>>>>>>>>>>>

RON: RESPONSE 2

Marvin,

You wrote:

>[MS]: On the subject of blood there are two separate concerns. I reiterate these are separate and distinct questions: 1. Is there sound scriptural reasoning to make the distinctions we do between forms of blood parts like platelets and hemoglobin? 2. Does the Apostolic Decree prohibit today's medical uses of donor blood?<

You are right that these are separate and distinct questions. Number one "concern" is irrelevant to your position since either way it is answered it lends no support to the use of blood in transfusions.

If the answer to #2 is "no" then #1 is irrelevant. If #2 is yes then #1 is only relevant to those who feel that they should not use *any* part of blood, including fractions. On the other hand, if #1 is answered in the negative it would destroy your position and if answered in the positive it's irrelevant for your position.

>[MS]: 1. Is there sound scriptural reasoning to make the distinctions we do between forms of blood parts like platelets and hemoglobin?<

Why is this a "concern?" There is no doctrinal ruling against your using fractions so it has no bearing on deciding your real issue, which is contesting the application of the scriptural ban on blood to modern transfusions. This is either an irrelevant or a self-defeating issue for someone who wishes to argue for using blood in transfusions. So it actually is illogical for you to raise this issue. If there is evidence of a distinction, your argument is needlessly weakened since you are proved wrong on a point you unnecessarily raised. If there is no distinction your position is destroyed since this would mean that *scripturally* no part of blood could be used at all.

If you don't feel that the scriptural ban applies to blood transfusions at all then why question the Society's allowance of fractions? You have no problem using fractions, so simply present your Scriptural evidence to prove that blood transfusions are not included in the Scriptural ban on blood. Yet, I have seen absolutely no *scriptural* evidence from you to support your position. Rather, all I see is an attempt to muddy the waters by means of personal speculations and doubts.

If someone wants a direct and explicit Scripture statement on distinctions between blood parts they will not find it. This has always been the Society's position and is, in fact, the reason they realize there can be no doctrinal ruling either way on fractions. The issue over fractions arises due to modern scientific knowledge where we can not only identify fractions, but we can also see that Jehovah approvingly allowed fractions to pass from one human blood stream to another. These scientific facts cannot be ignored and so we must limit our doctrine and allow individuals to decide on fractions.

As I pointed out in my first post, what is clear is that Scripture explicitly teaches that we should "abstain from [eating] blood." From a strict scriptural view, this includes *all* parts of blood derived from either living or dead creatures. Therefore, since Scriptures do not make a distinction between blood parts, a strict reliance on explicit Scriptural statements would destroy any argument advocating the use of blood. The use of blood in transfusions is obviously contrary to the specific scriptural command to not eat blood. The Scriptures never limited this abstention to only blood from dead creatures.

I see the demand for an *explicit* scriptural statement concerning fractions to simply be a self-serving distraction. It distracts from the explicit statements of Scripture to abstain from blood and the clear distinction made by God himself when he allowed fractions to pass between mother and baby. Doubt about fractions is no excuse to avoid God's law pertaining to blood. Nor can it be used to cast doubt on Witnesses' position since we refrain from making a doctrinal ruling on fractions.

Coupling the issue of fractions with an advocating of the use of blood in transfusions is a deceptive attempt to weaken the Society's doctrinal position. It is also false to imply that Witnesses' stand on fractions is a doctrine. This deceptive argument seems to say: "Since the Society does not have *explicit* Scripture support for their distinguishing fractions from major components then they must not have Scriptural support for their doctrine to avoid blood. This is a logical fallacy. It's like arguing that since we don't have an explicit Scripture mentioning guns then we don't have Scriptural support for condemning someone who kills with a gun.

>[MS]: 2. Does the Apostolic Decree prohibit today's medical uses of donor blood? My view is that Christians are bound to obey the Decree of Acts 15 to abstain from blood. Exactly what that entails is therefore important to understand and build conviction in. My conscience insists on sound affirmative answers to both questions above or, as a matter of godly loyalty, else it cannot abide by the Society's doctrinal position.<

Again, the Society does not make a doctrinal ruling on fractions. So when it comes to question number one your conscience is completely unaffected by the Society's position.

