

Though Christians are to abstain from blood (Acts 15:29), the Bible shows that the eating of flesh by Christians is proper, for God Himself told us that we could eat meat from "every animal". "Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU." (Gen. 9:3)

But God commanded that before eating the flesh of an animal, his people were to pour out its blood on the ground and cover it with dust, being careful not to eat the blood, on pain of death. (Deut. 12:23-25; Lev. 7:27) This is our way for us to show respect for God's view of life.

So when someone carefully takes the strict precautions that God outlined by making sure that an animal is properly bled before consumption, they wouldn't be breaking God's command of eating blood. Since God Himself has issued these directions, obviously, if properly done, God does not have a problem with eating the meat from "every animal".

People can rest assured that nearly all blood is removed from meat during slaughter, which is why you don’t see blood in raw “white meat”; only an extremely small amount of blood remains within the muscle tissue when you get it from the store. (Also see: The Red Juice in Raw Meat is Not Blood (todayifoundit.com)"
source
(My emphasis)

However, from a comprehensive explanation of the slaughtering of animals: (I urge anyone who's interested to access the link below)

"Blood loss as a percentage of body weight differs between species: cows, 4.2 to 5.7%; calves, 4.4 to 6.7%; sheep, 4.4 to 7.6%; and pigs, 1.5 to 5.8%. Blood content as a percentage of live weight may decrease in heavier animals since the growth of blood volume does not keep pace with growth of live weight. Approximately 60% of blood is lost at sticking *, 20-25% remains in the viscera, while a maximum of 10% may remain in carcass muscles."
source

So my question is, if the muscle (meat) can contain up to 10% of an animal's blood wouldn't this make it unacceptable to Jehovah's Witnesses?



*"Cattle and pigs are usually exsanguinated [drained of blood] by a puncture wound which opens the major blood vessels at the base of the neck, not far from the heart. The trade name for this process is sticking"
Source: ibid.



.

[Purple Knight]

And I explained in a previous post that God is NOT hiding from us what is right and what is wrong. He knows, too, that we can find the truth if we search for it. Doesn't Christ say, "Keep on asking and it shall be given you; keep on seeking and you shall find; keep on knocking and it shall be opened to you"? (Matthew 7:7)

But he let men screw around with the Bible and make it confusing. It's not his fault that they do that, but this is the one thing he shouldn't let people do. No matter how much evil people do, as long as they don't interfere with other people's understanding of right and wrong, they can make being righteous harder, but never impossible. But if they're allowed to legitimately deceive people into thinking that wrong is right, God is allowing evil men to send good men to Hell.

[onewithhim]

If the vast amount of Scripture agrees with me, then the verses in question would have to agree with the majority of passages. I would have no problem in putting quotation marks around "Samuel."

Are you sure about that? There are more verses in 1 Samuel 28 that say that the spirit was Samuel than verses used as prooftexts to claim it's not.

I said the majority of verses and whole passages in the Bible that show that Saul's sojourn was unlikely for a man who was faithful to God's requirements, would render the story of "Samuel" one of contacting the demons. When taking into consideration ALL of the writings, throughout the Bible, including Ecclesiastes, we see that getting in touch with "the dead" would be anathema to God-fearing individuals, and in fact aligning oneself to demons. Tell me, if one could actually contact the dead, why would God object? That would be basically harmless. But there is a good reason for not trying to contact the dead. It is because you would be contacting demons. That is exactly what Saul did.

[Difflugia]

I said the majority of verses and whole passages in the Bible that show that Saul's sojourn was unlikely for a man who was faithful to God's requirements, would render the story of "Samuel" one of contacting the demons. When taking into consideration ALL of the writings, throughout the Bible, including Ecclesiastes, we see that getting in touch with "the dead" would be anathema to God-fearing individuals, and in fact aligning oneself to demons.

You've put yourself into an interesting position where you've decided what the theology of the Bible must be, even when you have to change the Bible to fit. So even though you say that you're taking all of the writings into consideration, you're still changing 1 Samuel 28. Furthermore, you still claim to believe that it's inerrant.

Tell me, if one could actually contact the dead, why would God object?

Who knows? Why does God object to eating lobster and crab, even though they're edible? I'm sure you could make up reasons as you have with the dead spirits vs. demons thing, but the Bible doesn't say.

That would be basically harmless.

Like crab cakes.

But there is a good reason for not trying to contact the dead. It is because you would be contacting demons. That is exactly what Saul did.

Since the Bible doesn't actually say that, that argument probably belongs over in Christianity and Apologetics.

[onewithhim]

I said the majority of verses and whole passages in the Bible that show that Saul's sojourn was unlikely for a man who was faithful to God's requirements, would render the story of "Samuel" one of contacting the demons. When taking into consideration ALL of the writings, throughout the Bible, including Ecclesiastes, we see that getting in touch with "the dead" would be anathema to God-fearing individuals, and in fact aligning oneself to demons.

