Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

[Miles]

.


After reading another thread mentioning Jehovah's Witnesses I became interested in their beliefs about blood. They reject blood transfusions and don't eat meat with more than a trace of blood in it. Searching around a bit I came across the following from a pro-JW web site.

"Do Jehovah's Witnesses Eat Red Meat Since it May Contain a Trace of Blood?

Though Christians are to abstain from blood (Acts 15:29), the Bible shows that the eating of flesh by Christians is proper, for God Himself told us that we could eat meat from "every animal". "Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU." (Gen. 9:3)

But God commanded that before eating the flesh of an animal, his people were to pour out its blood on the ground and cover it with dust, being careful not to eat the blood, on pain of death. (Deut. 12:23-25; Lev. 7:27) This is our way for us to show respect for God's view of life.

So when someone carefully takes the strict precautions that God outlined by making sure that an animal is properly bled before consumption, they wouldn't be breaking God's command of eating blood. Since God Himself has issued these directions, obviously, if properly done, God does not have a problem with eating the meat from "every animal".

People can rest assured that nearly all blood is removed from meat during slaughter, which is why you don’t see blood in raw “white meat”; only an extremely small amount of blood remains within the muscle tissue when you get it from the store. (Also see: The Red Juice in Raw Meat is Not Blood (todayifoundit.com)"
source
(My emphasis)

However, from a comprehensive explanation of the slaughtering of animals: (I urge anyone who's interested to access the link below)

"Blood loss as a percentage of body weight differs between species: cows, 4.2 to 5.7%; calves, 4.4 to 6.7%; sheep, 4.4 to 7.6%; and pigs, 1.5 to 5.8%. Blood content as a percentage of live weight may decrease in heavier animals since the growth of blood volume does not keep pace with growth of live weight. Approximately 60% of blood is lost at sticking *, 20-25% remains in the viscera, while a maximum of 10% may remain in carcass muscles."
source

So my question is, if the muscle (meat) can contain up to 10% of an animal's blood wouldn't this make it unacceptable to Jehovah's Witnesses?



*"Cattle and pigs are usually exsanguinated [drained of blood] by a puncture wound which opens the major blood vessels at the base of the neck, not far from the heart. The trade name for this process is sticking"
Source: ibid.



.

[JehovahsWitness]

This is patently untrue, the Greek NT text says nothing about blood transfusions.

But it does speak about blood. You can't have a blood transfusion without blood, so what scripture has to say on the matter is relevant. And the bible is unambiguous on this: We must abstain from blood. How do you suppose one abstains from blood while transfusing it into one's body?

Likewise you can't eat meat without eating blood, so by your reasoning one must avoid all meats, even fish. Clearly then since meat is not explicitly prohibited and transfusion is not explicitly prohibited, "abstain" must mean something other than total avoidance.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not avoid obeying scripture something simply because it would be disruptive to our lives so we would if that is what scripture indicated was necessary. When it comes to the consultation of me at there is scriptural guidance. When it comes to transfusion blood there is clear command.


JW




RELATED POSTS

Who do Jehovah's Witnesses not object to traces of blood in the meat the consume?
viewtopic.php?p=1037847#p1037847

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES , BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS and ...VACCINES ,

[onewithhim]

This is patently untrue, the Greek NT text says nothing about blood transfusions.

But it does speak about blood. You can't have a blood transfusion without blood, so what scripture has to say on the matter is relevant. And the bible is unambiguous on this: We must abstain from blood. How do you suppose one abstains from blood while transfusing it into one's body?

Likewise you can't eat meat without eating blood, so by your reasoning one must avoid all meats, even fish. Clearly then since meat is not explicitly prohibited and transfusion is not explicitly prohibited, "abstain" must mean something other than total avoidance.

No, Jehovah just asked that meat be bled, that is, arrange for all the blood to drain out. If you go to that extent, He is satisfied. What remains is not usually whole blood anyway. Jehovah isn't draconian in expecting the impossible from people. If someone hangs up a carcass to drain the blood and lets it drain for a considerable amount of time, that is well with Him. It's what our intention is.

.

