>>>>>>>>>>>

RESPONSE 3:

Marvin,

>[You wrote]: There are some very basic differences in how we two seem to reach our conclusions...To me the differences are about fundamental points of logic...I think it would be better for us to focus first on what God required pre-Mosaic Law in terms of blood abstention.<

We have discussed the requirements inherent in the Noachian mandate. You simply have chosen to avoid the ramifications of God viewing all blood in living creatures as equated with life and belonging only to Him. And you distract from the simple fact that no matter how much you try to avoid it, transfusions are clearly contrary to the explicit Noachian and Mosaic command to "not eat blood" and the Apostolic Decree's command to "abstain from blood."

In a weak attempt to maintain your own interpretation you must avoid examining the Noachian, Mosaic and Apostolic decrees together. Because, considered together these scriptures would reveal that all were based on the same controlling principle and would thus absolutely prove that Scripture always presents blood in living creatures as sacred and thus is not for human use.

Your argument has continued on the standard course taken by all who want to weaken Scriptural teachings. You present "evidence" and arguments to support your position. You ignore, distract from and fail to adequately respond to evidence disproving your evidence and arguments. Parsing the Scriptures, you search for and retreat to the least explicit Scripture which is thus more open to forcing a wrong interpretation into it.

>[MS]: The following paragraph of yours shows some of the logical problems I see. You wrote:

>>[Ron]: "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."<<

>[MS]: When you write that "blood in living creatures "is life" and thus incontestably sacred" to me that is reading an opinion into the biblical text of Genesis 9 where for the first time Jehovah spoke of blood illustratively as life. I suppose it all depends on what you mean by "sacred," but to me sacred means set apart as special by God so that we can only use it according to His explicit permission, and I don't see this concept at work in the text of Genesis 9. All I see is God using the substance of blood illustratively for life. It works this way: Kill an animal and you cannot eat it's blood. Kill a man and you'll pay with your own blood (i.e., life). In both instance blood is used illustratively for life.<

My definition of "sacred" is the same as your's.

Your argument does not support your position nor does it properly draw the logical conclusion from what is specifically said concerning the substance of blood itself. Scholars throughout history have had no problem seeing the sanctity of blood denoted here. It is obvious that the concept of sacredness is at work here for at least three reasons.

The fact that "blood" is sometimes used as a metaphor for "life" in no way denies its sanctity, but only confirms it. But, here in Genesis 9:4,5 "blood" denotes the literal substance. Blood is not used here as an "illustration" i.e., a metaphor for "life." Here the word "soul" denotes "life." Blood is used in apposition to life; "its life: its blood" or further separated in verse 5 as "blood of [in regard to] your life" or "blood [which sustains] your life." It is the literal blood itself which is spoken of by the word "blood" and was not to be eaten, not the "life principle." So, the fact that blood itself is equated with life and so is used as its representative actually emphasizes its sacredness. This is the explicit reason behind the Noachian prohibition as well as every other mention of blood in Scripture.

Another proof that the concept of sacredness is at work here is the fact that animal life belonged to God and while he gave their flesh to mankind blood explicitly was not given to man but is withheld, retained "apart" as God's.

Both animal and human blood is clearly presented here as belonging only to God and so was undeniably viewed as sacred. This is inherent in the Scripture and does not have to be "read into the text," nor is it *my* opinion. God is the one who retained ownership of blood, *equates* it with life and withholds it from "man's hand."

Smith's Bible Dictionary states: "To blood is ascribed in Scripture the mysterious sacredness which belongs to life, and God *reserved* it to himself when allowing man the dominion over and the use of the lower animals for food. Thus reserved, it acquires a double power...Ge 9:4; Le 7:26; 17:11-13."

>[MS]: In both instances life is the thing held out as sacred because in both cases it's the taking of life that has a consequence. But as for the substance of blood itself, I see no inherent imputing of sacredness for at least two reasons. 1) Because other than eating the blood of animals KILLED for food I see no prohibition issued to Noah on him using the substance of blood and 2) because I see no consequences for use of blood like I do for killing (taking LIFE).<

Humans had permission to take animal life and thus, contrary to what you state, it did not have "consequences" (Gen.3:21; 4:4; 8:20,21; 9:3). Since the command was against eating the substance itself, not the taking of a life, use of blood was the issue in this instance. Animal life was "given into mans hand" for his utilization as food, while blood was explicitly withheld for the reason that it was life. Therefore, in this instance blood itself was the thing "held out as sacred." Since the text then placed human blood as more sacred it obviously could not be eaten.