However, you have been given "sound affirmative answers" from Scripture which conclusively show that blood transfusions violate God's law to avoid blood. These reasons are, first, the foundational principle that blood in living creatures "is life" and thus incontestably sacred. Second, that God never gave humans the prerogative to use blood. Third, eating blood is explicitly condemned. And fourth , that every use of blood by humans had to be expressly approved by God. All of these are clearly shown in every Scripture dealing with the use of blood.

On the other hand, you must add to Scripture by forcing personal speculation into what was said. You speculate that faithful humans *must have* used blood for other purposes before the Mosaic Law. You speculate that the prohibition was limited to blood from animals killed for food. You give us your personal viewpoint that the Apostolic Decree *must be* less restrictive than the Mosaic Law. Ignoring the above explicit principles you demand an explicit "thou shalt not" denying every possible use of blood. What an unreasonable lack of spiritual thinking.

You have absolutely no scriptural evidence to support these assertions. Only by ignoring explicit statements of scripture and resorting to personal speculation can one limit the prohibition to blood from creatures killed for food. Scripturally, the blood in *living* creatures was sacred since the "soul" was in it. The animal's dying didn't make it sacred. Blood in living souls is sacred and belongs only to God. Thus sustaining life by eating blood from either living or dead animals is contrary to God's explicit statements concerning the sanctity of blood.

>[MS]: In your reply to me you offered a premise that there is a sound scriptural distinction between using parts of blood based on whether they fall into the category of "food." But this premise fails later in your comments where you also assert that blood "can only be used for sacrifice or poured on the ground." For a fact Christians could not use any part of blood if, as you say, they abided by the tenet that blood "can only be used for sacrifice or poured on the ground."<

You seem to be prematurely jumping to a conclusion here. Whether my argument fails or not depends on whether we conclude that fractions are "food" and thus included in the prohibition, right?

I did not offer the "food" category as a "premise." My actual "premise" was that God does not include fractions in the blood prohibition since He made use of them Himself. I then offered as implicit support from Scripture the category of "food." You, however, have given us no sound argument supporting your view that there is no distinction. Therefore, our distinction does not fail because we have sound evidence that fractions were not included in the command to pour it out. When you come up with sound evidence that they are included, then you may say that the "food" distinction fails. Of course, then you would also have proved that we couldn't use *any* blood, which in turn would destroy your own position allowing the use of blood in transfusions.

Since my position is that fractions are excluded from the prohibition ++and also do not seem to meet the qualifications as "food,"++ the "food" distinction remains unaffected by the command to pour blood out. As I've stated, this scriptural distinction as "food" is actually unneeded as evidence since we have God's expressed distinction when he approved the transference of fractions. As a secondary evidence this "food" distinction simply helps us to understand perhaps why God evidently did not include fractions in the ban.

++[LATER NOTE: The argument concerning what constitutes "food" needs to be dropped. Since fractions carry nutrients and can be metabolized they can be considered "food" by most definitions. At this point, it is impossible to find a commonly accepted definition of what constitutes "food" which makes a demarcation between major blood components and fractions. Therefore, I must concede and drop this secondary evidence. While viewing fractions as food would further destroy the argument for permitting transfusions, it has no adverse effect on our position since it was unneeded to begin with. We can only accept the scientific knowledge that Jehovah allowed fractions to pass between blood systems and thus were not included in what He considers "food" or sacred.]++

If you want to argue whether fractions are "food" that's fine, our doctrine is unaffected. But primary components are obviously "blood," and definitely function as "food." Therefore, the doctrine banning their use is soundly derived from Scripture.

