Source
r/AcademicBiblical•
dimensional_dan

Question: The Jehovah's Witnesses won't accept blood transfusions based on their interpretation of the Bible. Is there any way to resolve this issue with historical or academic interpretations of the Bible?

There are several passages which forbid the eating of blood, so to my mind are not strong candidates for a literal interpretation (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:10; Deuteronomy 12:23).

The strongest case of the JH interpretation is (as you might expect) the most vague passage about the consumption of blood:

Acts 15:28, 29:

For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood...

Is there any context which sheds light as to what abstaining from blood means in this context?

Posted Feb 6, 2015, 1:59 AM UTC

39
gurlubi•

Jehovah's Witnesses have predicted the end of the world 7 or 8 times in the 19th-20th centuries (by memory). I don't think that history or whatever sort of scientific research shapes their beliefs too much.

7
dimensional_danOP•

Oh yeah, I am not concerned about how other people think, just wondering if there are any interesting historical /theological interpretations on the matter...

1
Xalem•

Refusing blood transfusions is now about identity for them. It marks their separateness from other Christians. No argument can work now.

6
dimensional_danOP•

Is there an interpretation that could refute it though?

1
Xalem•

One needs to look at blood theologically. Blood is a gift that can be given for the life/redemption of others. The blood of sacrifice , the blood of Christ, the sharing of communion wine. Prohibitions on the consumption of blood are not prohibitions against sharing, or sacrificing ones blood for others.

3
LawrenceMichael•

If we really wanted to be punctilious about it, we might say it is only in the ingestion where the prohibition lies.

Alternatively in Judaism, the negative commandments (mitzvot lo taaseh) are outweighed by the positive commandments (mitzvot asay). For instance, one would break the commandment to work on the Sabbath if it meant working to save a human life. With this question, I think we might more so be really talking about Theology.

I can't think of any historical perspective on this since there wasn't blood perfusion in the bronze and iron age. Any answer we give you is going to be a philosophical/theological synthesis extrapolating from general principals found in the text.

Historically what they had in mind, were likely blood rituals involving ingestion of blood and the idea of being separate from what those other nations were doing. I think it is particularly difficult to then use this to say that giving blood(life) for the purposes of restoring someone's life is a taboo. We're in a completely different realm of thought when we consider what is and is not taboo here. Although, I would think any ancient would find the idea of me injecting someone else's blood into my body to be performing some kind of ritual. They simply didn't have the frame of reference to see this as being for medical purposes. These are the kind of problems we run into when we're trying to apply ancient taboo prohibitions to 21st century medical practices. There is a part of this which really seems silly to me.

3
liminalsoup•

JWs have printed their own bible which changes verses to match their views. They have zero interest in what scripture actually says. It's a cult founded by door-to-door encyclopedia salesmen.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

-1
autowikibot•

#####

######

#### Arian controversy:

The Arian controversy describes several controversies between the priest and theologian Arius and the Church Father, Bishop Athanasius related to Christology which divided the Catholic Church from before the Council of Nicaea in 325 to after the Council of Constantinople in 381 into two opposing theological factions. There was no formal schism, but instead it remained an internal conflict in the Church. The most important of these controversies concerned the substantial relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ.

====

Image ^(i)

^Interesting: ^Arianism ^| ^Ulfilas ^| ^Sami ^Al-Arian ^| ^Alexander ^of ^Constantinople

^Parent ^commenter ^can [^toggle ^NSFW](/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+cocnztn) ^or [^delete](/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&message=%2Bdelete+cocnztn)^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| ^(FAQs) ^| ^Mods ^| ^Magic ^Words

2