Further, neither of your two points here present any valid reason for not viewing blood as sacred. Neither overrules the fact that in this scripture blood is clearly sacred since it belongs only to God: it's equated with life and withheld from mankind. Your points actually have no bearing whatsoever on whether blood is sacred. They are simply distractions and an ignoring of the facts contained in this scripture as presented above.

1. You say "Other than eating blood..."? The prohibition against eating blood should be enough in itself to evidence that blood was sacred in God's eyes!!

In order to limit the prohibition to only blood from animals killed for food you must ignore the basis for the prohibition given as well as the fact that God clearly retained blood to himself. Further, there is absolutely nothing explicit in this scripture which limits the command to only eating blood from animals that had been killed. It is worthwhile to note that throughout history many interpreters understood these words to mean eating an animal while alive! It obviously applied to blood from killed animals, but as worded the command would also apply to eating any blood as food. The fact that blood *inside* living animals "was life" shows that blood from living donors is still sacred. So, the victim didn't have to be killed for the prohibition to apply.

Just because we do not see God specifically banning each and every possible use of blood by Noah or his descendants down through history does not argue against the fact that blood is presented as sacred. Since the principles were clearly stated, there was no need to enumerate further prohibitions. These principles would prohibit any mundane use for spiritually minded individuals. The complete witness of Scripture conclusively proves this conclusion to be correct since it always places blood in a sacred position, i.e., outside of human dominion or prerogative.

2. Similarly, the fact that there was no "consequences" directly stated for disobeying the ban on blood lends no support to the idea that blood was not sacred. The lack of a consequence being explicitly stated did not nullify the fact that we have a command to not eat blood nor does it diminish the fact that blood is presented as sacred. Consequences of sin did not have to be repeated to validate each command or principle. The consequences of any disobedience to God were clearly understood by Adam's descendants: disfavor, rejection and even death (Gen. 2:17; 3:3; 4:7,14).

Again, according to this Scripture, God never placed blood "into man's hands," he withheld the blood as His own, and life was said to be the blood. The sacredness of blood could not be stated any clearer or stronger. It is hard to miss the fact that blood was explicitly retained as belonging only to God and thus could only be used "according to His permission." How someone could deny that the sacredness of blood is in view here is beyond comprehension, and contrary to "fundamental logic." This denial would certainly be a personal opinion and contrary to everything that is said in Scripture concerning blood.

>[MS]: Other than the one prohibited act of eating blood of animals killed for food, Noah could have used blood without disobeying Jehovah. For example, Noah could have used blood as a natural pigment for painting or adding color to clothes and this would NOT have been in any way violating God's STATED prohibition, yet using blood for paint is hardly in line with use of a sacred object.<

We have discussed your dogmatic and unscriptural assumption that Noah could have used blood for other uses without violating God's mandate. You have failed to support this speculation or to rebut evidence refuting such a view. The evidence already presented argues against your reasoning that it would have been acceptable to use blood for mundane purposes, or that the mandate only applied to blood from animals killed for food or that there needs to be a *specific* law for every imaginable use of blood before it's prohibited.

1.) Scripture explicitly states that the primary *reason* for the Noachian and Mosaic laws was the governing principle that in God's view the blood *while in* living creatures "is life," and when removed is to be treated as such. 2.) Blood was expressly withheld from man's hand, i.e., he was given no authority to personally use it. 3.) There is absolutely no Scriptural record of any mundane use by faithful servants. 4) Without exception, every mention in Scripture confirms the view that blood is sacred and could only be used with the express approval of God. 5.) Finally, the all encompassing Apostolic Decree was explicitly stated to be based on and explained by what was said about blood in the "Book of Moses."

Since you have failed to refute these Scriptural proofs of the sanctity of blood, your speculation that blood could have been used in mundane ways is without Scriptural support. Holding to this speculation amounts to a willful ignoring of God's view as taught by the whole of Scripture.

So again, do you have any Scriptural evidence that God *approved* of Noah or his descendants using blood for any mundane purpose? Do you see any Scripture which indicates that God *approved* of his people eating blood if the animal died on its own? Or that it's OK to eat blood if it's separated from a still living body? Or that humans ever had the right to decide for themselves how to use blood. If not, the clear statements in Scripture verifying the sanctity of blood rule out mundane use and your opinion is simply a baseless speculation.