[Miles]

No, Jehovah just asked that meat be bled, that is, arrange for all the blood to drain out. If you go to that extent, He is satisfied. What remains is not usually whole blood anyway. Jehovah isn't draconian in expecting the impossible from people. If someone hangs up a carcass to drain the blood and lets it drain for a considerable amount of time, that is well with Him. It's what our intention is.

Sure it is, and up to 10% of the total volume no less. From the OP:

"Blood loss as a percentage of body weight differs between species: cows, 4.2 to 5.7%; calves, 4.4 to 6.7%; sheep, 4.4 to 7.6%; and pigs, 1.5 to 5.8%. Blood content as a percentage of live weight may decrease in heavier animals since the growth of blood volume does not keep pace with growth of live weight. Approximately 60% of blood is lost at sticking *, 20-25% remains in the viscera, while a maximum of 10% may remain in carcass muscles."
source

So my question is, if the muscle (meat) can contain up to 10% of an animal's blood wouldn't this make it unacceptable to Jehovah's Witnesses?

*"Cattle and pigs are usually exsanguinated [drained of blood] by a puncture wound which opens the major blood vessels at the base of the neck, not far from the heart. The trade name for this process is sticking"
Source: ibid.

Now maybe you don't consider 10% (aprox. 3.3 quarts; close to a gallon) of the total blood volume that's left behind in carcass muscle to be much,


............................................

but it seems substantial to me.


.

[JehovahsWitness]

but it seems substantial to me.

Perhaps we haven't been clear, Jehovahs Witnesses don't seek your view, we seek GOD'S view. When it comes to meat, all that is demanded is that the blood be "poured out" a gesure that symbolically recognises its religious significance. If 10% remains that means that 90% of the blood has been drained, more than adequate to consider "pouring" has been done.

The Watchtower November 1961 make this interesting observation

[Of course, the amount of blood contained in these creatures [insects] may be very small, so that it is impossible to pour out their blood; yet that is what was required to make the meat of a creature acceptable for food. (Lev. 17:13) It was not required that the meat be squeezed or that it be soaked; simply that the blood be poured out.

Further, The Watchtower September 1st, 1972

bleeding does not remove every trace of blood from the animal. But God’s law does not require that every single drop of blood be removed. It simply states that the animal should be bled.

What percentage seems "significant" to you (or any human) is to us totally irrelevant to us.







JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[Miles]

What percentage seems "significant" to you (or any human) is to us totally irrelevant to us.

Drat! And just as I thought I had about turned you toward the Dark Side. *sigh*



.

[Difflugia]

When it comes to transfusion blood there is clear command.

When it comes to eating blood, there's a clear command. When it comes to transfusing blood, there's an interesting, but anachronistic extrapolation of Acts 15:18-19.

[2timothy316]

When it comes to transfusion blood there is clear command.

When it comes to eating blood, there's a clear command. When it comes to transfusing blood, there's an interesting, but anachronistic extrapolation of Acts 15:18-19.

David understood the principle of blood in 1 Chronicles 11:15-19.

"Three of the 30 headmen went down to the rock, to David at the cave of A·dulʹlam, while a Phi·lisʹtine army was camped in the Valley of Rephʹa·im. David was then in the stronghold, and a garrison of the Phi·lisʹtines was in Bethʹle·hem. Then David expressed his longing: “If only I could have a drink of the water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem!” At that the three forced their way into the camp of the Phi·lisʹtines and drew water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem and brought it to David; but David refused to drink it and poured it out to Jehovah. He said: “It is unthinkable on my part from the standpoint of my God to do this! Should I drink the blood of these men who risked their lives?* For it was at the risk of their lives that they brought it."

There was no command that one shouldn't risk their life for a drink of water. But David understood the principle of taking no blood. He likened the water the men risked their life for as blood. It's not an anachronistic extrapolation. So thinking like David, why should I have a person give me their life when there is no guarantee they will save my life? Blood is not a 100% cure all for disease or anything else. I don't need their blood to save my life. Jehovah can save my life, even if I die, I will live again. Blood can't do that and I don't fear the death of myself to take life from someone else, even if offered, like David's men did. The water was frivolous to David. He didn't have to have it to live, for his men to risk so much for such a small thing was unacceptable. I don't have to have blood to live forever on a paradise earth.

