Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 22, 1999 at 19:01:16 {k/.KBikg62hxaL3hj3H2OgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: ***Blood Transfusion posted by Cygnus on November 22, 1999 at 16:27:30:
Cygnus
You also weasel your way out of Acts 15, James, and Noah, Friend. So what if JWs assert that James was reaffirming Genesis 9? That doesn't make it the truth, and certainly doesn't lend credence to your arguments.
Weasel out? Are you kidding me? I am not addressing each interpretive sidestreet of the Apostolic Decree. I am addressing the JW position based upon the JW perspective. The JW perspective is that the Apostolic Decree is applicable as reaffirmation of that said to Noah. I see nothing wrong with that notion so I have developed an argument which accommodates it.
I could spend countless hours arguing here and there about the applicability of the Apostolic Decree, but that is not the intention of this thread. The intent of this thread is to address the correctness of a particular application of the Apostolic Decree. Assuming certain interpretations are legitimate (i.e., reaffirmation of that said to Noah) I have argued toward the end that "abstain from blood" does not mean "abstain from blood transfusions of donated blood." I have no need to go into areas you prefer. The argument does not require it.
But its language absolutely prevents it from being solely interpreted as suggesting that blood apart from the flesh may not be consumed.
I have not solely interpreted the text as you claim. I allow that the text in question indicates not eating taken blood at all, whether it be mingled with its indigenous killed flesh or not. Your hyperliteral notion restricts the prohibition solely to blood mingled with the killed flesh. I see no need of such a restrictive understanding. Actually, for my purpose, allowing the more liberal (and natural) understanding serves the purpose better.
Friend