Your position that disobedience to God only can occur when there is a violation of an explicitly "stated prohibition" is unscriptural and wickedly misleading. This idea is soundly refuted by Scripture examples. It does not require a law specifying every possible infraction before one can be disobedient to God (see it-2 222-3). The nature of principles negates any such idea. Demanding an explicit "thou shalt not" for every possible use of blood is ridiculous and manifests a spiritual blindness (1Cor.2:14-16). Nor did God keep from punishing those who should have ascertained laws from principles (Rom.1:20). Did Christ and the apostles feel there had to be a specifically stated code and consequences before there was a law binding upon God's people? (Mt.19:3-9; 1Tim.2:11-14; 1Jn.3:11, 12; 1Cor.2:14-16). What was the specific commands and stated consequences broken by the people destroyed at the flood? What was the specific law and its detailed consequences that Joseph was obeying so as not to "sin against God?" (Gen.2:24; 39:9).

>[MS]: If God's words to Noah were centric to blood, as though God were declaring the substance blood sacred, then consequences would have been centric to misuse of blood, but they're not. On the other hand the text contains explicit consequences for taking LIFE (i.e., KILLING) so we see then a centricity to LIFE.<

More logical fallacies and a distraction from the fact that God's command was were "centric" to eating blood. The prohibition was specifically directed against the use of blood itself, not just "life." You "read into" the text a consequence for taking animal life when there was none. You assume that blood had to be the central issue for it to be sacred. You assume that there had to be consequences stated before something could be sacred. You assume that if life was the central issue then blood could not be sacred. These are all unsupported and self-serving personal opinions.

First, there is no need for blood to be the primary issue for it to be sacred. Therefore, even if we were to accept "life" as the primary issue, nothing in your argument refutes the clear Scriptural statements showing that blood was sacred. Whether you consider it the "central issue" or not has no relevancy since blood itself is spoken of here and is clearly presented as sacred. It does not follow that just because "life" is sacred this excludes its material representative from being sacred.

Second, your argument is flawed because there were no "consequences" whatsoever for taking animal life since there was no disobedience in this. So, in regards to animal life, the blood is the *only* issue addressed because blood, not life, was what God withheld from mankind. Killing animals was not prohibited and any "consequence" for taking an animal's life must be arbitrarily "read into" this scripture in an attempt to bolster your failing argument.

There certainly were consequences naturally associated with disobediently eating blood. From God's previous dealings with mankind humans knew the consequence of any disobedience was rejection and death.

Third, you improperly assume that the central issue was not concerning the substance blood. In both verses 3 and 4 God's words to Noah were centric to blood since it represented life. Several things show that blood itself continues to be the issue in verse 5. First we have the conjunction (W) combined with the emphatic AK tying what is said next to verse 4. This is followed by *blood* as the direct object (the following preposition and its object--life--modify blood). Then the last phrase finally addresses human life (NEPHESH), but in a way that further equates blood with life. Therefore, in verses 5,6 both human blood and the life it represented are the central issues (both the "blood of your life" and "man's soul" are God's). Therefore, the substance blood as well as what it represents are presented as sacred.

The mandate thus had to do with misuse of the substance blood. Animal blood was "life" and since it was not given to man eating it amounted to a "taking" of something that only belonged to God. Human blood was even more sacred (KA:W) and was not to be shed at all, let alone eaten. So we have animal blood, human blood and human life presented here as reserved to God only, i.e., sacred.

The sanctity of Life certainly is the underlying principle, but it is the material blood which is completely and eternally withheld from mankind's use. Therefore, I have no problem with the fact that "LIFE" was the *governing* principle in all the Scriptures dealing with the use of blood. The fact still remains that in Gen.9:4,5 it was the treatment of blood itself which was "central."

The equating of blood with life in Scripture gives us the reason blood was retained as only God's! Every Scriptural law and statement concerning the substance blood confirms this understanding that blood itself was sacred, belonging only to God and thus could be used only with his express approval.

>[MS]: Of course, we know that any disobedience to God is wrong and God did prohibit Noah from eating blood of animals he killed for food. Therefore we must assume a consequence had Noah eaten blood of animals he killed for food. We just don't know what it would have been because God didn't state it. Notwithstanding, it is critical to determine if God's statement to Noah prohibited the eating of any and all blood ... or just the blood of creatures killed for food. To avoid reading opinions into the text it is important to stick with what is actually written rather than inferences we want to draw. Unfortunately for us, inferences are notoriously unreliable.<

Your failure to know what the consequence would be if Noah had eaten blood derives from a neglect in drawing logical deductions from the whole of Scripture. As mentioned above humans always knew what the consequences of any specific sin were. This was due to their God given ability to draw valid deductions not only from principles behind laws but even from simple statements made by God which revealed His view.

