[Tj3]

And I'm obedient to God who says that we're to abstain from blood, in the book of Acts. I don't take in blood and I don't give blood for others to take in, either (thus their breaking God's law).

The Jehovah's Witness doctrine on blood transfusions comes from here:

Gen 9:4
4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
NKJV

The context of this verse indicates that it was directed towards Noah and his family after they had come out of the ark on to dry land, and represents one of the dietary laws of the Old Testaments. This was one of the laws which was fulfilled when Christ came, shed his blood, and rose again, fulfilling the prophetic significance of many of the Old Testament laws.

Acts 10:12-16
12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." 14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean." 15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common." 16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.
NKJV

Further, the reference here is to animal blood, which is eaten, not human blood that is used in a blood transfusion. There is no credible medical publication anywhere, which would equate a blood transfusion with eating blood. As for the argument as to whether the blood carries the soul in it, let's look at the context of this verse, by looking at what scripture says immediately following:

Gen 9:5-7
5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man's brother I will require the life of man. 6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. 7 And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; Bring forth abundantly in the earth And multiply in it."
NKJV

The context is that the word “life” does not actually mean life, because it is referring to life and death. The word use for life in this context is “nephesh” which means a breathing creature, or literally, that it is alive, not that it has a soul. (Reference: Strong Concordance). Further, if we were to interpret it as “soul”, this would suggest that the animals (which the verse refers to in context) have souls. Thus in context, this verse means exactly what it says. It refers to the eating of animal blood, and cannot in any way be taken to refer to blood transfusions, or to suggest that a man's soul is in the blood. Let's cross reference Genesis 9:4 to Leviticus 3:17 which states:

Lev 3:17
17 'This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor blood.' "
NKJV

If the Watch Tower Society were using a consistent approach to interpretation, they would ban the eating of fat as well as blood based upon this verse. Yet we have never heard of a prohibition by the Watchtower Society against eating fat. The Watch Tower Society also does not prohibit eating meat which has blood in it, which is in fact what Genesis 9:4 specifically speaks about. It is interesting to know that the Jews meticulously drain the blood out of all their meat, yet accept blood transfusions. Thus they do not equate transfusions with eating. Though we should not base our understanding of scripture upon the interpretation of any specific group, the fact that the Jews, to whom this was written and in whose language this was originally written, do not understand the word "life" the way that the Watch Tower Society does is worthy of note.

In yet another inconsistency in the application and interpretation of scripture, the Watch Tower Society does permit a Jehovah's Witness to use, at their own discretion, constituent parts of the blood, but not the whole blood itself. Here is a quote from Bioethical aspects of the recent changes in the policy of refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses -- Muramoto 322 (7277): 37 -- BMJ, which is a website maintained by the Jehovah's Witnesses:

"The other policy change came in the form of an article in the 15 June 2000 issue of the official magazine Watchtower. After defining the "primary components" of blood (red and white blood cells, platelets, and plasma) that must be refused, the article stated that "beyond that, when it comes to fractions of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful and prayerful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself." Although some of these fractions, such as albumin and globulin, had already been considered a matter of personal decision, this new policy declared that "fractions of any of the primary components" are now acceptable. One of the most noteworthy points of this change is that the fractions or parts derived from prohibited cellular components are now permitted. The new policy cites interferons and interleukins as examples, but the most profound impact will be seen when and if haemoglobin based blood substitutes are introduced into general use. As recently as 1998 two representatives of the Watchtower Society wrote to a journal for researchers of blood substitutes stating that "[Jehovah's Witnesses] do not accept hemoglobin which is a major part of red blood cells . . . According to these principles then, Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept a blood substitute which uses hemoglobin taken from a human or animal source." As haemoglobin based blood substitutes are now used in clinical trials with some success, this reversal of the ban on haemoglobin may have a major impact on the medical care of patients who are Jehovah's Witnesses who may participate in such trials. "

It appears that the Watch Tower Society also believes that under some circumstances, blood products are okay, so they obviously do not even interpret either Genesis 9:4 or Lev 3:17 to be an absolute prohibition against the intake of blood. Further, how did they determine which part of the blood it is in which the soul resides? I have also been advised by Jehovah's Witnesses that since the Bible makes no clear statement about the immediate re-infusion of a patient's own blood during surgery, a medical process known as blood salvaging, the use of such treatments is a matter of personal choice. Of course the Bible makes no statement about infusion of the blood at all, but that does not appear to have impacted the doctrinal position of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

[hawiianboy0120]

Jesus did say this and I think you are asking a great question?

