- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by galveston75It talks about things sacrificed to idols, blood, strangled animals and fornication. Is there some relevant point you intend to make from this?
Read the scripture very, very slowly.... It mentions food does it not? Then it says blood by itself does it not?
Originally posted by Conrau KI might as well be talking to a brick wall....
It talks about things sacrificed to idols, blood, strangled animals and fornication. Is there some relevant point you intend to make from this?
Do you really not see the word BLOOD and the word ABSTAIN together in this scripture?
Do you not see we are told to ABSTAIN from BLOOD as well as these other things?
I give up...........
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by galveston75
I might as well be talking to a brick wall....
Do you really not see the word BLOOD and the word ABSTAIN together in this scripture?
Do you not see we are told to ABSTAIN from BLOOD as well as these other things?
I give up...........
Do you really not see the word BLOOD and the word ABSTAIN together in this scripture?
Do you not see we are told to ABSTAIN from BLOOD as well as these other things?
Yes, of course I do. Acts 15.29 clearly enjoins Christians to abstain from blood. Do you understand at all anything I have said to you?
Originally posted by Conrau KWell that's what this forum is about. JW's follow the Bible/God's command to not use blood for any purpose ever.
[b]
Do you really not see the word BLOOD and the word ABSTAIN together in this scripture?
Do you not see we are told to ABSTAIN from BLOOD as well as these other things?
Yes, of course I do. Acts 15.29 clearly enjoins Christians to abstain from blood. Do you understand at all anything I have said to you?[/b]
And to this point what your saying and why you're arguing against this scripture makes no sense as this scripture is clear about the many uses of blood, which is zero.
I have better things to do then listen a Used to be Christian and your refusal to understand the simplest of scriptures.
Also why are any of you arguing about blood transfusion when this is now available?
I would think any of you would gladly use this option to save your loved ones life if needed.
By the way this process would probably not exist if it were not for the Witnesses standing up to our beliefs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodless_surgery
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12466831/ns/health-health_care/t/bloodless-surgery-avoids-risks-transfusion/
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/health&id=8026312
Just as an aside—and I know this is not a response to what galveston actually said:
I don’t think that scripture is ever “simple”, except to people who want it to be so. I think that unduly simplifying scripture insults the literary capabilities of the author(s), in the variety of literary forms that appear in the biblical corpus. . (It may also, presumptuously, insult the intelligence of a variety of serious and sincere readers of scripture.) Drawing simple conclusions while relying solely on particular translations from the original texts (such as we actually have them) is especially risky. Not everyone can be fluent in the original languages (I’m not, though I usually try to consult them as best I can), but that is just one reason why most of us should avoid dogmatic statements about the meaning—or at least admit that we “purchase”* our dogma elsewhere. Using multiple translations can help; but sometimes translators follow one another in areas they might deem “non-controversial”—how else has “believe” been maintained as the usual translation for pisteo through the centuries, as the conventional meaning of the English verb has changed (and its original meaning generally lost)? [Or, various Trinitarian translators assuming—perhaps unconsciously—trintiarian underpinnings in their translations; or vice versa for non-trinitarians.]
—Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the New World translation; and I do not have searchable versions of any of the Jewish translations of the OT that I have. I do have a searchable version for most of the Christian English translations, which I can compare to the Hebrew and Greek, line by line. Always hard work…
I personally, at least insofar as the Hebrew is concerned, eschew any hermeneutic that seeks or claims “the one right reading”—that is really impossible with the classical Hebrew (no matter how much some might wish it otherwise), and there is likely some extension into the NT Greek, at least when the issue at hand is based on the OT Hebrew, or Hebraic concepts. That sets me, perhaps, at a debating disadvantage to those who claim a “one right reading”. But such a claim also often rests on a prior claim (stated or not) of proper contextualization—which, contrary to what some might think, is one of the most difficult (and contentious) questions of exegesis. Which texts set the proper context for which other texts? To say something like “it is all mutually contextual” would be to state a hermeneutical principle so open that any meaning could be derived from any text-in-context—even I don ‘t go that far! 😉
Of course, interpretive translations are necessary (all translations that try to substitute one word, or even a simple phrase, for each word in the original are necessarily interpretive, since there is no semantic one-to-one correspondence between languages). We should just acknowledge that. Dogmatic appeals to the simplicity of scripture are simply—simplistic.