Your failure to perceive the application of this prohibition to eating *any* blood stems from your habitual neglect in recognizing and acknowledging Godly principles. First, you fail to note what is actually written concerning blood. And second, you stubbornly ignore that what was said revealed the controlling basis for the prohibition. What I have already presented shows that the principle reason for the prohibition against eating the blood of animals killed for food would also prohibit eating any blood whatsoever. The victim didn't have to be killed for the prohibition to apply since blood taken from living creatures was still sacred.

It is you who is drawing faulty inferences here. You draw the faulty inference that only blood from animals killed for food was prohibited because you ignore the above pertinent facts and principles. The law was specifically against eating blood and it gave no explicit limitation to only blood of killed animals. The controlling reason of blood being life would also prohibit eating blood from a living animal. While we know that the *immediate application* was to animals killed for food, there is absolutely nothing that limits the command to blood from dead animals. Any one who was cognizant of God's view, expressed in the principle reason given, would recognize that blood was not for mundane use.

However, we do not rely on inferences since we have clear confirmation of the correct understanding in the explicit statements of the Mosaic Law and Apostolic decree.(For instance, God's comments prohibiting the eating of blood from animals which had died on their own confirm that the Noachian law applied to eating all blood, not just from animals killed by humans. It was the blood being life which caused the prohibition, not the killing.)

As a side note, it is perfectly legitimate to use valid inferences to draw correct conclusions. Proper and valid inferences use all the facts and avoid assumptions or outright falsehoods.

In the above section, while offering a lot of irrelevant and distractive points, you have offered nothing which negates the clear Scriptural presentation of blood as sacred since it belongs only to God and represents life. This failure has largely rendered any of your further arguments as irrelevant. Now to the clear Scriptural teaching that God withheld blood from the hand of man.

>[MS]: When you write, "God never gave humans the prerogative to use blood," I don't understand why such a belief could evidence that blood transfusions violate God's law because it is fallacious to argue that the absence of permission proves a prohibition. Such an argument would have us conclude a prohibition because we CANNOT find an express permission.<

Your argument here is a distraction from the real argument and a straw man. You distract from the fact that blood transfusions are undeniably "eating" blood and thus are clearly prohibited by the specifically expressed prohibition to not eat blood. (They don't call it intravenous feeding for nothing).

My argument was not founded on an "absence of permission" but was based on an absence of human prerogative-they had no right to use blood. What we have here is a permission granted which was limited by a clear denial of permission. It wasn't just that there was no permission given, but rather, that there was a withholding of jurisdiction over part of something given to humans by God. Even the prerogative or the right to personally decide how to use blood was withheld from humans-blood was not "given" nor placed "into mans hands." God *retained* the rights to blood for Himself.

Therefore, besides the explicit prohibition against eating blood, what further evidences the prohibition against transfusions in this scripture is that blood was specifically excluded from being placed into man's control-it remained God's alone. Lack of mankind being "given" this *right* prohibits any human using blood without God's express approval. Additionally, when we are given principles which implicitly rule something out then we do not need an explicit prohibition.

Further, your dogmatic "rule" here does not hold up. Lack of permission may or may not "prove a prohibition." In fact my "Black's Law Dictionary" states: "Permission. A license to do a thing; an authority to do an act which, without such authority, would have been unlawful." Just try giving your argument to the cop who catches you "borrowing" your neighbor's car without permission!

So, you see, "lack of permission" can "prove" a prohibition, especially in the case of something which, by right, belongs to another or in things that by nature require the prior permission of a higher authority or sovereign. A good example is pre-flood humans recognizing a prohibition on eating animals since that right had never been given to mankind. In the case of blood use, without express permission we would be "presuming a right where no right exists." Without delving deeply into deontic philosophy, in logic and legal thought it is very natural to think that whatever is not permitted is forbidden *when* we have recognized "norms" regulating actions.

According to your whole logic on the issue of blood, you would require a specific "thou shall not" for every individual thing owned by your neighbor before you would admit that stealing some specific thing was wrong.

