What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?

[Pudgy]

…

 

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, George88 said:

To fully grasp the details, it is necessary to carefully revisit the Genesis narrative. Here, it clearly states that seven of every clean animal and a pair of unclean animals would have been chosen to board the Ark. 

Imagine if dinosaurs had existed during the time of Noah's Ark - they would have surely posed an extraordinary challenge, don't you think?

 

WTJWorg has a tendency to interpret and invent some events and accounts of the Scriptures, so I will play similarly. Could the fact that dinosaurs did not exist at the time of Noah mean that God knew, in advance, that there would be a Flood in the future, and that destroying the dinosaurs would be an option so that there would be no problem with the space in the Ark.
But they could have collected the baby dinosaurs so I guess there would be room, lol.

[JW Insider]

On 11/16/2023 at 8:39 AM, Many Miles said:

I take the Bible for what it says unless something suggests it should be taken another way. In the case of Gen 6:21 reasonableness and context should drive.

I guess most of us would think we are doing just that, but what might seem reasonable to one person might not seem reasonable to another person. It's my opinion that just because "carrion" is one of of at least ONE MILLION PLUS "kinds" of all food, I don't think it's reasonable to think that Noah took ONE MILLION-PLUS "kinds" of food, and we especially can't arbitrarily pick any ONE of those million-plus foods and decide that it MUST have been one of the MILLION-PLUS that Noah must have included.

Reasonableness and context drive me to think that Noah took LESS than one million types of food and therefore left some of them off the list, nutritious or not. And if we are giving preference to what the Bible actually says, then we should consider that there may be a very good reason that the Bible NEVER says that Noah took carrion onto the Ark. 

On 11/16/2023 at 8:39 AM, Many Miles said:

As for evidence that animals were eating carcasses that died of natural cause, do you seriously dispute the notion that this very thing was always part of earth's ecosystem as created? The natural world all around us evidences this. (2 Pet 2:12)

I believe there is plenty of good evidence that animals were eating other animals for epochs of time prior to the Bible's timeline for Noah and Adam. And worms and insects and bacteria and microbes appear naturally designed for breaking down dead animal and vegetable matter and that could include remains from animals killed or those that died by other natural causes. So it's not a stretch to believe that many animals were designed from the start to eat other animals no matter how they died.

I agree that 2 Pet 2:12 may easily include carrion but carrion it is not explicitly mentioned here either.

[Pudgy]

As I said before … carrion is a statistical IMPOSSIBILITY.

Similar to saying they fed on Penguin eggs.

Two a year ain’t enough.

EITHER concept is prima facia absurd and not sustainable.

[Pudgy]

…. besides … if a Group of 2 or 7 Penguines waddled all the way from Antarctica to the Ark, well …. you know …. “… not in the MOOD!”.

[JW Insider]

On 11/16/2023 at 8:39 AM, Many Miles said:

On 11/15/2023 at 11:41 PM, JW Insider said:

The likely meaning in context would be that he needed all the foods to fit the diets of all the different animals and whatever the fateful eight ate. And that might mean "dust" for the snakes (Gen 3:14, just kidding) and

Two things,

First, there is no disagreement between us regarding what the context of Gen 6:21 probably referred (i.e., "all the foods to fit the diets of" humans and animals). Noah would have reasonable choices about putting resources on his ark. He would have naturally gathered major food items that he could readily stow on the ark. Since there was nothing prohibiting him from gathering and stowing the flesh of animals dead of natural cause, and given the rich nutrition of this food, then I see no reason he wouldn't have included such food and every reason to think he would. After all, God did take the time to issue a food prohibition, and it wasn't meat.

Unfortunately, we are only discussing possibilities here. We weren't there, we don't know for sure, and there are no clear Bible verses that tell us the exact details. So none of this makes a very strong foundation or a premise for further argumentation. There are many interesting points to be made about why the Bible does include certain phrases and does not include others, and why the natural world as we see it around us (including ages-old fossils) isn't explained in detail in the Bible itself.

I personally think that what is stated in Acts 15 and 21 need not rely on some specific interpretations and conjectures about natural law, Noahide law or the Mosaic law. The term in Acts is "abstain from blood." It's a good translation, yet it doesn't say only to abstain from eating or drinking it. It just says abstain. That MIGHT have meant only abstain from drinking blood or from eating products made from blood, and it probably was meant to refer in some way back to the Noahide and Mosaic references to blood. But it might even go beyond those, or it might just be a simple command for Gentiles to avoid making it difficult to join in fellowship with their Jewish Christian brothers by avoiding blood when fellowshipping with those who would be disgusted by the idea. Paul seems to interpret the Acts 15 idea as not blatantly or flagrantly flaunting the freedoms that Gentile Christians have that those Jewish Christians were not ready to accept. The very idea of eating or even transfusing blood already seems disgusting to many people, even some inside the medical profession. It seems disgusting to most Jehovah's Witnesses who have repeatedly reviewed the Mosaic laws about it and the Acts 15 statement and have also heard so many negative stories about blood transfusion. So imagine how disgusting "taking" blood would seem for those Jewish Christians whose families and ancestors had been steeped in anti-blood doctrine for thousands of years. 

