you admitted that "Sometimes, unbled meat could be eaten"
You take me out of context. And you misrepresent what I stated. Let me elaborate. I also said in the post prior to that one: accidental eating, and I also said provision for restoration in connection with a Jew eating a dead animal. I also referenced the allowed selling of dead animals to non-Jews. I also said to you later on in our discussion that intentional eating of dead animals by an Israelite carried the death penalty. What I meant to say in the specific posts that you are referring to is that there is a difference between eating blood and eating a dead animal that was not slaughtered and bled.That is what I was focusing on in these posts. Sometimes an unbled animal could be eaten. A Jew could sell it to a foreigner and by God allowing the Jew to sell it to the foreigner, God was also allowing the foreigner to eat it. However, at no time can any man eat blood -Jew or foreigner- I referenced Lev 17:10 in the post. That is all that I was trying to say. I also meant to say that a Jew could eat an unbled dead animal sometimes and not incur the death penalty-when it was not intentional- with the provision for restoration that we discussed, the ceremonial washing.
You like to conclude that there is no difference between eating blood and eating an unbled animal and that there is no PENALTY for intentionally violating God's law -only a ceremonial wash.