In fact, the only case where your "rule" applies would be where we have a *complete* absence of any pertinent information (like God's view of using electricity, riding bicycles, etc.). Or legally put, "a *complete* silence of law" or social norms. But, this is not the case with the use of blood and so your "rule" does not apply here at all. We have the information that animals belonged to God and only He could give permission on how they may or may not be used. Placing animals "into man's hand," God "gave" to humans the permission and prerogative to use animals, but he withheld both prerogative and permission when it came to blood. Since, animals, and their blood, belonged only to Jehovah an absence of permission to use blood does denote a prohibition.

Again, this understanding is absolutely verified by every statement in Scripture concerning blood. This consensus of all scriptures concerning blood is what absolutely "proves" the prohibition. Every scripture shows that faithful humans recognized that use of blood was prohibited unless given God's express approval.

>[MS]: Along these lines I believe each of the following truisms have relevance to our discussion:<

Where did you get these "truisms." Did you do any research or analyze whether these are universally true? Seems to me that somebody is making up their own adages to support their position.

>[MS]: 1. Permission for one or many things does not create or imply a prohibition on anything.<

I would agree that permission does not "create" a prohibition since there must be a prohibition existing before the word "permission" could be used. But, this is irrelevant to our discussion. No one said permission created a prohibition. But, the statement concerning implication is always false, especially when we are dealing with an area of sovereignty or ownership. Any granting of permission denotes the presence of a prohibition. If I own fifty acres and I give you permission to cut "the oak trees" the prior prohibition against cutting any trees is evidenced. And the *strong* implication from the permission is that there is a prohibition against cutting any trees other than oak. If I add the word "only" the prohibition against cutting other trees is made explicit by the permission. The actual prohibition is "created" by my rights as owner. Similar is God's sovereignty over creation. When God said humans could eat the vegetation it is obvious that they understood there was a prohibition on eating the animals (including their blood). The prohibition was proven when God gave permission to eat animals (except their blood). In legal thought "permission" actually does evidence the presence of a prohibition.

>[MS]: 3. Prohibition of one thing does not create permission for other things.

Irrelevant to our discussion. No one said it did.

>[MS]: 2. The absence of permission does not create a prohibition. The absence of permission means no more than an individual must decide for themselves what to do, if anything.<

While your replacing "prove" with "create" makes this statement true, your conclusion is still false. Again, an absence of permission may or may not indicate a prohibition. But, this is still an irrelevant straw-man since I never claimed that absence of permission *created* the prohibition. However, we are not dealing with just an absence of permission here. What we have is a withholding of both dominion over or permission to use something that belongs to God. We also have an explicit command not to eat blood which has a direct application to blood transfusions. More important, this prohibition is based on a clear principle which creates a prohibition on mundane uses for all blood.

>[MS]: 4. The absence of prohibition does not create or imply permission. The absence of prohibition means no more than an individual must decide for themselves what to do, if anything.<

Again, irrelevant. As above, this is an inductive fallacy since it is not universally true. As a matter of fact, the maxim "whatever is not forbidden, is permitted" is a standard legal concept in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, this doesn't apply to our subject because we do not have an absence of prohibition. Controlled by your presupposition, you see no prohibition for transfusions because you ignore the Scriptural principles as well as the complete testimony of Scripture. An ignoring of principles results in an unscriptural and illogical demand for an explicit "thou shall not" covering every possible use of blood.

As with number 2 above, your conclusion would only apply if we had total silence on the matter in Scripture. In the case at hand, scriptural principles and statements revealing God's disapproval are enough to create a prohibition without it being spelled out in written detail. Humans were not left to decide for themselves what is right and wrong regarding the use of blood. God expects humans to use their God given intelligence to perceive what God approves of.

>[MS]: 5. A prohibition of one thing does not imply permission is needed regarding unprohibited items or acts.<

Lack of specification makes this statement useless. It can be true or false depending on the relationship of the "prohibited thing" to the "unprohibited items." However, in the only application I can see to our subject, the lesser would include the greater. An explicit prohibition against the eating of animal blood would incontestably prohibit the eating of the more sacred human blood without express permission. A prohibition against hatred would prohibit murder, against lust would prohibit fornication, and etc.

>[MS]: Then you write: "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.]" This statement really is confusing to me. First, since our teachings and practices assert a prohibition, your statement defies a fundamental truism that the absence of permission does not create a prohibition. How do you support your assertion that "every use of blood by humans had to be expressly approved by God"? Remember that we are dealing with pre-Mosaic Law here. Once we have established God's requirements within that frame then we will consider what came afterward, including whether anything changed.<

A continuation of your straw man argument. My argument is not that "absence of permission *creates* a prohibition."