Paul never repeats the idea that we should not eat unbled meat. In fact Paul very clearly says:

(1 Corinthians 10:25-27) . . .Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience, ²⁶  for “to Jehovah belong the earth and everything in it.” ²⁷ If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience. 

(1 Corinthians 8:1-8) . . .Now concerning food offered to idols: . . . ⁴ Now concerning the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one.  . . . ⁷ However, not all have this knowledge. But some, because of their former association with the idol, eat food as something sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. ⁸  But food will not bring us nearer to God; we are no worse off if we do not eat, nor better off if we eat. 

(1 Timothy 4:3-5) . . .They forbid marriage and command people to abstain from foods that God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth. ⁴For every creation of God is fine, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, ⁵  for it is sanctified through God’s word and prayer over it.

And Jesus too: (Matthew 15:11) . . . It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.”

So I think a much more relevant discussion would skip the interpretations and conjectures about Noah and Moses and go straight to trying to understand why there is an apparent contradiction between the Acts 15 view of blood and things sacrificed to idols (which definitely could include blood) and Paul's view of potentially bloody meat and things sacrificed to idols.
 

For me, that is the starting point. 

 

[Matthew9969]

How about all the waste....maybe they found a way to turn it all into mcdonalds type chicken nuggets😜

[Many Miles]

59 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Reasonable and context drives me to think that Noah took LESS than one million types and therefore left some of them out. And if we are giving preference to what the Bible actually says, then we should consider that there may be a very good reason that the Bible NEVER says that Noah took carrion onto the Ark.

I agree that reasonable can and will vary from person to person. In the case of stowing food, opportunity and viability are paramount.

Ancient humans would naturally look for easier and safer forms of nutritional support. It just happens to be the case that using animal carcasses found dead of natural cause is about as easy at it could get for their nutritional support. Of course, the meat would have to be fit to eat. Ancient humans were capable of planning ahead. Hence they could grow crops, and there was wild vegetation too. But these could fail for a variety of unpreventable reasons. Hence both then and now, utilizing alternate (a variety!) sources for food is critical. Aside from vegetation, there is biological meat. If you find it already dead you don't have to expose yourself to injury trying to kill it. But you also need to prepare it for storage for future use. For the ancients, this was no harder than it would have been with botanical foods. Hence, it is reasonable to think Noah would have realized and utilized food options available to him that were easier, safe and effective, so long as they did not run astray of something God had said "No!' to. Which in Noah's pre-flood life was only one food item which was not meat.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I believe there is plenty of good evidence that animals were eating other animals for epochs of time prior to the Bible's timeline for Noah and Adam. And worms and insects and bacteria and microbes appear naturally designed for breaking down dead animal and vegetable matter and that could include remains from animals killed or those that died by other natural causes. So it's not a stretch to believe that many animals were designed from the start to eat other animals no matter how they died.

As it is with animals, it is with humans. If, for a moment, we take away the lens of biblical and just look at the natural world ancient humans existed in, then the value of animal carcasses found dead of natural cause but whose flesh is fit to eat, as a food item, rises to the occasion. (And don't even get me started on the nutritional value of smaller insect animals like grasshoppers and crickets.) When ancient humans got hungry they ate what was available as nutrition. This certainly is why we find within the biblical text of Deut 14:21 a provision for people to eat animals found dead of natural cause. For people, that was a food item. Also, just ask yourself why God would have told Jews not to eat animals found dead of natural cause, unless it had been a practice for them up until that time? And, the technology available to ancient Jews under Mosaic Law was not much different than millenniums prior to that time. That said, if animal carcasses dead of natural cause was a food item then it Noah had permission to stow it onto the ark as a food to be eaten for himself and the animals. That's the story of Genesis 6:21. If it was an edible Noah could take onto the ark as food for himself and the animals.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I agree that 2 Pet 2:12 may easily include carrion but carrion it is not explicitly mentioned here either.

But it is specifically mentioned in the more ancient text of Deut 14:21, so we know the practice of humans eating animal carcasses dead of natural cause was happening, and in the case of Deut 14:21 God Himself actually provided this specifically to be eaten by Gentiles. Men like Job and Cornelius were free to eat meat just like that. God made it available specifically to serve as a food item for non-Jews, who by the way were all still descendants of Noah.

