That is your belief and if you like it, believe it.
Invoking a partial predicate as an independent construction is grammatically incorrect. That is not a matter of subjective belief.
Now, may I ask you, what error do you believe that I made?
In English, "abstain" is intransitive. It does not take a direct object and neither does it transfer action from subject to object. When the word, "abstain" is used in connection with a finite act, it negates that act. "Abstain from fornication" is a semantic equivalent to, "Do not fornicate."
"Blood" is not a finite act though. Blood is a physical object and therefore does not have a verb form. When the word, "abstain" is used in connection with a physical object, like blood, a transitive verb is necessary to transfer action from subject to object and complete the thought.
What would it mean to, "abstain from boat?" What would it mean to, "abstain from sky?" What would it mean to "abstain from shrubbery?" What would it mean to, "abstain from crankshaft?" Can you state any of these phrases as finite negatives without inserting a transitive verb?
The simple fact is, you can't And that's why these phrases are nonsensical. There is no such thing as abstinence from a physical object. We abstain from acts done in connection with objects and not the objects themselves.
Therefore abstinence in connection with an object is not, as you assert above, a matter of degree. It is a matter of, "what." And the, "what" is determined by the context of the sentence of which the "abstain from" phrase forms a part.
"Her obstetrician said, 'Pregnant women should abstain from alcohol.'"
"His dermatologist said, 'Persons with sensitive skin should abstain from alcohol.'"
Even though both physicians have said, "abstain from alcohol," they are clearly not talking about the same thing. The former would be a reference to the consumption of alcoholic beverages, while the latter would be a reference to the topical application of alcohol. There is no reason why a man with sensitive skin could not drink a Martini. There is no reason why a pregnant woman could not use a perfume or antiseptic containing alcohol.
Again, there is no such thing as abstinence from a physical object and it is grammatically incorrect to pretend that there is. We abstain from acts done in connection with objects and those acts are determined by the context.
And can you show me please, where do you believe that I quoted or "misquoted" the Bible?
The phrase in Greek is, "άπεχεσθαι.....και αιματοϛ"
Infinitive use of the middle voice is interesting here, don't you think? In English, there are two ways that literal translations handle this:
Newer versions of the NWT render it, "To keep abstaining....from blood" (Emphasis mine) The thought of continuance of an existing command is a minority viewpoint among Bible scholars, but this rendering still falls within the parameters of acceptable translation.
Older versions (1961 and earlier) of the NWT render the phrase, "To keep yourselves free...from blood"
The RSV renders the phrase: "That you abstain...from blood"
In the middle voice, initiator of action and recipient of action are one and the same. The thought in these renderings is that the Christian is policing himself (Or herself) in response to council, admonition, etc., but not an actual command. This is the majority viewpoint among Bible scholars today and the reason why the word, "abstain" is overwhelmingly favored in English translations in the first place.
The fundamental meaning of "abstain" and its synonyms (i.e. Refrain, Forbear, etc.) is to keep or prevent yourself from doing or saying something and the authority here is internal rather than external. If you omit the prefatory words and the ellipses, you are indeed misquoting the Bible because nobody renders the phrase that simplistically.
And by the way, can you also tell me please what did I mean by "it" each time I used it in my statement that you are referring to?
If the antecedent to, "It" was not the Bible, but some other source that purports to represent the Bible (i.e. JW literature) I would say that the concatenation is clear enough that you are probably splitting hairs here.
If you were not referring to the Bible either directly or indirectly when you said, "In all objectivity, not just how the WT interprets it, it says to abstain from blood" then please elaborate. What were you referring to and why should anyone (JW or not) care?