where in the bible does it say that we cant have blood transfusions. pertaining to Jehovah's witnesses?

Greetings,

The Scriptures clearly state that Christians must "stay away from" and "abstain from" taking blood into our bodies! The basis for our doctrine is explicit Scriptural statements:

First, blood was equated with Life and thus viewed as holy and owned by God from the very start of human existence (Gen.4:10,11; 8:20; 22:13; Job.1:5; 42:8).

Second, this primary and all encompassing Scriptural principle was enunciated in the Noachian Mandate: Animal and human blood is "Life" (NEPHESH) and thus sacred. All blood within *living* souls was to be considered sacred (Gen.9:4,5). This is *why* the ban on eating blood was given.

The Noachian mandate said God gave humans the prerogative to now use animals for food as was originally the case with vegetation. However, blood was explicitly excluded from being given "into man's hands," i.e., human control (Gen.9:2,3). Humans were not given the prerogative to use blood as they wished--it was retained by God. The blood--the soul--was only God's, as the Source of Life, and the right to determine it's use was His only. Therefore, the Life-blood could not be used by another, it could only be given back to God.

The explicit application of these statements was to not use blood for food (sustenance of life). Yet, clearly implied in these statements of principle by God is that blood legally belonged only God and not given to humans.

Next, the Mosaic Law serves to verify this conclusion. The Mosaic Law only perpetuated the previous ban for true worshipers and its requirements were *based* on the same sacred principle. The *reason* Jews had to pour blood out and only use it in sacrifices was because "life was in the blood," exactly the same reason Noah was to abstain from eating blood (Lev.17:11,14; De.12:23; Gen.9:4-5). The Atonement sacrifices made it clear that blood stood for Life that belonged only to Jehovah and could only be returned to Him when removed (Lev.17:13; De.12:16; 15:23). The Law's detailed commands only corroborated a fact that was already obvious to God fearing descendants of Noah; blood was sacred and thus there was no valid use for blood outside of God's express approval (Lev.17:10).

Then, the Apostolic Decree simply continued the blood prohibition for worshipers outside the Mosaic Law. The Decree emphasized in its four prohibited things the same governing principle, i.e., the sacredness of Life (Ac.15:20; 21:25). The Decree explicitly refers to the Mosaic code as explaining the extent of its application (Ac.15:20,21,28). For Christians, the decree to "abstain from blood" is as weighty as that against fornication or idolatry! The Apostolic Decree required a complete unqualified "abstention from blood" with no stated verb. They must "keep away" from it (Ac.21:25).

Even though the Apostles would only have in mind first century uses of blood, the terminology chosen by Holy Spirit would clearly rule out any future use of blood which is not expressly approved by God. Every possible use of any blood must be in harmony with these clear teachings in scripture.

The use of blood in transfusions is obviously contrary to the specific command not to "eat" blood. Eating intravenously is still eating. Since eating animal blood was specifically denounced as a violation of the sanctity of blood, eating human blood would even be worse.

From Abel to the Apostolic Decree, *every* Scriptural mention of blood use places it in exactly the same sacred position. *Every* time God makes any statement concerning blood it is presented as something which humans have no right to put to personal use except with God's express approval. Recognition of the sacredness of blood would severely deter any non-sacred use.

Purposely taking any blood into one's body makes one unclean in God's eyes and is a direct violation of Christian Law. It places one on the same level as a fornicator or idolater with no hope of everlasting life.

Especially is this abstinence from blood important for true Christians. The mandates forbidding man's use of blood are inexorably linked to our salvation by Christ's blood. God's people did not use blood to sustain their life because it symbolized life that belonged only to God, and was to be used only by God to ransom mankind -Lev.17:11, 12.

A major teaching in the Bible is that God would eventually provide one perfect sacrifice that could fully atone for the sins of all believers. This is called the ransom, and it focuses on the sacrifice of Christ. The Bible compares the Messiah's role to what was done on Atonement Day. This was the ONLY approved use of blood (Heb.9:11, 12, 22). Animal blood typified Christ's blood. Obeying God's laws concerning blood shows respect for God's arrangement for man's salvation.

The Bible emphasizes that we must avoid any course that would amount to 'trampling on the Son of God and esteeming his blood as of ordinary value.' Only thus may we keep a good relationship and peace with God.

So Witnesses refuse to take blood transfusions on moral grounds in obedience to God.

