how vs why One distinction about the blood from an animal found dead is that it could not be poured out. Another distinction is that if an Israelite ate a dead unbled carcass he became ceremonially unclean by doing so.
But all of the law needs to be considered not just the verses that you like with your explanations about them.
30 “‘But the person who does something deliberately, whether he is native-born or a foreign resident, is blaspheming Jehovah and must be cut off from among his people.
21 “You must not eat any animal that was found dead. You may give it to the foreign resident who is inside your cities, and he may eat it, or it may be sold to a foreigner. For you are a holy people to Jehovah your God.
31 “You should prove yourselves holy people to me, and you must not eat the flesh of anything in the field that has been torn by a wild animal. You should throw it to the dogs.
You have not shown that blood is not sacred to God. You have only shown in your argument that blood from a creature that is not slaughtered for food should not be -based on your argument.
Again, you conclude in your argument that blood is not sacred to God. Your argument does not show that. Lev 17 shows that an animal slaughtered for food must be drained of its blood before it can be eaten. It also shows that if an unbled animal is eaten by an Israelite, he is required to bathe ceremonially. Nothing is said about blood not being sacred to God. You conclude that in you argument. It does not say that you can take any sort of blood and eat it or do anything with it. You confuse your conclusions from what you read in Bible from what the text says. You do that in every thread even as the venetator of theory of evolution that you worship- but that is another topic. Your reconciliaton of scriptures and all the other trash that you post is only your opinion and nothing more.
Why is cofty's commentary trash? Please answer that since I have shown that?