>[MS]: Another problem with your premise of a distinction of "food" is this: blood parts like albumin will serve as food if taken into the digestive tract, which is the ultimate test of whether an item is "food" or not. Since blood parts like albumin are food then your premise of "food" fails to soundly make the distinction you would assert, because our doctrinal position allows accepting parts like albumin. Do you have evidence to the contrary along with proof of your assertion that "there is logical and scientific evidence that fractions do not fall under the category of "food""?<

++[LATER NOTE: The argument concerning what constitutes "food" needs to be dropped. See above "NOTE:".++

++First, I think you are using a selective and elementary school definition of "food" here. Second, how do you figure albumin serves as food? Lots of things will be taken into the digestive tract. But does that alone make something "food?" Even carbon particles from India ink will be "absorbed" into the blood stream when ingested orally. If taken into the digestive tract, many things will even be "digested." But this is *not* the "ultimate test of whether an item is food!" I believe that metabolism is the real indicator.

++I question whether fractions really would dispense nutrients to build tissue through the digestive tract (anabolism), or be broken down any further in the digestive tract to supply energy (catabolism) which are required to be "food." Rather, from what I researched, it appears that they would simply be re-absorbed or eliminated as is the case with bilirubin when it is processed from red blood cells by the liver. Since albumin and other blood proteins are already the product of food digestion I doubt that they can properly be said to be "food" themselves. On the other hand, I don't believe there is any doubt that the four cellular components of blood will all function as "food" in the GI tract!

++You offer me *your* definition of food, and then, proceeding as if you have proven that fractions are food, you confidently claim that my "premise" fails to support our distinctions. Don't you think you should offer some of the scientific evidence you demand from us?

++According to several *complete* scientific definitions, at the very least "food" contains more than one nutrient and requires metabolizing. Others state that it must be a material designed to carry nutrients, give energy and build tissue. One described food as cellular material, though I haven't been able to find independent information, pro or con, for this. But, fractions are not cellular while the four major components are. (See Britannica, Oxford's Dictionary of Science and the On-line Medical Dictionary under Food, Diet, Nutrition).

++From what I can tell, the biological function of fractions is not to provide nutrients nor to serve as nutrients themselves. While authorities may be divided on the minimum requirements for what constitutes "food," I think we are on safe and sound ground when we exclude fractions from the scriptural "food" category.++

++[LATER NOTE: The argument concerning what constitutes "food" needs to be dropped. See above "NOTE:".++

Combining this with God's own use of fractions makes our "distinction" very well founded.

On the other hand, since every one of the major components would provide nutrients to build tissue or provide energy, there can be no argument with the fact that they fall under the "food" category and thus cannot be used in transfusions! The argument that fractions are food would only undermine any excuse to ingest *any* part of blood and thus would only strengthen the doctrine against blood transfusions. It would not weaken our doctrine since fractions are specifically excluded from any doctrinal stance.

>[MS]: You might be thinking of a distinction between intravenous uses versus ingestion into the digestive tract, asserting that when parts like albumin are taken intravenously they do not act as food to the body. Assuming this true, then it must be pointed out that the same can be said of some uses of parts like platelets too. Therefore, even in this case (not that you have or would assert it) the distinction we make is not established scripturally.<

Actually, platelets take an active part in building tissue. Like red and white cells they carry several substances which are released as needed to sustain life. Platelets disperse several growth factors (PDGF, TGF) which stimulate tissue growth. Though without a nucleus they are still cellular in structure and are metabolic. So I believe this shows that there is a major biological distinction between fractions and platelets. Again, the distinction Witnesses make is established by God's use of fractions and supported by the scriptural "food" category."

>[MS]: Another problem with the distinction of "food" is your later dependence on what you refer to as the "sacredness of blood." If "sacredness of blood" is the issue then whether a part of blood is "food" or not would become irrelevant. On the other hand if whether a part of blood must be abstained from depends on whether it is "food" then "sacredness of blood" is not the overriding tenet you assert.<

There is no problem here. "Sacredness" is the overriding principle, the reason, behind the "do not eat" application. The "do not eat" is just one application of the sacred principle and was explicitly stated since eating animals would be the primary contact with blood. You are partly correct in that the "food" category would be irrelevant IF we did not have the modern problem concerning fractions. Even now, support from the scriptural category of "food" is largely unnecessary since we have all the evidence necessary in God's own use of fractions. This use by God demands that we exclude fractions from our doctrinal stance.