* One has to be so careful on here: that is “purchase” as in “gaining purchase in climbing the tree”, not an economic transaction.
____________________________________________________________
Again, what galvelston said triggered this post, but it seems clear (at least to me) that I am arguing against something that he has not obviously claimed. So it would be unfair to take this as an objection to what Gal actually said. Something he said simply triggered, obliquely, this little digression. Is that clear?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by galveston75Well that's what this forum is about. JW's follow the Bible/God's command to not use blood for any purpose ever.
Well that's what this forum is about. JW's follow the Bible/God's command to not use blood for any purpose ever.
And to this point what your saying and why you're arguing against this scripture makes no sense as this scripture is clear about the many uses of blood, which is zero.
I have better things to do then listen a Used to be Christian and your refusal to understand the simplest of scriptures.
Could you cite the passage which says that Christians should 'not use blood for any purpose'. I recall Acts 15.29 enjoins Christians to abstain from blood. If this is the passage you have in mind, you have to justify how abstaining from blood entails not using blood for any purpose.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by vistesdThank you for this post, Vistesd. I had intended to discuss some of the pitfalls of translation when in another post, Galvo and Raj were discussing the meaning of the phrase, 'the effeminate and fornicators' (Corinthians 6.9). Presumably this is is a reference to homosexuals and many translations have accepted this. Yet the language Paul employs is very vague. The Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai are far from clear. In a pejorative sense, malakos could mean effeminate; it could refer to the passive partner of a homosexual encounter; alternatively, it could refer to a man who has no control over his passions (heterosexual, homosexual or some other passion altogether.) The term arsenokoitai is a Pauline neologism (literally it means men-sleepers). Potentially, this could refer not to homosexual men but those who sleep with men i.e. prostitutes. Many scholars have suggested that malakos and arsenokoitai could refer specifically to homosexual rapists (i.e. those who cannot control their sexual impulses and therefore coerce men into sleeping with them.)
Just as an aside—and I know this is not a response to what galveston actually said:
I don’t think that scripture is ever “simple”, except to people who want it to be so. I think that unduly simplifying scripture insults the literary capabilities of the author(s), in the variety of literary forms that appear in the biblical corpus. . (It may also, presu ...[text shortened]... ly said. Something he said simply triggered, obliquely, this little digression. Is that clear?
When there is a case of vagueness or ambiguity, when the language is so dense that it resists further philological enquiry, translators can impose their biased readings. Paul does not here refer specifically to homosexuals (which contrasts with other passages in which he is very explicit about homosexuality.) Yet translators throughout history have, without any substantial attention to these terms, assumed that it is a reference to homosexuals. I guess what I am trying to say is that in addition to the difficult epistemological problems of translating a text, there is always the nagging ideological agenda behind the translator. The translator ultimately is motivated by a particular cause to translate the text and this ideological agenda will in cases like this favor one reading over another.
Also, you mentioned word-for-word substitution. I agree that this is not a mere perfunctory activity. Each word has several entries in a dictionary and even the most naive translator, simply substituting each word for another, is still making very significant choices about the meaning of these words. But one thing even more important than meaning is function, which a translator can easily overlook. Again coming back to Corinthians 6.9, Paul is not listing moral injunctions, this is not intended as a Vademecum of grave sins. The function of this passage is hortative: to exhort the faithful to live morally so that they can receive eternal life. The translator has to go beyond the mere semantics at the word-level and look at the speech-function of the text itself. I know some more open-minded translators would do away with the malakoi and arsenokoitai, replacing it with something more contemporary, in order to capture the essential point of the passage. Pragmatics has to trump semantics.