This fourth point of mine was truncated for brevity's sake. However, there should be nothing confusing about it when read with the sentence following it (added in brackets above) or when the complete argument is referred to. I simply offered as evidence the undeniable fact that in Scripture, every mention of blood use by humans was only that which was expressly approved by God (eg. sacrifice and selling un-bled meat). There is no scriptural record that any faithful human ever took it upon himself to use blood for any other purpose.

So, what "supports my assertion" is the testimony of Scripture. Do you have any testimony from Scripture which supports your position that humans could/did determine for themselves how to use blood? Can you show me any use of blood by faithful individuals which was not somehow approved by God? This testimony of Scripture is strong evidence of how God viewed blood and that humans knew decisions regarding blood use were outside their prerogative, it belonged to God. This also provides evidence that faithful humans did not need a specific prohibition against mundane uses of blood beyond the principles and laws stated to Noah.

I have already shown that your "fundamental truism" is completely misapplied in this case since we do have a direct prohibition applying to transfusions and also a clear denial of permission--not just an "absence of permission." And no, I was not dealing solely with pre-Mosaic Law here. I have no fear of letting the whole of Scripture explain and verify the correct understanding of God's laws. Dividing Scripture as you do can only lead to error (2Cor.13:1).

>[MS]: Second, when blood banks and hematologists use blood for purposes of extracting portions to transfuse as "major" or "minor" parts this is in fact humans using blood in a way that God did not EXPRESSLY approve. So how this helps support what we teach escapes me. I would appreciate your clarification here.<

How quickly you forget. "We can legitimately use the testimony of creation as an extension of His word on the matter." The fact is that from his use of fractions individuals can properly conclude that God has given his express approval. We *must* consider this when determining doctrine and cannot prohibit what God has indicated is a proper use of blood fractions. Therefore, when there is some valid reason for doubt our teachings judge no right or wrong, but properly leave it up to personal conscience. Our teaching on this cannot be criticized.

As I said before: "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." Therefore, our teaching stands as completely scriptural as well as in harmony with the facts revealed in God's creation. On the other hand, blood transfusions are contrary to every explicit and implicit scriptural statement concerning the use of blood.

>[MS]: To avoid any confusion about what I expect to have evidenced from the Bible on this subject, I am not looking for texts explicit to modern medical blood transfusions any more than I would expect to see reference to murder by gunshot. We know murder by gunshot is wrong because the Bible condemns murder. Therefore HOW murder is accomplished is beside the point of determining whether murder was committed. Regarding modern medical use of blood, biblical texts need only prove that using donor blood is prohibited. Then HOW donor blood is used would be beside the point of knowing whether a prohibited act had occurred.<

We know eating blood by transfusions is wrong because the Bible condemns eating blood. Therefore HOW eating of blood is accomplished is beside the point of determining whether eating of blood was committed.

Biblical texts provide adequate evidence showing that eating *any* blood is prohibited because they teach: 1.) That blood is equated with life and thus sacred. Life is in the blood *while in living animals.* It doesn't become sacred due to the animal being killed. 2.) The very same texts show that human blood was viewed by God as even more sacred. 3.) Scripture explicitly prohibits eating blood and contains no limitation to only blood from killed animals. 4.) The law against eating animals which had died on their own demonstrates that it wasn't the killing which caused the prohibition. 5.) Scripture shows that due to life being in the blood it could only be poured out. 6.) The Apostolic decree continued the prohibition as stated in Moses' writings with the all-encompassing command to "abstain from blood" again with no limitation to only blood from dead animals. Additional evidence lies in the fact that 7.) God retained blood of living creatures as His alone. And, 8.) because the testimony of Scripture shows that humans understood that blood was sacred since they never used blood in any way which was not expressly approved by God.

It takes quite a stretch of the imagination to think that eating donor blood is not really eating blood or that it doesn't violate the command to "abstain from blood." In order to limit the application to only blood from animals which had been killed for food you must ignore the consistent teaching in Scripture revealing God's view of blood.

>[MS]: Regarding pre-Mosaic Law elements to our discussion, you wrote:

>[MS]: "blood sacrifices and covenants denoting life were offered from the time of Able."