[Many Miles]

48 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

For me, that is the starting point.

I'm heading away for a day or two. I'm happy to come back to this and engage on the discussion you refer to here.

That said, my preference when looking at ancient things, including the Bible, is to look for straightforward stuff and ask what would that mean if I understood it for what it says. And then, starting with that, ask how that would affect other information that's less straightforward. A simple example is this: Did God tell the earliest humans they were forbidden from eating anything, and if so what?

That's a very basic question, with a very straightforward answer. You know what the answer is. Accordingly, we are unable to say that the earliest humans were forbidden from eating biological flesh, including blood of that flesh. They also were not forbidden from eating milk.

[Pudgy]

On 11/15/2023 at 4:12 PM, Pudgy said:

… some things are “possible” …. but so improbable that only the clueless and the inexperienced, and the “slow” would consider them.

They will usually defend their screwball agendas until their last angry breath.

While you are “away” for a few days, Many Miles, be on the lookout for viable carrion to scrape up, and cook up, and actually eat.

Try to choose something that is not covered and infested with flies, parasites, bacteria and ants.

Even if you cook it the toxins will still be there … you know … the pee and poop from bacteria and  viruses. Toxins.

Or … you could play Russian Roulette, which will give you about the same odds of survival, and only hurts for a microsecond.

[JW Insider]

9 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

A simple example is this: Did God tell the earliest humans they were forbidden from eating anything, and if so what?

That's a very basic question, with a very straightforward answer. You know what the answer is. Accordingly, we are unable to say that the earliest humans were forbidden from eating biological flesh, including blood of that flesh. They also were not forbidden from eating milk.

We can see what happens now in nature and we can also see quite a lot of fossil evidence that lets us surmise what must have happened in the past. But the Bible often presents a picture that makes very little sense to our knowledge of nature. We can't quite see how plants and all vegetation could come about on day 3 before God made the sun on day 4. And how could many of the plants have lived without interaction with animals like insects and birds on day 5. And when we look at any spoonful of dirt there are currently more species of microbes. And how does enough water to flood the earth stay afloat in the expanse above the heavens, or stay below the surface of the ground until some future day when it's time to flood the earth. We have animals coming to Adam, we have animals easily collected by Noah (and maybe Samson?). And we must also conjecture that Noah took only a few of each "kind" of animal instead of the millions of species, so that we must make up our own mind about what constitutes a "kind" and also believe that intermediate kinds quickly derived new species, in a burst of new evolutionary development. (Even though today many species cannot mate with others, or they create hybrids if they do.) 

I think the Bible intends to explain an ideal beginning that is NOT SUPPOSED to conform to any present understanding of how things, or how they were seen to work in Moses's day, or Ezra's day or whenever some of the Bible books were first penned for us. I said before that there may be a reason that certain things were said and certain things were not said. It was not for us to just assume that anything not specifically forbidden was permitted, just as we could not say that anything specifically permitted meant that all other things were forbidden.

I believe the implied ideal diet in Genesis for Adam and Eve was intentionally written without a reference to meat. God made them a garden. Was it a vegetable garden? Did they have to work at cultivating seeds for tomatoes, potatoes, beets, carrots? The first creation account Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 implies Yes. The second creation account that includes Adam and Eve implies No. In that second account, all we have is a reference to fruit trees:

(Genesis 2:8, 9) . . .Further, Jehovah God planted a garden in Eʹden, toward the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9  Thus Jehovah God made to grow out of the ground every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food and also the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.

(Genesis 2:15-17) . . .Jehovah God took the man and settled him in the garden of Eʹden to cultivate it and to take care of it. ¹⁶  Jehovah God also gave this command to the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. ¹⁷ But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it,. . .
 

But the first account appears to be a more general account for all mankind even beyond the Garden of Eden and it technically allows for more than just fruit trees:

(Genesis 1:29, 30) 29 Then God said: “Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you. ³⁰ And to every wild animal of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving on the earth in which there is life, I have given all green vegetation for food.” And it was so.

So all moving, living creatures could eat green vegetation. 

And when outside the garden, Adam and Eve were gven some new information about ther food supply, which is now expanded beyond fruit trees to cultivated vegetation of the field, including grains (bread):

(Genesis 3:17-19) . . .cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. ¹⁸  It will grow thorns and thistles for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. ¹⁹  In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.”
 