>[MS]: Assuming "sacredness of blood" as the paramount issue then the question we have to ask ourselves is: does God view some parts taken from blood as less sacred than other parts so that some parts we must abstain from whereas other parts we might not have to abstain from? If yes, such a position would have us concluding that some parts of blood are less than sacred so we can use them regardless of the fact that they serve as "food" or that it came from something God said not to use except for sacrifices. I find no scriptural reasoning for such a position myself, or in your reply. Frankly, such a position appears utterly and thoroughly contradictive and inconsistent to me.<

Your line of reasoning here is correct and separating parts would be a contradiction IF we were to arbitrarily decide this on our own. However, your personal failure to acknowledge evidence is irrelevant. The evidence from God's use of fractions and supportive evidence from scripture is there whether you see it or not. To all appearances, God Himself removed fractions from being considered "sacred." Your whole argument concerning fractions is founded on two things: First, an unreasonable demand for an explicit scriptural statement distinguishing parts of blood which were unknown in Bible times. Second, an ignoring of the evidence that God did in fact make such a distinction in creation. If God wants to see a distinction who are we to say it's contradictive?

>[MS]: As to the distinction you would have us draw from what goes on in the natural setting, the convenience you allow yourself to so easily dismiss one instance as natural and another as unnatural demonstrates why this is not a sound way to deduce what our Father meant by decrees issues only to humans.<

You have not responded to the evidence presented. Rather, you completely distract from the creative evidence and minimize the scientific evidence as simply a "convenient way for me to dismiss" your example. The soundness of a conclusion is weighed by its alignment with the evidence. I have not simply offered you personal opinion for deciding what is natural or unnatural instances. I first gave you facts which soundly refuted your argument; Your example of blood transference in DMT is not parallel to the sharing of fractions by God in his creation. There is not *two* circulatory systems nor is the blood removed from its natural owner. You did not address these primary facts, no doubt since it proves your example to be irrelevant while we still have the example confirming God's express approval to use fractions.

Since occurrence of DMT is not a parallel example, the conclusion that DMT is not a part of God's creative design, but rather a defect, is not necessary to my position. But DMT were "evidence" you improperly offered for your position. I presented the known fact that there is an increase of physical problems associated with DMT while there is absolutely none with the sharing of fractions between mother and fetus. Based on this fact, I believe that it is sound to conclude that DMT is an anomaly and not a "natural" part of creation. But, again, it is not even necessary for me to argue this point since your example is inapplicable to begin with.

The evidence that God did not include fractions in the prohibition on use of blood stands while there is absolutely no support for any use of major blood components.

>[MS]: Frankly, if we want to look at what goes on in the natural setting then we must also answer for all the instances where God's creation apparently eats blood of dead carcasses all the time. Vultures would be a macro example and microbes on the micro scale. If we accept these as natural (which you may or may not, I don't know) then we would have to answer for why our doctrinal position differs from it.<

Come on Marvin, can't you stay with relevant arguments? We are dealing with *humans* using blood not animals. God never banned animals from eating blood like he did with humans. Animals have no spiritual comprehension to fathom sacredness. God creating animals to eat blood has absolutely no relevancy to the question of whether He approves of humans doing so who should have spiritual comprehension. You must come up with some evidence that God *approves* of humans eating blood.