>[MS]: My question here is where does the Bible speak of blood sacrifices from the time of Abel so that you can assert as you have?...But what scriptural proof is there that blood played any significant role in sacrifices from the time of Abel, if any role at all, so you can assert as you have? If you have in mind Abel's sacrifice, I read that he made fatty pieces a part to his sacrifice, which also undoubtedly means an animal died for him to make this offering, but I see no mention of blood being party to his offering...Do you have some other example in mind?<

You have a way of admitting the obvious and then denying it if it doesn't support your presuppositions. As you observed, Abel's sacrifice meant an animal's blood was obviously shed. This was also true of Noah's, Abraham's and Job's sacrifices (Gen.8:20; 22:13; Job.1:5; 42:8). These were sacrifices which obviously included blood and gained explicit approval from God. This being the case they are valid evidences revealing the view of blood throughout the Bible. This view contradicts your assumption that it could be used in a mundane way. Admittedly, until Noah was given the freedom to eat animals there was no need for humans to be given the understanding that blood alone represents life as opposed to the whole animal. Until Noah's time the whole animal, blood included, was recognized as belonging to God and was used only with his express approval.

>[MS]: 1. The Mosaic Law set Israel apart from its neighbor nations, but this was not God setting Israel apart as the only worshippers He recognized as worshipping him throughout the globe we call earth. God setting Israel apart with provisions of the Mosaic Law was but one provision leading to the ultimate unification of persons wanting to worship Him from all nations of the earth. This is evidenced in the fact that the Mosaic Law had no requirements for proselytizing but Christianity does. (Matt. 24:14, 28:19, 20) In the time of Moses had living according to the Mosaic Law been the only worship God recognized from those wanting to worship Him their faithful forefathers had done then Jehovah would have made provision to proselytize them, but He did not.<

Your conclusion is simply your unsupported opinion. It does not follow from any argument you present here. Do you have any Scriptural evidence whatsoever to support your view that God accepted as worshipers any outside of his approved provision? For someone who demands explicit Scripture statements from others you adopt an awful lot of personal beliefs that go contrary to Scriptural teaching. You simply give me speculations of misguided BibleStudents and other universal salvationists.

I have already presented scriptural proof which refuted your claim that those outside the Mosaic arrangement could be called "believers." These scriptures equally refute any idea that God accepted as "worshipers" those who were outside the Mosaic arrangement. You have avoided responding to those scriptures and you have given me absolutely no scripture evidence to support your opinion. I wrote:

>>[Ron]: 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).<<

Notice these scriptures show that those outside the Mosaic covenant were alienated from God, without God, without hope and far off from God. There is absolutely no Scriptural concept of acceptable worshipers outside of the Mosaic arrangement (Deut.4:6-8; 12:11; 16:6; Ps.147:19,20; Am.3:1-2; Rom.10:2-3). Those who wanted to worship Jehovah could only do so through the temple at Jerusalem (2King.17:29-33/Jn.4:19-22). This was the only provision made for proselytes to approach Jehovah (2Chron.6:19-42; Jn.4:22; Acts 8:27; Rom.3:1-2). Every pertinent Scriptural statement shows that, outside the Mosaic arrangement, non-Israelites could approach God for the first time only through the Christian arrangement (Col.1:21-2; 22:13-14).

While God did make an arrangement for any outsiders to become true worshipers, there was no need for a worldwide proselytism. It cannot be concluded from this that God accepted the worship of those outside his approved arrangement. Any such conclusion would contradict Scripture which specifically states otherwise. God simply allowed nations to go their own way without interference while provision was made for all these "ignorant" ones to become true worshipers in the future resurrection.

>[MS]: 2. Regarding blood, the text of Leviticus 17:11, 12 EXPRESSLY states TWO elements joined together as THE reason for WHY Jehovah stated higher requirements to Israel than He did to Noah. The two elements being 1) because of the already established metaphorical usage of blood for life and 2) because with the Mosaic Law God for the first time required blood to be used for sacred atonement sacrifices.<

You are still ASSUMING the Mosaic Law contained "higher requirements" regarding blood. This is because you ignore the Scriptural fact that requirements were perceived from principles. While detailed requirements were now explicitly spelled out by Law, there were no "higher" requirements regarding blood which were not already inherent in the Noachian mandate and its foundation principles. Humans already knew that since blood was sacred it could not be used without God's express permission. Again, "blood" is not used here as a metaphor. It denotes the substance blood while "soul" denotes life.

