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....

[POI]

[Replying to 1213 in post #270]

In post 269, Oldbadger asked:

Can anybody tell us what word (and language) this law was originally written, and how many variations in translation there might be?

*******************************

And to address the endless circles you and I have been doing, how are you supposed to know if receiving IV blood products are, or are not, against God's law?

[1213]

Can anybody tell us what word (and language) this law was originally written, and how many variations in translation there might be?

By what I know, there is no meaningful differences in this case, in the translations. Do you know some meaningful difference in them? If yes, please give one example.

I don't know what was the original language.

And to address the endless circles you and I have been doing, how are you supposed to know if receiving IV blood products are, or are not, against God's law?

You just need to think, is it the same as eating blood. What do you think, is it the same as eating blood?

[oldbadger]

[Replying to 1213 in post #270]

In post 269, Oldbadger asked:

Can anybody tell us what word (and language) this law was originally written, and how many variations in translation there might be?

*******************************

And to address the endless circles you and I have been doing, how are you supposed to know if receiving IV blood products are, or are not, against God's law?

Well we cannot! We would need a neutral translator or two to tell us what language the mosaic laws were first written in and ANY translation choices in meaning of the words used.

Most of not all the Mosaic laws forbidding consumption of various foods (and the ban on anything polysexual) were almost certainly in place to avoid cross contamination of deseases throughout the nation with resulting serious weakness and insecurity.

Whilst we have better medical support today the dreadful history in the UK of transmitted desease (aids and dreadful liver conditions) caused by blood transfusions, in the worst medical outrage in this country ever...... must be considered before we knock those who keep away from blood transfusions.

[POI]

By what I know, there is no meaningful differences in this case, in the translations. Do you know some meaningful difference in them? If yes, please give one example.

If there were no meaningful difference, you could instead clearly and easily answer the simple question about whether or not it is okay in ever receiving IV blood products. But you cannot answer this simple and direct question, which means the Bible is not clear. An entire sub-division of Christianity has been formulated here. Thousands, if not millions, would always refuse IV blood products based upon what they believe the Bible expresses. Are they right or wrong? I've asked you several times, and you cannot answer. This is the point.

Was the author of all these 'blood' verses even aware that someday, millions upon millions of blood transfusions would be administered every year? If so, and it is a sin to do so, then why not mention it is a sin? The Bible is not clear because, according to you, it basically haphazardly mentions to abstain from 'blood', but cares not to even articulate as to whether or not there exist any exceptions; in regard to (route or circumstance). Meaning, maybe IV route is actually fine. Or, in some circumstance(s) - (i.e.) - to save one's immediate life. Etc...

Please pick one of the following --> (using supporting evidence):

a) At best, your expressed position is that the Bible is incomplete/clumsy.
b) At worst, the author of these verses had absolutely no worldly clue that someday, millions would be sinning every year, without even knowing it is actually a sin to receive IV blood products.
c) Receiving IV blood products is actually fine, and all JWs are mistaken.
d) Receiving IV blood products are not okay, except when --- (fill-in-the-blank)

[1213]

....If there were no meaningful difference, you could instead clearly and easily answer the simple question about whether or not it is okay in ever receiving IV blood products. But you cannot answer this simple and direct question, which means the Bible is not clear.

I think I have already answered, it is wrong, if you think it is the same as eating blood. Why is this not clear to you?

[POI]

....If there were no meaningful difference, you could instead clearly and easily answer the simple question about whether or not it is okay in ever receiving IV blood products. But you cannot answer this simple and direct question, which means the Bible is not clear.

I think I have already answered, it is wrong, if you think it is the same as eating blood. Why is this not clear to you?

Unanswered.... IS it the same as eating blood, or NOT? It's not about what YOU think. What does the author of the Bible think? I know you state the Bible does not clarify. Hence, this is a problem. Millions receive transfusions. Millions do so without thinking it is sinful. IS it sinful, or not?

[1213]

....If there were no meaningful difference, you could instead clearly and easily answer the simple question about whether or not it is okay in ever receiving IV blood products. But you cannot answer this simple and direct question, which means the Bible is not clear.

I think I have already answered, it is wrong, if you think it is the same as eating blood. Why is this not clear to you?

Unanswered.... IS it the same as eating blood, or NOT? It's not about what YOU think. What does the author of the Bible think? I know you state the Bible does not clarify. Hence, this is a problem. Millions receive transfusions. Millions do so without thinking it is sinful. IS it sinful, or not?

Why do you need to call it sinful or not? Is it not good enough to think is it good for a person or not?

If blood transfusion is the same as eating blood, then I don't think there should be any good reason for attempting to do blood transfusion. Person could as well be fed with some other similar stuff in that case, by the same method.

By what I see, it is the same as eating blood. And therefore I don't recommend doing it. The reason why I think so is that people can be fed with he same method (Parenteral nutrition). And actually it would be interesting, could it work, if person who would allegedly need blood transfusion would be fed with something that has similar nutrients as blood. Is the blood that is fed actually working only as a nutrient, or is working as blood.

[POI]

Why do you need to call it sinful or not? Is it not good enough to think is it good for a person or not?

Would a JW refuse a service in which was not considered a sin? I think not. The JW thinks receiving IV blood products is a transgression against God. IS it, or NOT? Please answer.....

If blood transfusion is the same as eating blood, then I don't think there should be any good reason for attempting to do blood transfusion. Person could as well be fed with some other similar stuff in that case, by the same method.

Your responses continue to validate my original post. The Bible is not clear. Again, millions receive IV blood products. Are they in sin for doing so, or not? You cannot answer, and instead only speculate. Does God think receiving IV blood products is a sin, or not?

[1213]

...
Your responses continue to validate my original post. The Bible is not clear. Again, millions receive IV blood products. Are they in sin for doing so, or not? You cannot answer, and instead only speculate. Does God think receiving IV blood products is a sin, or not?

Again you make the same mistake. If Bible doesn't say everything, it does not mean it is unclear. Bible tells, don't eat blood. Is it not clear to you? Now, please tell, is blood transfusion the same as eating blood? Is it too difficult question for you?

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.

[POI]

If Bible doesn't say everything, it does not mean it is unclear.

It depends. In this case, 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)

is blood transfusion the same as eating blood? Is it too difficult question for you?

Yet again, it is NOT what you or I may think... 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?

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.

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