It is my position that every mention of blood in the bible can be reconciled with reference to the following principle.
"Blood was sacred insofar as it represented a life that had been taken by a human"
Fisherman has used five isolated texts in an attempt to refute this position. These texts are considered below along with their context and relevance to the topic.
“You are to be my holy people. So do not eat the meat of an animal torn by wild beasts; throw it to the dogs."
Exodus 22:31
Firstly this prohibition is about cleanness not blood - "you are to be my holy people". Actions that caused uncleanness were not all in the same category as crimes that resulted in death. I will return to this below when we look at Deuteronomy.
Secondly and more importantly an animal that had been torn by wild beasts has clearly been bled.
Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. - Leviticus 18:24-28
It is really difficult to understand why you thought this had anything to do with the topic.
Leviticus 18 is a list of prohibited sexual relationships. Gdo says that the land had become defiled by the sexual practices of the Canaanites and the Israelites must be careful not to imitate their ways. Citing this chapter in the context of our conversation about blood is very strange.
He must not eat anything found dead or torn by wild animals, and so become unclean through it. I am the Lord. - Leviticus 22:8
Leviticus 22 is addressed only to Aaron and his sons. It is a list of additional restrictions that apply to the priesthood in view of their sacred duties at the Tabernacle. They are not allowed to do their work if they have touched a dead body or somebody with a skin disease or a crawling insect or lots of other normal things. None of these things are a crime. The only crime was if they didn't observe the purification ritual before serving as a priest. The fact that the priests were specifically not allowed to eat an animal found already dead is further evidence that other non-priests were permitted.
But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or foreigner, blasphemes the Lord and must be cut off from the people of Israel. Because they have despised the Lord’s word and broken his commands, they must surely be cut off; their guilt remains on them. - Numbers 15:30,31
Again it is very difficult what you thought this had to do with the discussion about blood. The previous verses are about how to deal with unintentional sins. Then these two verses contrast the situation with somebody who sins intentionally. They are to be "cut off". These verses don't add anything to the conversation about blood. It goes without saying that deliberately breaking god's law about blood was a serious crime. But first we have to understand god's law on blood.
Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to the foreigner residing in any of your towns, and they may eat it, or you may sell it to any other foreigner. But you are a people holy to the Lord your God. - Deut. 14:21
Of the five verses you referred to this is the only one that is interesting. The context is Moses' restating of the law following the wilderness years. This was 40 years after Leviticus. Most of Deuteronomy is copy-paste of Leviticus but there are some interesting differences and comments. Nothing that Moses says contradicts Leviticus but he does admonish the nation to be holy.
There were many ordinary things that resulted in uncleanness. Menstruation, skin disease, having sex with your wife, giving birth, burying a dead animal, eating an animal found already dead and more. None of these things were a crime or a sin but some were more avoidable than others. Moses identifies eating an animal found already dead as something that can reasonably be avoided in the interests of holiness.
Notice Moses' new instruction - "sell it to a foreigner". If the blood of an animal found already dead was sacred then this would be a very strange instruction. If the blood represented the life of the dead beast then it must be buried with the animal returning it to god.
Moses' instruction here is perfectly consistent with Lev.11 and Lev.17. The blood of an animal found already dead has no sacred significance since nobody took the life and therefore nobody can return it to god. The only issue is that eating the animal makes the person temporarily unclean. Leviticus gives permission to eat the animal with the proviso that the Israelite must bathe and change their garments. Forty years later Moses goes further and admonishes them to void unnecessary uncleanness and sell the carcass to a foreigner who was not under the law.
Fishy - I have now dealt thoroughly with all five of the verses you used to try to refute my argument.
It is now your task to explain why Lev.17 classes killing an animal and eating it unbled as a serious crime but eating the unbled flesh of an animal found already dead as nothing but a temporary inconvenience.