What DO I have to do?
"For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments." 1 John 5:3
"If, though, you want to enter into life, observe the commandments continually.” Matthew 19:17 (not when convenient)

[onewithhim]

When it comes to transfusion blood there is clear command.

When it comes to eating blood, there's a clear command. When it comes to transfusing blood, there's an interesting, but anachronistic extrapolation of Acts 15:18-19.

Oh come on. Certainly, if transfusions were done back then, they would have been included in the prohibition. But they weren't done back then, so just the phrase "abstain from blood" covered every way you might inject it into a person. Back then through the mouth was the only way they knew how to do it.

.

[Difflugia]

David understood the principle of blood in 1 Chronicles 11:15-19.

"Three of the 30 headmen went down to the rock, to David at the cave of A·dulʹlam, while a Phi·lisʹtine army was camped in the Valley of Rephʹa·im. David was then in the stronghold, and a garrison of the Phi·lisʹtines was in Bethʹle·hem. Then David expressed his longing: “If only I could have a drink of the water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem!” At that the three forced their way into the camp of the Phi·lisʹtines and drew water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem and brought it to David; but David refused to drink it and poured it out to Jehovah. He said: “It is unthinkable on my part from the standpoint of my God to do this! Should I drink the blood of these men who risked their lives?* For it was at the risk of their lives that they brought it."

How far reaching is David's metaphor? In context, it applies to the risk of violent death of those bringing him the water. Even if we partake of nothing for which anyone has risked death, that doesn't apply to modern blood transfusions. In fact, the act of donating blood is statistically safer than just living an average life ("donation-associated deaths were found to be extremely rare and generally thought to be coincidental; the rate of coincidental deaths was less than what would be expected based on life insurance tables"). Communion is much more directly metaphorical of blood consumption than David's drinking of the water and Witnesses observe a form of Chrisian Communion.

It's not an anachronistic extrapolation.

The first recorded blood transfusion was in 1795. The idea that either James or the author of Acts had anything akin to blood transfusion in mind could only exist after the dawn of the nineteenth century, so to read such back into the text is an anachronism by definition.

So thinking like David, why should I have a person give me their life when there is no guarantee they will save my life?

Since donating blood isn't even dangerous, what you're calling "giving their life" could only truly be considered sharing it. Once again, and perhaps not coincidentally, you're trying to stretch metaphors beyond their meanings.

Blood is not a 100% cure all for disease or anything else.

Nobody said that it is. Your claim is a red herring.

I don't need their blood to save my life. Jehovah can save my life, even if I die, I will live again.

This argument applies to any sort of medical care. "Don't bother setting my broken leg. Jehovah can fix it."

Blood can't do that and I don't fear the death of myself to take life from someone else, even if offered, like David's men did.

Again, how far does this analogy extend? Since donating blood isn't dangerous to the donor, you've already taken us to the end of the slippery slope. Would you refuse to allow yourself or a loved one to be rescued from a flood or a burning building because of risk to the rescuers? Would you refuse to take such a risk yourself for someone else?

The water was frivolous to David. He didn't have to have it to live, for his men to risk so much for such a small thing was unacceptable.

Yes. The fact that you know exactly what the metaphor means shows that you should know that it doesn't apply to blood transfusion. In fact, the situation is reversed. To withhold "such a small thing" when it could save the life of another is unacceptable.

I don't have to have blood to live forever on a paradise earth.

You're right. That takes, what, ruby slippers?

What DO I have to do?
"For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments." 1 John 5:3
"If, though, you want to enter into life, observe the commandments continually.” Matthew 19:17 (not when convenient)

Oh. I was close.

[Difflugia]

Oh come on. Certainly, if transfusions were done back then, they would have been included in the prohibition. But they weren't done back then, so just the phrase "abstain from blood" covered every way you might inject it into a person. Back then through the mouth was the only way they knew how to do it.

You've written the argument in a way that perfectly shows the circularity of it.