The Bible's Biggest Problem(s)?

[POI]

In a continuation of this topic (viewtopic.php?t=39327&start=990), which only discusses one important topic, I present a follow-up....

For Debate:

1) Why didn't Jesus write the NT Himself? Why leave this task up to fallible humans to write what was floating around, only after decade(s) of oral traditions? Wouldn't Jesus know that earnest confusion would soon prevail, and that his true message(s) may get fouled up by human error and/or corruption?

2) Case/point: There exists countless denominations, with opposing belief systems, all in earnest in reading the exact same collection of books. If Jesus' intent is to convey truth, why not assure his message(s) are crystal clear and unified for all?

3) If Jesus also recognizes that many/most were/are illiterate, and/or the many who are literate merely read at a lower grade level, and that differing languages can also blur the message(s), why not write the Bible in a cohesive way in which even the most rudimentary person can understand, in all languages?

This is, in part, the problem of communication....

[oldbadger]

In Biblical point of view sin is to reject God. If you reject God because of blood transfusion, then it is a sin for you.

I need to tell you that you are wrong.
The OT Bible meaning of 'sin' was 'failure'.
-------
Here is a brief Google response for more clarity:
Old Testament, the word for sin is “khata”, meaning “to fail” or “to miss the goal.”
--------
To break any of the Mosaic laws could lead to failure, that fact well proven so many times in the OT history.

[1213]

...Believers and followers still "sin"....

Do you not understand that you are not the authority who decides that?

[1213]

...
The OT Bible meaning of 'sin' was 'failure'.
-------
Here is a brief Google response for more clarity:
Old Testament, the word for sin is “khata”, meaning “to fail” or “to miss the goal.”
--------
To break any of the Mosaic laws could lead to failure, that fact well proven so many times in the OT history.

I have no problem with calling sin a failure. I don't think it changes what I said. The failure is to reject God and it usually leads to braking the law.

[POI]

...Believers and followers still "sin"....

Do you not understand that you are not the authority who decides that?

You addressed nothing I wrote. Further, if you believe that some are "sinless", then under your belief system, they no longer need Jesus. Please address all the stuff I offered. Here it is again:

Why does it not say everything about the intake of blood? Can you answer here? I say it is because the author had no worldly clue that centuries later, IV blood transfusions would be a very relevant and common thing. So much so, in that if God thought it was NOT okay, he would have to mention it, as it is a quite common practice now. So much so, in that to not mention it in the Bible would be pure negligence.

As it stands, thousands/millions receive IV blood transfusions every year. IS it a sin to do so, or is it not? Your only play here now, is to instead pivot, and instead suggest that receiving IV blood is okay. Otherwise, you would have to admit that God knowingly ignored mentioning a sinful act that millions would regularly violate, every year, without even knowing it is a sin to begin with --- (except for the enlightened JWs and maybe a few others)

What does the author think?.?.?. Can you answer? I already did. I say the author did not even know that IV blood transfusions would ever someday be a thing. Because if he did, the author would have to knowingly flat out IGNORE it as a sinful act in which millions would unknowingly violate, because the Bible does not say. So maybe instead, IV blood products are a-okay after all, and the JWs are completely WRONG to refuse them in the Bible's name?

If the rubric is what you suggest, then all reject God. The question remains... Does the Bible author consider IV blood transfusions a 'sin'?

[oldbadger]

...
The OT Bible meaning of 'sin' was 'failure'.
-------
Here is a brief Google response for more clarity:
Old Testament, the word for sin is “khata”, meaning “to fail” or “to miss the goal.”
--------
To break any of the Mosaic laws could lead to failure, that fact well proven so many times in the OT history.

I have no problem with calling sin a failure. I don't think it changes what I said. The failure is to reject God and it usually leads to braking the law.

I still don't think that you have really grasped the real reason for the Mosaic Laws.
And you've certainly got everything the wrong way around imo.

To break the laws would cause failures, every law (upheld) led to strength, success, health, cohesion and expansion.

Your God explained it quite clearly, thus:-
LEVITCUS {20:22} Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. {20:23} And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things.................

And so your God had offered all these to the nation(s) which were there before, but they did not keep to the laws and so they failed, lost strength, health, growth, cohesion and success.
Of course this also happened to the Israelites because they kept failing to keep the laws as well, hence so many returning visits from lamenting prophets.

But Christianity doesn't keep them either, just clings to a few favourites whilst ignoring hundreds.

[1213]

... Does the Bible author consider IV blood transfusions a 'sin'?

I can answer to that, after you answer to the question, is it the same as eating blood.

[POI]

... Does the Bible author consider IV blood transfusions a 'sin'?

I can answer to that, after you answer to the question, is it the same as eating blood.

I already answered many responses ago... The medical field deems PO (oral) and IV (through the vein) to be differing routes. An MD must specify the correct route when ordering any 'medication.' 'Blood products' are deemed a 'medication', and therefore the correct route must also be clarified.

Does the Bible author deem receiving IV blood products a sin, or not? Please provide evidence for either answer.

[servant1]

[Replying to 1213 in post #2]


Few on earth understand Gods truth. They must be taught by these-Matt 24:45. Its why there are hundreds of different religions claiming to be Christian= a lack of understanding Gods truth.= A lack of holy spirit guidance. 1 religion has Jesus-1Cor 1:10

[1213]

...I already answered many responses ago... The medical field deems PO (oral) and IV (through the vein) to be differing routes. ...

Ok, so in that case it is not eating. And if it is not eating, then it is not against the eating law.

Does the Bible author deem receiving IV blood products a sin, or not? Please provide evidence for either answer.

In Biblical point of view sin is to reject God. If you reject God because of the blood, then it is sin for you. This is based on that righteous lives, if he is faithful to God.

But the righteous will live by faith. If he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.
Heb. 10:38

But, even if something is not sin, it is not necessary a good thing.

[POI]

If you reject God because of the blood, then it is sin for you.

Your response is illogical. Lying is a sin, right? Trespassing is a sin, right? There exist no exceptions for sin. They are all transgressions against God, whether you (accept or reject) 'god.' Does the Bible author consider receiving IV blood transfusions a sin, or not?