However, I will admit that I have to correct my terminology here concerning my use of the words "reason" and "basis" as synonyms. After re-examining the text and referring to about a dozen commentaries I will also modify my comments and concede that, although debatable, it is possible to grammatically understand two *reasons* here for the Mosaic Laws on blood. The conjunction "and" (W) in verse 11 can either serve to join two coordinate clauses indicating two reasons, or it can be used to introduce blood's use on the altar as a separate thought and a result--not a reason.

While the grammar can allow either view, arguing for the later view is: 1.) the fact that in the third clause "life being in the blood" is explicitly stated to be the reason (KiY) for blood's use on the alter. 2.) While they could not eat or use any blood, not all animal blood had to be used on the altar but only the blood of sacrificial animals. 3.) When the law is repeated in verses 13,14 concerning blood of game animals the only reason given for pouring blood on the ground is due to the life being in the blood. And, 4.) in the parallel Scripture the life being in the blood is the only reason given and its use in sacrifice is simply a separate thought resulting from blood's sanctity (De.12:23ff).

However, many commentators have recognized either two reasons, one reason and a basis for that reason, or as you do, one reason with two elements. These are: 1.) The sanctity of blood as life repeated from Gen.9:4, and 2.) the use of blood for atonement sacrifices. But, as noted by several Hebrew scholars, one thing explicit is that the two "elements" are not equal since the text clearly states that blood's sanctity was the *principle reason* as well as the *basis* for blood's use on the alter. The *basis* was exactly the same principle made clear in Genesis: "because the life is in the blood."

The Hebrew scholars Keil and Delitzsch comment:

"In vers. 1-14 the prohibition of the eating of blood is repeated...and after a more precise explanation of the reason for the law, is supplemented by instructions for the disposal of the blood of edible game...The reason for the command in ver. 11, "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls," is not a double one, viz. (1.) because the blood contained the soul of the animal, and (2) because God had set apart the blood, as the medium of expiation for the human soul, for the altar. The first reason simply forms the foundation for the second: God appointed the blood for the altar, as containing the soul of the animal, to be the medium of expiation for the souls of men, and therefore prohibited its being used as food....The purpose of the command was to prevent the desecration of the vehicle of the soulish life...Because the distinguishing characteristic of the blood was, that it was the soul of the being when living in the flesh."

As I pointed out in my previous post, the explicit *basis* for the laws prohibiting the use of blood is exactly the same as given Noah, i.e., blood's sanctity as life. Since animal sacrifices are now made mandatory, blood's use on the altar can possibly be understood as a reason though only a *secondary* one.

There is absolutely no cause to believe that we have two equal reasons or a new basis for the Mosaic Law on blood. We have ONE basis which is explicitly cited as the reason blood was used in sacrifices. Notice the particle KIY again (17:11, 14). These verses four times state that they are not to eat or use blood BECAUSE life is in the blood-and God has placed blood on the alter to atone for their souls BECAUSE life is in the blood (Cf. De.12:23). We have one and only one basis for not using blood *and* for blood's use on the altar. It is exactly the same basis given to Noah for the prohibition against eating blood!!

A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, based on the Lexicon of William Gesenius and edited by three clergymen, Drs. Brown, Driver and Briggs, in its corrected edition of 1952. On page 659, "3. The néfesh...whose life resides in the blood...(*HENCE* sacrificial use of blood, and its prohibition in other uses)." [my emphasis].

"To blood is ascribed in Scripture the mysterious sacredness which belongs to life, and God reserved it to himself when allowing man the dominion over and the use of the lower animals for food. Thus reserved, it acquires a double power: (1) that of sacrificial atonement; and (2)..."-Smith's Bible Dictionary

Therefore, arguing for two elements to the reason does not support your position. Blood being placed on the altar would not be a reason for, or cause, "higher requirements" than those already inherent in the controlling principle enunciated to Noah. This is because blood being placed on the altar did not make it sacred but was only the *result* of its being sacred as life. Blood's use on the altar would not, in itself, prevent people from eating it or using it (cf. grains, animal flesh, wine, water, etc.). The *only* basis for the Law preventing people from using blood at all was due to its being life and only God's, i.e., sacred. And these reasons for blood's sanctity were already stated and present from Noah's time.

>>[RR]: So, scripturally, there is no way to separate the Noachian and Mosaic mandates, or to see a change in the sacredness or use of blood. From Abel's sacrifice to the Apostolic Decree, every Scriptural mention of blood use places it in exactly the same sacred position. Added features of the Law code changed nothing in regard to sacredness or how blood was disposed of or used.<<

Yours,

Ron Rhoades