"Abstain" verb: avoid, be loath, be neutral, by-pass, cease, decline, defer, desist, discontinue, dispense with, do without, eschew, forebear, forgo, hold back, keep away, keep off, let alone, not use, not vote, refrain voluntarily from, refuse, restrain oneself, shirk, shun, spare, stand aside, take no sides, turn aside from, waive, withhold
See also: abandon, decline, defer, desist, discontinue, eschew, forbear, refrain, refuse, reject, relinquish, rest, shirk, shun, withhold.
Abstain from something:
to avoid some activity or the use of some substance, such as alcohol, drugs, sex, or food.
http://www.answers.com/topic/abstain
http://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_it=topsearchbox.search&v_t=keyword_rollover&q=meaning+of+to+abstain
Pages and pages of the meaning of "abstain" that anyone can look at.
It would seem this word abstain in the Bible has a clear and simple meaning in the Bible about blood. Do not use it in any form for any reason.
But ones who choose not to agree with this will go to no ends to wash it down, discredit it's meaning, blurr it's simple message and simply not accept what God says.
This scripture also speaks of fornication. How could one abstain from fornication "a little"? Are there any forms or uses of fornication that would be ok in light of this scripture in Acts and in the rest of the Bible that clearly explains God's disgust on this type of sexual relation? Does God accept fornication in some way that he will say, "that part of fornication it is fine, go ahead and do that if you want but not in this way or that way?"
Stop trying to change God's word the Bible to "fit" your life. The Bible was written for you to change your life to god's way and not mans.
Originally posted by galveston75
All of our life's belong to God. He gives us this gift and how we use it, honor it and worship and obey God with it and that will determine our future that the Bible speaks of many times.
He has made rules for us to follow in the Bible. He has shown many times in the Bible what can happen to humans who do not obey his laws especially once we've become do all we can to help save ones life. He has no commands against CPR or other medical help.
All of our life's belong to God. He gives us this gift and how we use it, honor it and worship and obey God with it and that will determine our future that the Bible speaks of many times.
You readily honor God for giving you your natural created life. And He did give you your natural created life. But your Jehovah's Witness religion does NOT honor that God gives the divine life to those who receive Christ.
Like the Moslem or the Jew you honor that God gave you your first birth. But you ridicule and fight against that God gives to man Jesus Christ in resurrection as the "life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) for receiving the second birth of regeneration.
He says to ABSTAIN from blood. Blood in God's eyes is very sacred and in fact his son had to pour his out as a ransome for our life's.
As precious as life is one needs to remember that there WILL be a resurrection for any who have died, but that resurrection WILL be for a judging.
Look at the Gospel of God again.
"For if we, being enemies, were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more we will be saved in His life, having been reconciled." (Romans 5:10)
The blood of Christ was for the reconciliation of the sinner who was an enemy of God. After this reconciliation there is something "much more" which must take place. And that is to be "saved IN HIS LIFE" .
Redemption must bring us into the realm of His indwelling divine life for a "much more" salvation of Christ living within, conforming from within, transforming from within, sanctifying from within.
The very redemption is in the Holy Spirit. This your organization fights mightily against.
You speak glowingly about the sacred blood of Jesus. But if I were to ask you if you have the assurance of the redeeming power of that blood in your life personally, I think you would indicate that you are still trusting in good works to justify you.
You speak highly that God has given man his natural life. And well we should thank God the Creator for giving us our natural life by which we were born the first time. But in the New Testament, how much more we should RECEIVE Christ the divine life giving Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) to have the SECOND life compounded into our natural life.
This your Jehovah's Witness Christology fights tooth and nail for you do not RECEIVE Christ inwardly.
"I am the way and the reality AND THE LIFE. No one comes to the Father except through Me. " (John 14:6)
You must receive Christ into your heart in order to be able to comfortably call God "Father, Abba Father, my own Daddy" And the blood of Christ for redemption has a goal to bring a repentant believer into the whole realm and whole sphere of the AVAILABLE, resurrected and living Lord Jesus - that we can be "much more" saved in the realm of union with Christ.