>[MS]: Our discussion is far better off to stay in the written word of God, for there is where we find His requirements for us.<

That is right, yet you have given us absolutely no Scriptural evidence that God approved of obedient humans using blood for any other purpose outside of sacrifices. And you insist on ignoring explicit statements in Scripture which rule out any mundane use of blood for true worshipers. On the other hand, though use of fractions is not part of Jehovah's written word we can legitimately use the testimony of creation as an extension of His word on the matter. ;)

>[MS]: Regarding the decree to Noah and the Mosaic Law, you make a lot of assertions I see serious problems with. Here is one: >>[RR]: "There is absolutely no record that Noah's descendants ever felt they could use blood in other ways."<<

>[MS]: Deuteronomy 14:21 contradicts that assertion. That text evidences some of Noah's descendants ate animal bodies that had not been thoroughly bled because they had died of themselves and thus could not be thoroughly bled. This is using blood by eating it, and descendants of Noah were doing the eating.<

I should have been more specific by saying that "there is absolutely no record that Noah's descendants ever had *God's approval* to use blood in other ways." The fact that unfaithful descendants of Noah lapsed into ignorance and used blood without consideration for God's laws does not support your position. The Noachian mandate still made it clear that blood was sacred and was not to be used. If it had been understood by Noah's faithful descendants that using blood for other purposes was OK then there would not have been a need for God to give this express exception to those who were obedient. Contrary to your position, this Scripture only gives evidence that the Mosaic code actually *relaxed* the Noachian mandate.

But, the context of our conversation is dealing with God's *approval* and with faithful worshipers who obey God's commands for mankind. We don't have to concern ourselves with God *allowing* the disobedient to go their way in ignorance (Ac.14:16; 17:30; Rom.9:22). Directly pertinent to our discussion is the fact that Deut.14:21 is still proof that God did NOT ever approve of humans eating blood. This was true even if the animal had not been killed for food. If individuals wanted to be approved as His holy people they would not use blood. Additionally, this only proves that any exception to the command to abstain from blood had to be expressly approved by God. Faithful humans did not presume to see exceptions.

So again, do you have any Scriptural evidence that God *approved* of humans using blood for any mundane purpose? If not, the explicit statements in Scripture concerning the sanctity of blood rule out any other uses.

>[MS]: Some people (you might be one) believe Deuteronomy 14:21 is contradictory to Genesis 9 so they rationalize that Deuteronomy 14:21 must be some sort of exception made by God for "unbelievers."<

Witnesses do not see any contradiction between Deuteronomy and Genesis. Both show that blood is sacred and only God can decide how to use it. Both show that God gave only "living" animals to humans to kill for food. God clearly did enunciated an "exception" here which would benefit his people when, through no fault of their own, it was impossible to properly carry out the requirements of the law. But, there was no "exception" concerning God's view of blood's sanctity. God simply allows non-believers to continue on their disobedient way without his interference (Acts 14:16; 17:29-30; Rom.3:25).

>[MS]: ...I don't see this contradiction because, unless I read a predetermined interpretation into the text, I see nothing in Genesis 9 that talks about eating flesh that had died of its own. Regarding the prohibition of verse 4, the text in Genesis is talking about Noah killing animals for food (i.e., "Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you"). If you feel otherwise then please prove it from what the text actually says.<

Actually, you *are* reading a predetermined interpretation into Scripture. Genesis 9 states clearly that God gave only "living" animals to humans to kill for food. I see nothing there that approves of eating blood from something that had died on its own. Do you see any Scripture that says it's OK if the animal died on its own? Or that it's OK to eat blood if it's separated from a still living body? Genesis 9 and its parallel scriptures explicitly state that: 1. As representative of life, all blood was sacred. 2. Humans were not given the prerogative to use blood. 3. Since this was so, humans were not to use blood for food regardless of where it came from.

It's impossible to avoid the conclusion that this meant blood was not to be used for any purpose by humans without God's express approval. There is absolutely no Scriptural text that limits the application of the law to only the blood of animals that had been killed. This must be forced into the scriptures by ignoring the governing principle: All living creatures' blood was sacred as it represented life and was not "given into the hand" of man. It was God's, and thus if no longer used by its own body it should only be given back to God.

If guilt resulted only if blood was from an animal killed by man, then God would not have forbidden Israelites to eat unbled flesh from animals that were not killed by men (Deut.14:21; Ex.22:31). God's people clearly knew the ban extended to animals which had died on their own (Ezek.4:14; 44:31).

