Originally posted by galveston75
Of course not. The word abstain is there and the meaning of that word is crystal clear.

There is no reason to believe that the word "abstain" means refuse to give a blood transfusion. And now you have admitted that "blood transfusion" is not mentioned in the bible. When it is obviously just your own interpretation, it doesn't really mean much to people who disagree with your interpretation when you simply gainsay them and claim it is "crystal clear".

Originally posted by galveston75
Abstain means exactly what God meant it to mean.

Here is a little help:

Synonyms: abjure, abnegate, avoid, cease, constrain, curb, decline, deny oneself, do without, eschew, evade, fast, fence-sit, forbear, forgo, give the go by, give up, go on the wagon, keep from, pass, pass up, quit, refrain, refuse, renounce, shun, sit on one's hands, sit on ...[text shortened]... ithdraw
Notes: avert means 'prevent, turn away' and avoid means 'stay clear of, shun'

And how about this version - do you just write it off as a bad translation?

Acts 15:28“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these few requirements: 29You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell.” (NLT)

The blood is specifically that of strangled animals. It has zip to do with a procedure that would not even be invented for another 1600 years.

Even if you pick a translation where the blood is cordoned off by a comma:

That you abstain from anything offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if you keep yourselves, you shall do well. Farewell. (KJV)

In 'context', you have a futuristic procedure mixed in with a bunch of commonly known things of that time. In most writing, we wouldn't think that the author suddenly started talking about the distant future in a sentence that was otherwise aimed at practices of the current day. Sure, God could suddenly wax prophetic in mid-sentence, but I'd like to think that he is a better writer than that.

Originally posted by galveston75
28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these few requirements: 29 You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell.”

Luke here confirms the very same law that God told Noah. There has been no change in that law from God up to this day.
Until God tells us differently, we are to "abstain" from blood.

The text you quoted doesn't say "abstain from blood". You decided to leave a word out of the text. It says abstain from "consuming blood". A transfusion is not "consuming" blood. I suppose that's the reason you omitted the word.

Originally posted by FMF
[b]Luke here confirms the very same law that God told Noah. There has been no change in that law from God up to this day.
Until God tells us differently, we are to "abstain" from blood.

The text you quoted doesn't say "abstain from blood". You decided to leave a word out of the text. It says abstain from "consuming blood". A transfusion is not "consuming" blood. I suppose that's the reason you omitted the word.[/b]

I didn't omit anything. That scriptures version is from the New Living Translation.

Here is another version from another bible. Each bible if you haven't noticed does use different fraises..


Acts 15:28-29
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

28 `For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, no more burden to lay upon you, except these necessary things:

29 to abstain from things offered to idols, and blood, and a strangled thing, and whoredom; from which keeping yourselves, ye shall do well; be strong!'

Happy now?

Originally posted by galveston75
I didn't omit anything.

Yes you did. You omitted the word "consuming".

Here is what you quoted, verbatim: "29 You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality."

And then when you rendered it in your own words you said 'we are to "abstain" from blood', omitting the word "consuming".

Originally posted by FMF
Yes you did. You omitted the word "consuming".

Here is what you quoted, verbatim: [b]"29 You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality."

And then when you rendered it in your own words you said 'we are to "abstain" from blood', omitting the word "consuming".[/b]

I answered you clearly and WILL NOT get into this silly word game that you ALWAYS play.

The point is God said to abstain from blood. He gave no exceptions, period. So if you really want to know why he said that and the health and spiritual reasons I can give you the links for that.
Other wise I WILL NOT play this childish game with you that you are so famously known for.

Your decision....

Originally posted by SwissGambit
And how about this version - do you just write it off as a bad translation?[quote]Acts 15:28“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these few requirements: 29You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, y ...[text shortened]... y wax prophetic in mid-sentence, but I'd like to think that he is a better writer than that.

Every bible translation says to "abstain" one way or another. Anyone with reading comprehension will understand what is being said by God.

Originally posted by galveston75
I answered you clearly and WILL NOT get into this silly word game that you ALWAYS play.

You reckon it's my word game?

The scripture you quoted:

"29 You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality."

Then you typed: 'we are to "abstain" from blood'.

Notice you omitted the word consuming.

It is your word game, not mine.

Originally posted by galveston75
"I.e. why don't you abstain from your own blood!"

Whaty kind of question is this?

The same type of question as "why do you not abstain from blood transfusions?" (presumably one of the founders of your cult asked himself this one). I.e. a question that should look completely f***ing retarded to the person who is being asked (yet for some reason, JW quality control on stupidity failed in this instance)

Originally posted by galveston75
I answered you clearly and WILL NOT get into this silly word game that you ALWAYS play.

The point is God said to abstain from blood. He gave no exceptions, period. So if you really want to know why he said that and the health and spiritual reasons I can give you the links for that.
Other wise I WILL NOT play this childish game with you that you are so famously known for.

Your decision....

The point is God said to abstain from blood. He gave no exceptions, period.
But your own blood would be an exception, yet "G"od is supposed to have said there are NO exceptions! So why do you defy your "G"od by not abstaining from it?

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]The point is God said to abstain from blood. He gave no exceptions, period.
But your own blood would be an exception, yet "G"od is supposed to have said there are NO exceptions! So why do you defy your "G"od by not abstaining from it?[/b]

I have no exceptions at all. No blood will ever be transfused into my body...

Originally posted by galveston75
I have no exceptions at all. No blood will ever be transfused into my body...

it doesn't say "abstain from blood transfusions" it says "abstain from blood" the latter of which would include your own blood (transfusion or not). You defy your "G"od Galveston

Originally posted by galveston75
I have no exceptions at all. No blood will ever be transfused into my body...

I don't think the fact that no blood will ever be transfused into your body is in dispute. It is your justification for such a 'rule' that is under discussion.

Originally posted by Agerg
it doesn't say "abstain from blood transfusions" it says "abstain from blood" the latter of which would include your own blood (transfusion or not). You defy your "G"od Galveston

Lets think about this for a minute and see if you can connect the principles here.

The Bible says to abstain from blood, but it does not use the word transfusion which of corse did not exist then, correct?

The Bible says not to murder, but it does not use the word gun which of course did not exist then, correct?

The Bible says to not steal, but it does not use the word identity theft which of course did not exist then, correct?

The Bible says not to kill, but the term suicide bomber did not exist then, correct?

The Bible says not to commit fornication or adultry, but the term swingers of course did not exist then, correct?

Etc, etc. Get the point here at all?

Originally posted by galveston75
Lets think about this for a minute and see if you can connect the principles here.

The Bible says to abstain from blood, but it does not use the word transfusion which of corse did not exist then, correct?

The Bible says not to murder, but it does not use the word gun which of course did not exist then, correct?

The Bible says to not steal, ...[text shortened]... term swingers of course did not exist then, correct?

Etc, etc. Get the point here at all?

and playing the same game as you, the bible apparently said "abstain from blood" but it does not use the word "anti-self-exsanguination"Reveal Hidden Contentwhich of course didn't exist back then, Correct?

So again...why not abstain from your own blood?