To the Household of God, Israel, and all those who go with... may you have peace!
On occasion we get into discussions about the blood speaking. That sometimes leads to comments (usually from me, sorry), about the bones: spirit (life) is in the blood... marrow manufactures blood... and marrow is in the bones. There are several scriptures/verses that give clues, if not outright comment, to this. A recent discussion about the blood speaking lead to some questions. It also led to some thinking that perhaps some of us here are the only ones who believes the blood speaks. That is not the case, though. I think I shared with you all that some used to think (and perhaps some still do, based on a recent article about the unrest in Syria) that when one drank the blood/ate the heart of another human or some beast, they were taking the spirit of that person/beast into them, along with their strengths, prowess, skill, wisdom, etc. Their desirable attributes.
Today I was reminded by my Lord that not only do others believe the blood speaks... but the bones, as well. Hence, for millenia various native/tribal peoples around the earth... as well as ancient to modern diviners... believe bones speak. Hence... the "casting" and "reading"... of bones.
Of course, most believe this to be superstitious religious folklore and they are right, for the most part. Per my Lord, bone reading is the result of millenia of misunderstanding: over millenia people have looked to the BONES to speak... because they don't understand that it is not the bones themselves but what they MAKE... blood... that speaks. Due to their close connection, however, the TRUTH (that blood alone speaks) got lost and replaced by the error (that the bones that MAKE blood speak).
Now, even dry bones can contain enough blood/DNA to speak, yes...
but apparently NOT when they've been cremated. Here is some interesting information from Genebase.com:
Quote:
"... ashes do not contain DNA as the DNA is destroyed during cremation. Even if there are bone fragments in the ashes, the fragments will not have intact DNA left due to the high temperatures present during the cremation process." (Emphases mine.)
http://www.genebase.com/support/index.p ... icleid=288Interesting. Especially when we have the account of Nebuchadnezzar and his attempts to burn Daniel, Hananiah, Azaraiah, and Mishael. Per the account, he ordered the fire to be made SO hot, the men outside the furnace were annihilated. So, he was trying to COMPLETELY burn them... even their bones... leaving nothing but ashes. Now, wonder why he wanted to do THAT? As I shared with you before, he ordered it that hot because he was trying to destroy their spirits... which spirit is in the blood and bones.
What about blood transfusions? When one takes another's blood into their body does the donor's DNA replace the recipient's (which may be the fear underlying the WTBTS' prohibition against taking blood)? The answer is usually no, but not necessarily. This is because people are usually only given (packed) RED blood cells, which don't contain DNA or nuclei. What if they're given WHOLE blood, though? DNA is present in white blood cells (leukocytes) "at a rate of about a billion cells per pint." Even blood components that have been filtered to remove donor white cells "can have millions of leukocytes per unit." And donor DNA can stay in a recipients blood for up to 1.5 years.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ansfustionWhat of bone MARROW transplants? Since the reason FOR a bone marrow transplant is the recipients marrow is failing, any replacement marrow is more than likely to take over, at least in some tissue:
Quote:
In the case of bone marrow, a DNA test from a blood sample would match the donor while a test from hair or saliva would match the recipient. The recipient would also have the blood type of the donor if they did not already match. (Emphases mine.)
http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers ... hp?id=6352[NOTE: There are several other websites where information can be found about the effect of blood transfusions/bone marrow transplants on a recipient's DNA.]
Don't get me wrong, though -
my point, here, is NOT to speak against blood transfusions OR bone marrow transplants. Not at ALL. Because at least in each case...
there IS DNA... regardless of whose: the recipient's and/or the donor's. But DNA all the same.
However, that
doesn't seem to be the case with cremation. There... NO DNA remains. None. Zippo. Zilch. Not even in bone fragments... or teeth. And so, as dear tec (peace, luv!), once posted... perhaps the only thing "left" of such person is what can be found in their baby teeth. If such still exist.
If you are curious, then, as to "what" will be used to resurrect (in the flesh, and so in the "second" resurrection) those who have died... this information might be of some assistance. Might not.
But just some truths to share with you all, that's all. No message as to what one "should" or "should not" do. Just some information, in case anyone was curious. Because information is good. Truth(FUL information)... is better.
Again, peace to you ALL!
YSSFS of Christ,
Shellama