>[MS]: Besides the gross assumption that all people outside the Mosaic Law were unbelievers...<

To the contrary, it is a gross mistake to believe that anyone outside of God's arrangement for salvation can be termed "believers" (Ac.15:6-7). Because of ignorance or rebellion the "nations" could not believe and were alienated from God unless they joined God's people by obeying the Law (Eph.4:17-18; 2:11-12,17). While in the past God "overlooked" the ignorance of those outside his arrangement and promises to "resurrect these unrighteous," they still cannot be termed "believers" (Ac.17:30; 24:15; Rom.9:22 ).

>[MS]: Here is another questionable assertion: >>[RR]: "Like a doctor looking only at the symptom and missing the cause, anyone trying to use the "only from animals used for food" argument is missing, or distracting, from the real point. That is, *why* the ban on eating blood was given. Since blood was "life" it was sacred and thus only God's. When a person keeps in mind the basic God given principle that blood is sacred, there is no need for explicit statements banning each and every other use of blood. Recognition of the sacredness of blood would deter any non-sacred use. The Mosaic code only continued this ban and explicitly confirmed the extent of the ban."<

>[MS]: This assertion assumes a reason for why God issued Noah the prohibition He did. The assumption is that "blood is sacred." The problem with that assumption is that nothing in God's words to Noah requires that blood be treated as sacred.<

There is no assumption regarding the reason God gave the prohibition. It is explicitly stated: the blood is the soul or life in God's eyes. You have blatantly ignored this explicit statement in order to sustain your presupposition. The statements in Deuteronomy and Leviticus unequivocally confirm that the reason was *because* blood represented life! (More on this below). Everything that is said in Scripture concerning blood places it in a sacred position!! It is "life," was never given to man and only used for sacrifices to God. If we don't see that as explicitly denoting sacredness we are truly blind, and perversely so.

>[MS]: Noah could have used blood for a host of inconsiderate uses without eating it, and he would not have disobeyed God, and disobedience is the key factor at then end of the day when it comes to a prohibition.<

And Joseph would not have been disobedient to God if he had committed fornication with Potiphar's wife, since there was no specific statement condemning it. Right? We could kill people with a gun and never disobey the prohibition against murder since guns are never specifically mentioned in the Bible. Right?

You're not thinking or listening to what God has said concerning blood. Again, when a person keeps in mind the basic God-given principle that blood is sacred and was never given to man, there is no need for specific statements banning every use of blood that could ever arise. It is truly an act of gross disobedience to ignore God's expressed view of blood as sanctified.

This is the second time you have speculated that Noah could have used blood in other ways (a third time below). Again, other than your personal opinion, do you have any *Scriptural* evidence for this conclusion? Is there any indication anywhere in the Bible that *faithful* pre-exodus humans made use of blood in any way? Any evidence that God *approved* of any other use? The very absence of any record in God's Word of other uses of blood is revealing! As outlined above, *every* Scriptural statement connected with the mandate given to Noah indicates that all blood was sacred and not given to man to use. 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.

I am not the one operating on an assumption. It is you. You have absolutely no scriptural evidence or logical reason to conclude that blood could be used by faithful humans for other mundane purposes. This is quite simply a baseless speculation on your part.

>[MS]: Here is another questionable assertion: >>[RR]: "...the Mosaic Law only perpetuated the previous ban based on the same sacred principle "life is in the blood." (Cf. Deut.12:23 w/Gen.9:4-5). The "pouring it on the ground" and its "use in sacrifices" is only stating a fact that was already obvious to Noah's descendants. Then, the Apostolic Decree simply continued the same ban, even explicitly referring to the Mosaic code as explaining its application (Ac.15:20,21)!"<

>[MS]: This assertion omits an important piece of information regarding why the Mosaic Law prohibited any use of blood (by mandating that blood must be poured on the ground). Leviticus 17:11 says the basis for the Mosaic prohibitions included the fact that God had, under that Law, named and required blood for use in sacred atonement sacrifices. Since God had not named or required this special use of blood to Noah then connecting the Mosaic prohibitions to that issued to Noah as though they are the same and for the exact same reasons is false.<

I have omitted no information. You distract from the evidence that the Apostolic Decree was a continuation of the way blood was treated under the Mosaic code. You are quite simply avoiding and distracting from the explicit reason given for the prohibition against blood use. Then you completely and self-servingly misconstrue the explicit statements of this Scripture! Leviticus 17:11 does NOT say or even imply that a "reason" or "basis for the Mosaic prohibitions" was because blood was now to be used in sacrifices.

