18 Then these three fought their way through the camp of the Philistines, and drew water from the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David. But David would not drink it, and poured it out to the glory of the Lord;

19 And he said, 'The Lord preserve me, that I may do this!' Will I drink the blood of these men who laid down their lives? For at the risk of their own lives they brought water. And he did not want to drink it. This is what these three brave men did.

In almost the same words, we can read about this event in 2 Samuel 23:14-17.

What can be seen from here? The valiant soldiers, knowing that their king and military commander was thirsty, risked their lives to make their way through the enemy's camp and collected water for David. David did not drink the water, because he believed that the soldiers had obtained water at great risk to their lives. He compared the price of this water with the price of the lives of these warriors. Blood is a symbol of life, which is why David said: "Will I drink the blood of these men who laid down their lives? For at the risk of their own lives they brought water." Not drinking the water, David poured it out, praising God. This passage shows what valiant warriors David had, and how he treated them, with respect and care - David did not use the water delivered and did not reward his soldiers for delivering it, considering it an unjustified risk, although he spoke of the soldiers with great respect, as the Bible tells us.

The anonymous authors of the article took advantage of the similarity - both the blood of the animal killed for food and the water poured out by David poured out on the ground. A very bold parallel! Let them answer the question then. Where could David have poured the water, if he wanted to pour it out, but not on the ground? Except for a water source, but in this case there would be no need to go to the well for water. Perhaps Jehovah's Witnesses were the first to have such an idea, since in the edition of the Bible,78 where parallel passages are indicated, there is no parallel passage to verse 18 that speaks of the pouring out of blood on the ground of an animal killed for food.

In [24] immediately after the above quotation there is the following reasoning:

"Since the donor does not die, and no life is lost, why do the biblical prohibitions turn to transfusions? Let us return to the answer to the preceding question, and ask the question: Did any of the three men who came with the water for David die? No. But did David see this as an explanation that would allow him to drink the water he regarded as human blood? No. The death of the creature giving blood does not matter. The prohibition was about taking blood into the body, and this simple fact cannot be changed by inventive reasoning and subtle worldly wisdom."

It seems to me that there is no need to comment here.

***

The entire logic of Jehovah's Witnesses, which is based on the Bible and prohibits blood transfusions, is based on the identification of transfusions of blood or its components, which are made into a vein, and the eating of blood. This question has already been discussed above.

The booklet How Can Blood Save Your Life? states:

"Contrary to the reasoning of some today, God's law on blood could not be disregarded, even in cases of extreme necessity. Thus, during the most difficult time of the war, some Israeli soldiers killed animals, and "ate the people with blood." Was it permissible to maintain life with blood in view of this extreme necessity? No. Their military commander pointed out that this behavior was completely wrong (1 Samuel 14:31-35). Therefore, no matter how precious life is, our Life-Giver has never said that in case of emergency, his norms can be neglected."

Let's see what the book of 1 Samuel says.

First there is a story about how Jonathan, the son of Saul, with the help of God, defeated the Philistine army. Further: