How would you argue with a JW on the bit that said "abstain from blood" in the NT? that doesn't mention eating so is harder to argue against
LOL. It doesn't say "Transfusion" either.
Actually, JW's who invoke this phrase in support of the transfusion medicine taboo are committing a grammatical error.
In both English and Greek, the phrase is incomplete.
In English, "Abstan" is intransitive and "Blood" cannot be it's direct object.
For example, if I were to say, "Abstain from hard liquor" you would understand me to be telling you not to DRINK it.
The source for the verb DRINK is the context of the statement.
If I were to say, "Abstain from junk food" you would understand me to be telling you not to EAT it.
The source for the verb EAT is the context of the statment.
"Abstain" negates ACTION even when that action is unstated. There is no such thing as negation of a noun.
For example, what would it mean if I were to say, "Abstain from crankshaft" or "Abstain from telephone" or "Abstain from sky?" When an ACTION cannot be derived from the context, "Abstain from" phrases are gibberish.
IN CONTEXT, the phrase "keep abstaining....from blood" is a reference to EATING IT because the eating of blood as forbidden in the Mosaic Law is the backdrop against which the statement was made.
JW's who invoke a partial predicate apart from the context which completes it are simply ignorant.