Rather, Deuteronomy and Leviticus both explicitly, clearly and incontestably state that the *reason* blood was to be used in sacrifices was "*because*" it was life (the soul). The reason it was not to be eaten and poured on the ground was "*because*" of blood's sacredness as life.

Notice in Hebrew the conjunction KIY which is translated "for" and "because" in the NWT (Lev.17:11,14 [4x's]; Deut.12:23 [1x]). KIY is used to introduce the causal sentence or to explicate the basis for a statement (See BDB Lexicon, TWOT Strong's and Keil/Delitzsch). Therefore, these are explicit statements showing the *reason,* the *basis* for *why* blood was used on the altar and poured out. It is the *very same reason* that Noah was given the command not eat blood and why it was not given to man to use: Because it represented life! In Jehovah's eyes it was His only and thus sacred.

Your explanation for the reason and basis of the Mosaic prohibitions is false. It is totally unsupported by anything in Scripture and a complete denial and avoidance of the clearly stated reason for both the Noachian and Mosaic prohibitions.

>[MS]: This together with the fact that later in the Mosaic Law Jehovah made provision for unbled animal carcasses that died of themselves to be given or sold for food to Noah's descendants outside requirements of the Mosaic Law only strengthen the argument that the two laws (Noachian and Mosaic) are not completely parallel (not that they are contradictory). For a fact there is nothing explicit in the text of Genesis or later texts that indicate Noah understood he had to abstain from blood to the point of pouring it out without using it at all for any purpose, but that is not true of Israel under the Mosaic Law. Instructions to Israel made any use of blood aside from atonement sacrifices an act of disobedience.<

The scriptural facts I presented should make it clear that the Noachian and Mosaic laws are fundamentally parallel. The same sacred principle was explicitly given as the basis for both. Eating blood was explicitly forbidden and nothing was said which would cause others to conclude that God approved eating blood of animals as long as they were not killed or had died on their own. Since there was no such allowance in the universal Noachian mandate it must be "read into" the Scriptures.

While the Mosaic law made the "pouring on the ground explicit," this was inherent in the Noachian mandate. While the Mosaic law demanded multiple sacrifices for specific reasons, blood sacrifices and covenants denoting life were offered from the time of Able. The Noachian mandate gave only "living" animals to humans for food while the Mosaic explicitly forbade eating animals that had died on their own. Fundamentally, what is not "parallel?" Focusing attention on irrelevant details in order to make a claim that they are "not completely parallel" does nothing to support your position. If anything, the concession God made allowing animal carcasses to be sold to those not worshiping Jehovah only made the Mosaic law *less* stringent than the Noachian.

It does not require an enforceable code before one can be disobedient to God. The Noachian mandate clearly showed that blood was sacred, it was not given to man and belonged to God. Any one who was cognizant of God's view would recognize that blood was not for mundane use. In fact, it could not be used at all unless God, as its owner, gave his express approval. This being the case, it would be an act of disobedience for any offspring of Noah to presume to make personal use of blood. Demanding an explicit "thou shalt not" for every possible use of blood is ridiculous and manifests a spiritual blindness.

Only by appealing to unfounded speculation and ignoring explicit scriptural statements could one presume that Noah put blood to mundane uses or that God approved of any such use by his descendants.

>[MS]: I appreciate your willingness to help with my concerns on the subject we've undertaken. Take whatever time you need to reply. I don't want to be a burden. Thanks again!<

Spring time is always a very busy time for me. But, this type of study is never a burden for me, it just takes a little longer for me to respond. :(

Yours,

Ron Rhoades