You've put yourself into an interesting position where you've decided what the theology of the Bible must be, even when you have to change the Bible to fit. So even though you say that you're taking all of the writings into consideration, you're still changing 1 Samuel 28. Furthermore, you still claim to believe that it's inerrant.

Tell me, if one could actually contact the dead, why would God object?

Who knows? Why does God object to eating lobster and crab, even though they're edible? I'm sure you could make up reasons as you have with the dead spirits vs. demons thing, but the Bible doesn't say.

That would be basically harmless.

Like crab cakes.

But there is a good reason for not trying to contact the dead. It is because you would be contacting demons. That is exactly what Saul did.

Since the Bible doesn't actually say that, that argument probably belongs over in Christianity and Apologetics.

I have never claimed that the Bible is inerrant. I have said that the theme throughout is strong and harmonious, and we get God's message to us even though men have embellished certain passages or taken things out that belong there. When men handle anything there is always some kind of muddle. The Word of God is true and mandatory for our salvation, yet parts of it have been smudged by the feelings of men. Like in one spot there are 24 sheep, and in another commenting on the same situation there are 65 sheep. This is not inerrant but it also is not worth trashing the whole Bible.

God gave a rule to Israel to not eat lobsters or shrimp or crabs because they fed on the bottom of the ocean and consumed unhealthy things. It was kind of Him to alert them to the facts. It was always an issue that God's people must be as clean as possible. Eating a shrimp's feces was not a clean situation.

I stand by what I've said. It is clear to me that Saul was nuts and the witch was working with the demons.

[Difflugia]

I have never claimed that the Bible is inerrant.

That's interesting. Do you think that's in harmony with official Witness teaching? The Insight entry on "inspiration" includes this statement:

By “inspiration” is meant, not a mere heightening of the intellect and emotions to a higher degree of accomplishment or sensitivity (as is often said of secular artists or poets), but the production of writings that are inerrant and that have the same authority as if written by God himself.

Do you agree?

I stand by what I've said. It is clear to me that Saul was nuts and the witch was working with the demons.

That's possible, but it's still a conjecture. Even if you're right, though, you're not allowed to change what's written. "And when the woman saw Samuel..." "And Samuel said to Saul..."

[onewithhim]

I have never claimed that the Bible is inerrant.

That's interesting. Do you think that's in harmony with official Witness teaching? The Insight entry on "inspiration" includes this statement:

By “inspiration” is meant, not a mere heightening of the intellect and emotions to a higher degree of accomplishment or sensitivity (as is often said of secular artists or poets), but the production of writings that are inerrant and that have the same authority as if written by God himself.

Do you agree?

I believe that Jehovah inspired the Scriptures but He did not dictate them. That leaves it open for men to embellish. I believe that the entirety of the Bible is generally under God's inspiration and we can understand His purpose and what He expects from us throughout, from Genesis to the maps. But sometimes the details can be conflicting.

[Difflugia]

I believe that Jehovah inspired the Scriptures but He did not dictate them. That leaves it open for men to embellish. I believe that the entirety of the Bible is generally under God's inspiration and we can understand His purpose and what He expects from us throughout, from Genesis to the maps. But sometimes the details can be conflicting.

How wrong is any given author or any given story allowed to be?

[onewithhim]

I believe that Jehovah inspired the Scriptures but He did not dictate them. That leaves it open for men to embellish. I believe that the entirety of the Bible is generally under God's inspiration and we can understand His purpose and what He expects from us throughout, from Genesis to the maps. But sometimes the details can be conflicting.

How wrong is any given author or any given story allowed to be?

I said, if we put all accounts in the Bible together we can see how they harmonize. The theme of the Bible is there, from Genesis to Revelation. That is what is important. The fact that God purposed to have the Messiah come to free mankind of their sins is evident from Genesis 3:15 to Revelation 22.

[Tcg]

I believe that Jehovah inspired the Scriptures but He did not dictate them. That leaves it open for men to embellish. I believe that the entirety of the Bible is generally under God's inspiration and we can understand His purpose and what He expects from us throughout, from Genesis to the maps. But sometimes the details can be conflicting.

How wrong is any given author or any given story allowed to be?

I said, if we put all accounts in the Bible together we can see how they harmonize. The theme of the Bible is there, from Genesis to Revelation. That is what is important. The fact that God purposed to have the Messiah come to free mankind of their sins is evident from Genesis 3:15 to Revelation 22.

Univocality is not supported by the text itself:




Tcg

[Difflugia]

How wrong is any given author or any given story allowed to be?

I said, if we put all accounts in the Bible together we can see how they harmonize.

We apparently can't see that until we've changed some of them, though. How harmonious to the texts have to be before we can allow them to say exactly what they say?