At this point, any astute reader would wonder about meat. Why only mention fruit trees, green vegetation, and vegetation of the field including grain? Is there a command about meat? Is it allowed? Is it forbidden? Why don't we see anything about it? We see God using animal skins to clothe Adam and Eve after they tried to clothe themselves with green vegetation. Then we see Cain cultivating the ground just as Jehovah said would now be more difficult outside the garden. Then we see Abel slaughtering an animal with it's fat. But still no mention of eating meat. 

Even when Cain is punished, one of the punishments is that the ground will not produce for him. Does he then become a mighty hunter [in opposition to Jehovah like Nimrod]? No, it just means he will now live the life of a fugitive:

(Genesis 4:12) . . .When you cultivate the ground, it will not give you back its produce. You will become a wanderer and a fugitive in the earth.” 
 

And then we have another mention of livestock:

(Genesis 4:19, 20) Aʹdah gave birth to Jaʹbal. He was the founder of those who dwell in tents and have livestock.
 

And a second mention of bloodshed (after Cain/Abel):

(Genesis 4:23) . . .Laʹmech composed these words... A man I have killed for wounding me, Yes, a young man for striking me.
 

And then we finally see it. After the Flood. We see something about meat!

First, we see Noah slaughtering some clean animals and ALL the clean flying creatures, and he makes burnt offerings, and Jehovah apparently loves the smell.

(Genesis 8:19-21) . . .Every living creature, every creeping animal and every flying creature, everything that moves on the earth, went out of the ark by families. ²⁰ Then Noah built an altar to Jehovah and took some of all the clean animals and of all the clean flying creatures and offered burnt offerings on the altar. ²¹ And Jehovah began to smell a pleasing aroma. So Jehovah said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground on man’s account. . .

And for the first time, Jehovah is shown to say something about man eating meat:

(Genesis 9:2-20) . . .A fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that moves on the ground and upon all the fish of the sea. They are now given into your hand. ³ Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. ⁴  Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat. ⁵  Besides that, I will demand an accounting for your lifeblood. I will demand an accounting from every living creature; and from each man I will demand an accounting for the life of his brother. ... ²⁰  Now Noah started off as a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.
 

@George88 already mentioned the almost inexplicable idea that Jehovah will demand an accounting from every animal, too, not just man. So I included the verse above for that point in case anyone wants to comment about it. Gen 9:5. Perhaps this is related to the later Mosaic laws about keeping your dangerous bull locked up, etc., or else pay the penalty for what it may kill or maim. But as it stands, it appears that Jehovah will demand an accounting of every butterfly, spider, mosquito, dog, cat, bull, dove, elephant, koala, raven, grub, grasshopper, gorilla, giraffe, gerbil, etc. I think it must be more closely related to the later Mosaic principles. We believe that Moses was involved in putting these accounts together and this might also explain why the mention of clean vs unclean animals appears anachronistic. 

It's not part of the original question, but still quite interesting.

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, Many Miles said:

A simple example is this: Did God tell the earliest humans they were forbidden from eating anything, and if so what?

Another simple example is this: Did God tell the earliest humans before Noah that they could eat meat? Yes or No

if one answers that it doesn't say, therefore he might have, then one could just as easily say that we must also not know what else God might have forbidden --because it also doesn't say.

Or this example: Did God ever give the first man and woman a directive about what they could eat? Yes or No.

Or this: Did there come a time when God did bring up the subject of diet again with Noah? Yes or No. And did God mention that there would be something in addition to vegetation this time? Yes or No.

When God first mentioned a diet that included both vegetation and something additional, did God use use the word "NOW" as if it was now something he had not added previously? Yes or No.

(Genesis 9:2-20) . . .every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that moves on the ground and upon all the fish of the sea. They are now given into your hand. ³ Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. 

If this were a reading test, given to elementary school students, which of the following two paraphrases would reflect the most likely meaning of the verses quoted above?

A. You have always been able to eat animals, birds and fish, but I am now giving them to you again, and just as you have always eaten green vegetation before, I am now giving you a reminder that you can still eat the meat of animals.

B. I am now giving you permission to eat animals, birds and fish, just as I had previously given you green vegetation to eat.  

I think the straightforward way to read it is fairly obvious to most of us, even though it doesn't seem to match a very probable view of what would happen more naturally. But there could be a different reason that the Bible wants to emphasize Jehovah's view of what should have been the original ideal purpose of a world where killing and slaughtering would have been unnecessary, yet sin and the fall of man resulted in concessions to our fallen, sinful nature. As @Thinking implied much earlier, this could have been a somewhat symbolic reason for the "animal skins" that Jehovah provided for Adam and Eve after sin entered the world. It could be the reason that two major accounts of bloodshed were highlighted (Cain/Lamech) and animal sacrifice became closely associated early on with bloodshed and then atonement and appeasement (Abel/Noah/Abraham/Moses).