God has said "I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit yourself" (Isa 48:17). His laws are always for our good. While the main reason Christians do not accept blood transfusions is because it is one of God's moral laws, time has proven that true Christians have truly have been protected from death and injury caused by human ignorance.

"The bloodletting of yore has been superseded by blood transfusion. Of all the ridiculous medical practices of the past and present times, this present blood craze is the worst." - -Dr. G. Boni and Dr. P.Lafarge, "Let's Live", March 1970

"I was raised in medicine at a time when blood was thought of as a tonic. Now it's thought to be a poison."--Dr. David Crombie, Jr., chief of surgery at Hartford Hospital

"The evolution of our understanding in this field shows that blood transfusions must one day die out."--Professor Luc Montagnier

"From what we now know about the dangers of blood, we can say that Jehovah's Witnesses have been vindicated." --A renowned pediatric orthopedic surgeon

Hope that helps,

BAR-ANERGES

In a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through the mouth the patient is fed intravenously. Now, would a person who never put blood into the mouth so as to eat it but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to "keep abstaining from.....blood"? Acts 15: 28,29.

If one was told to abstain from taking alcohol while on certain medication, could it be taken intravenously? obviously not. So the command that blood should not be eaten applies to transfused blood as well as that contained in foods such as blood sausage.

While we as Jehovah's Witnesses obey this command, we put our complete trust in the one who gave it. Just as a car manufacturer knows what's best for the cars he makes, we know that our creator, Jehovah, knows what's best for us.

If you visit the website www.watchtower.org you will be able to access a brochure that deals with the subject of blood. Or ask a Jehovah's Witness the next time one calls on you.

Quote: "If one was told to abstain from taking alcohol while on certain medication, could it be taken intravenously? obviously not. So the command that blood should not be eaten applies to transfused blood as well as that contained in foods such as blood sausage."

This is a flawed analogy. If a doctor told you to abstain from meat, would that mean you shouldn't receive a liver transplant? Obviously not. If you were starving and you received a blood transfusion, you would still die of starvation. Eating and transfusing are not remotely the same thing.

in the book of Acts it says abstain from blood. most people would say that means eating it.

witnesses often cite an example saying if you were alcoholic you wouldnt ingest it in your veins, and so thats how they argue.

however, if you used an alcohol wipe would that be wrong?

- the bible also says blood is life, - it says there is no greater gift than laying your life down for your brother....

so you could also argue the bible says you should give blood, - very ambiguous. - I was raised as a JW. I do not and cannot agree with this. - its another way of cuttiing off their members to alienate you from society.

***and there is my proof - absolute robotic JW response below, using the exact illustration I said they would.. ***

witnesses dont tell you they accept blood fractions.. - not sure how that pertains to the alcohol illustration... ?

well if you are looking for a exact verse that says you cant have a blood transfusion you will not find that . but if you look in your bible you will see for yourself how god feels about blood leviticus 17;10 also

acts 15;29.hope this helps you to reason by means of the bible.

It doesn't. In Acts the apostles sent a letter regarding gentiles entering into the Church:

Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

It means eating blood, and then only as part of pagan religious practices. Notice that the JWs don't bother asking at the grocery store if the meat they're buying was strangled.

As the scripture in Acts says quite clearly, we should abstain from blood or be cut off.

The fact that it mentions 'things strangled' seperately, may infer that it means something other than drinking animal blood.

If it were not important, would it be in the bible? God has given reasons for this being included in the scriptures (blood is SACRED, my blood and your blood), so it makes sense not to mix it up by having it pumped into us. Even to save someone's life.

Acts 15:28,29 28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 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. Good health to YOU!”

How does this not cover blood transfusions? If your doctor told you to abstain from alcohol would that mean you could shoot it directly into your bloodstream? Course not. It's quite simple.

I think somewhere in the Old Testament it says something about drinking blood, because apparently, some non-Jewish tribes used to do this (some African tribes still drink the blood of their cows today). So the Jews who wrote the bible wanted to make Jews separate from other people so they pretended that their god commanded them not to drink blood. JW's today think this made up commandment from a god applies to blood transfusions. Idiots, huh? But look on the bright side, it means their life expectancy drops! Woo hoo! less idiots in the world! Yay!

Blood transfusions are not even mentioned in the bible.

The JW's take that stance from Biblical prohibitions on drinking or eating blood...