My intent on this thread has simply been to illustrate the impropriety of lifting one law out of an entire body of law and interpreting it outside of the framework in which it was given.
It appears to me that in-spite of you stating your intentions as stated above, your posts on this thread do not illustrate that the The OT laws on blood (substance of this thread), or on idolatry, etc. are integrated with the other framework of laws that were given to Israel at Sinai (or any other framework of laws that you might be referring to) and therefore should only and can only be interpreted within the ambit of the related framework. It seems to me that you have not shown that on this thread. Besides that, Christian school of thought disagrees with you and you evidently know and understand xtian theology better (in my opinion) than most "xtians"
Because of the limitations of language, it is not at all unusual for circumstances to create conflicts between two or more individual requirements within any given body of law. This is true in both secular law and Jewish law and I brought up Jesus' reasoning on the Sabbath only to illustrate how those conflicts are ethically resolved.
Language has its limits in secular law but language did not limit the understanding of God's Word to Israel and the limits of language was not the case in Jesus' reasoning on the Sabbath except that for 400 years (since Nehemiah) there was silence, no Word from Jehovah, no Biblical record of any communication between Jehovah and the Jews which had always been the case since Jehovah spoke to Moses and throughout the Nation's history...... ( Malachi 2:7 . . .For the lips of a priest should safeguard knowledge, and people should seek the law from his mouth, because he is the messenger of Jehovah of armies. ) And so for 400 years subjugated Israel, having no monarchy and no prophets was not abandoned, they had the Kohanim and Jehovah's Holy Spirit to guide them. And that is why according to Christianity Jehovah's angel broke the silence after 400 years when he spoke to Zechariah-the priest; (not some Pharisee) The Pharisees had usurped the authority of the priests. TD I do not want to go out on a tangent but I would like to point out that every mechanical device even Jewish law (not actually the law but the Jews) needs adjustment from time to time, and after 400 years it should be expected that Israel needed as usual- adjustment FROM GOD: thus came Jesus the talking horse.
God has told you in plain and simple, black and white, clear and unambiguous, easy to understand terms that you cannot cause the death of an innocent human being. This includes acts of omission as well as commission.
Intentionally or not, your posts on this thread allude to Rabbinical application of Leviticus 18:5 and Numbers 15:32.
WT does not see it like that in your statement quoted above when it apples to BT.
Please don't reflexively reply, "God's Law on Blood."
I did not do that. I put quotation marks in front of the wt teaching to show that that is what the wt interprets (that is where the limit of language that you have pointed out applies and requires or warrants a talking horse) about blood transfusions but not that such teaching ( BT= violating God's Law) has been established as such in our discussion, that is another subject matter although I agree your pointing this out is relevant in our discussion, however, your posts on this thread assume that it is God's Law and focus on application, and my response to you also is in the context of application assume that it is God's Law. If blood transfusions do not violate God's law then any discussion about the application of a nonexistent law is moot.
IT is late. I am tired.