Delta,
We are talking about Saul here, who at that time already starting to annoy God. But even he realised that eating blood was wrong, very wrong. And this is just one example of the many in the OT where it says that eating any kind of blood is a sin. But so far we have only talked about eating, what about transfusion?
What was the penalty for eating blood under the Law? Was this penalty exacted from Saul's army? Why or why not?
So we are to abstain from blood. Suppose we were talking about a medicine. When it says we should abstain from this medicine, does that mean we shouldnt eat it, but we can inject it into our bloodstream. No! As I said before (and maybe made more clearer now) pumping stuff into your blood is more radical then eating, so when you are not allowed to eat it you are definatly not allowed to pump it into your bloodstream.
Like the JW's have often done in the past, you are invoking a partial predicate apart from the context that completes it. This is not, strictly speaking, grammatical in either language.
The intransitive verb, "abstain" can neither take a direct object nor transfer action from subject to object. An additional verb or verb phrase is required to make the transition and complete the thought.
What this means in practical terms is that there is no such thing as abstinence from a physical object. Instead, we only abstain from finite acts done in connection with objects. For example, while you can abstain from tearing paper, or writing on paper or wasting paper, the phrase "abstain from paper" is meaningless in and of itself. There is no transition of action between subject and object.
I can easily demonstrate this difference using the Apostolic Decree itself. In contrast to the other three objects on the list, "fornication" is the name of an act and therefore has a verb form. Therefore it is easy to state what it means to "abstain from fornication" as a simple finite negative without having to insert additional words:
"Do not fornicate"
Can you do the same with the blood abstention?
"Do not ___________"
Obviously this cannot be done, which is why many translations make an interpolation here by inserting the contextually supported verbs, "eating" or "tasting." (e.g. Moffat, Phillips Modern English, Today's English Version)
Of couse English is not the language of the Bible, but the problem is basically the same. As the infinitive form of the present, middle indicative, apechomai, apechesthai does not transfer action either.
Grammar aside, I think you are still equivocating, this time with a false analogy.
There are, for example certain liver diseases where the patient may not eat meat. This was the case with the football player, Walter Peyton, who lived on bananas for the last few years of his life because his physicians had told him to abstain from eating meat.
Therefore consider a man who has been told to abstain from meat. Would he be acting in obedience to that command if he subsequently accepted a liver transplant?
This question may sound ludicrous, but so is the illustration involving medicine. You have for all intents and purposes asked the exact same question:
It is a comparison that relies on the acceptance of an equality between human tissue and the simple compounds that make up medicines. I reject this out of hand as a false analogy. Human tissue continues to function as human tissue after the transplant. Such is also the case with blood. Therefore it is not analogous to compounds that are simply absorbed by the body regardless of the method of egress