[silentrascal]

Of course the Bible's stand on the infusion of blood is extremely clear: Christians are to have nothing to do with it, whether the taking of it into their own bodies or the giving of it to others to do the same.

Nothing TJ3 can state, through his means of contorting, changing, perverting, or otherwise twisting of scripture can change that Biblical fact and prohibition.

[Tj3]

Of course the Bible's stand on the infusion of blood is extremely clear: Christians are to have nothing to do with it, whether the taking of it into their own bodies or the giving of it to others to do the same.

Nothing TJ3 can state, through his means of contorting, changing, perverting, or otherwise twisting of scripture can change that Biblical fact and prohibition.

The Bible says nothing of the sort - once again, you have completely failed to provide any rebuttal to my scriptural overview of the issue. That is because scripture absolutely opposes the false teaching of the Watchtower Society on this issue.

[silentrascal]

The Bible says nothing of the sort - once again, you have completely failed to provide any rebuttal to my scriptural overview of the issue. That is because scripture absolutely opposes the false teaching of the Watchtower Society on this issue.

The Bible definitely says that Christians are to abstain from blood. Christians are not to take it into their bodies in any way, shape, or form.

Your "scriptural overviews" are tainted 100% by your admitted biases and bigotry, this shooting down any attempts you are making at a credible argument. That in itself is the rebuttal, so in other words, you refute yourself at every turn. What scripture actually does is oppose your errant, false religious teachings that originate with Satan.

[silentrascal]

You know that God gave the Israelites hundreds of regulations. Once Jesus died, his disciples were not obliged to keep all those laws. (Romans 7:4, 6; Colossians 2:13, 14, 17; Hebrews 8:6, 13) However, in time a question arose about one key obligation—male circumcision. Would non-Jews who wanted to benefit from Christ's blood have to be circumcised, showing that they were still under the Law? In 49 C.E. the Christian governing body addressed that issue. (Acts, chapter 15) Aided by God's spirit, the apostles and older men concluded that obligatory circumcision ended with the Law. Still, certain divine requirements remained for Christians. In a letter to the congregations, the governing body wrote: “The holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper.”—Acts 15:28, 29.

Plainly, the governing body viewed 'abstaining from blood' to be as morally vital as abstaining from sexual immorality or idol worship. This proves that the prohibition about blood is serious. Christians who unrepentantly commit idolatry or sexual immorality cannot “inherit God's kingdom”; “their portion will be . . . The second death.” (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Revelation 21:8; 22:15) Note the contrast: Disregarding God's guidance concerning the sacredness of lifeblood can result in everlasting death. Showing respect for Jesus' sacrifice can lead to everlasting life.

How did the early Christians understand and act on God's guidance about blood? Recall Clarke's comment: “Under the Gospel it should not be eaten, because it should ever be considered as representing the blood which has been shed for the remission of sins.” History confirms that the early Christians treated the matter seriously. Tertullian wrote: “Consider those who with greedy thirst, at a show in the arena, take the fresh blood of wicked criminals . . . And carry it off to heal their epilepsy.” Whereas pagans consumed blood, Tertullian said that Christians “do not even have the blood of animals at [their] meals . . . At the trials of Christians you offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that [it] is unlawful for them.” Yes, despite threats of death, Christians would not consume blood. God's guidance was that important to them.

Some may imagine that the governing body simply meant that Christians were not to eat or drink blood directly nor to eat unbled meat or food mixed with blood. Granted, that was the first import of God's command to Noah. And the apostolic decree did tell Christians to 'keep themselves from things strangled,' meat with blood left in it. (Genesis 9:3, 4; Acts 21:25) However, the early Christians knew that more was involved. Sometimes blood was taken in for medical reasons. Tertullian noted that in an effort to cure epilepsy, some pagans consumed fresh blood. And there may have been other uses of blood to treat disease or supposedly improve health. Hence, for Christians, shunning blood included not taking it in for “medical” reasons. They maintained that stand even if it put their life at risk.

[Clough]

What does this argument that you are having have anything to do with answering the original poster's question, please? People looking at the title of the original post will be looking for answers to the original question. If you want to discuss the topic of blood usage as ordained in the Bible, you might want to post a separate question about it as a new thread please. Thank you.

[Curlyben]

>Thread Closed as it has veered way off from the OP<