"For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
When Christ our life is manifested, then you also will be manifested with Him in glory." (Col. 3:3,4)
"For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain." (Phil. 1:21)
Man is redeemed by the blood of Christ that he may LIVE Christ, live in UNION with Christ, live OUT Christ and have Christ live within and through him.
"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit." (1 Cor. 15:45)
Originally posted by jaywillWe know who Jesus is very clearly..... It's you a trintarin who is confused and confuse about who those scriptures are speaking of.All of our life's belong to God. He gives us this gift and how we use it, honor it and worship and obey God with it and that will determine our future that the Bible speaks of many times.
You readily honor God for giving you your natural created life. And He did give you your natural created life. But your Jehovah's Witness religion ...[text shortened]...
[b]"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit." (1 Cor. 15:45) [/b]
I believe this post is about blood transfusions at this time...
Originally posted by jaywillI think its unfortunate Jaywill that you and many Christians continue to present a biased picture of the whole process of being saved.
.. You speak glowingly about the sacred blood of Jesus. But if I were to ask you if you have the assurance of the redeeming power of that blood in your life personally, I think you would indicate that you are still trusting in good works to justify you.
Yes the blood of Christ saves and justifies us through faith. It seems that Christians would like to believe that this is the end of it. But Paul never said that. Justified by faith BUT we cannot continue in sin ... thats the WORKS part.
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
Romans has a long discourse on justification through faith in Christ,
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
but thats not the whole story as Romans 6 drops the bomb ..
Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Thats the whole story : faith in Christ PLUS avoidance of sin and all the works described by Paul and the Apostles.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by galveston75to avoid some activity or the use of some substance, such as alcohol, drugs, sex, or food.
"Abstain" verb: avoid, be loath, be neutral, by-pass, cease, decline, defer, desist, discontinue, dispense with, do without, eschew, forebear, forgo, hold back, keep away, keep off, let alone, not use, not vote, refrain voluntarily from, refuse, restrain oneself, shirk, shun, spare, stand aside, take no sides, turn aside from, waive, withhold
See also: ...[text shortened]... ife. The Bible was written for you to change your life to god's way and not mans.
Exactly. So you need to explain why abstaining from blood should mean anything more than the avoidance of blood qua food.
It would seem this word abstain in the Bible has a clear and simple meaning in the Bible about blood. Do not use it in any form for any reason.
First, you have not cited any biblical scholarship on the use of 'abstain'. You have merely given dictionary citations, which are hardly relevant to those looking at the original Greek text. Second, none of this proves that abstaining means to 'not use in any form for any reason'. If I asked you to abstain from water as part of religious asceticism, presumably this would mean drinking water and not include, say, the use of water in engine hydrolics.
This scripture also speaks of fornication. How could one abstain from fornication "a little"?
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have not suggested that Acts 15.29 allows the use of blood "a little". You are setting up a strawman argument.
Originally posted by vistesdThe Watchtower Society has placed a copy of their latest version on the web.
Just as an aside—and I know this is not a response to what galveston actually said:
I don’t think that scripture is ever “simple”, except to people who want it to be so. I think that unduly simplifying scripture insults the literary capabilities of the author(s), in the variety of literary forms that appear in the biblical corpus. . (It may also, presu ...[text shortened]... ly said. Something he said simply triggered, obliquely, this little digression. Is that clear?
Just google New World Translation and you will be able to look up any verse.
For most other version Biblegateway.com is good. See Biblos.com for an
interlinear of Hebrew or Greek and a Lexicon.
Originally posted by galveston75Col 2 taken from biblegateway.com
Well that's what this forum is about. JW's follow the Bible/God's command to not use blood for any purpose ever.
And to this point what your saying and why you're arguing against this scripture makes no sense as this scripture is clear about the many uses of blood, which is zero.
I have better things to do then listen a Used to be Christian and your refusal to understand the simplest of scriptures.
16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.
This is the freedom you could have in Christ G-75 but you choose a heavy burden which God has never placed on you!!!! Also this is a warning stop being defrauded by the world. Paul was fighting against cults and frauds in that day.
Manny