However, to say "the life is in the blood thereof" is limiting in a way that raises questions about what that line actually means. For example, I know there are instances when total transfusions are required for medical reasons. This alone makes me question any limiting of life(spirit) to an intra-body PHYSICAL carrier (blood).
If I were to say, "the red blood cells are in the blood thereof" you would say, "Yes, but...."
Erythropoiesis is the development process in which new erythrocytes are produced, through which each cell matures in about 7 days. Through this process erythrocytes are continuously produced in the red bone marrow of large bones, at a rate of about 2 million per second in a healthy adult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_blood_cell#Life_cycleSo, red blood cells are also found in the bones. That doesn't mean that "red blood cells are in the blood thereof" is wrong. It isn't. It just isn't the total story.
I don't see anything in the verse: "the life is in the blood thereof" to say to me that that is the total story. And especially so since we are talking about "spirit" and "physical."
So, we would be wrong to attack eagle eye for a legitimate effort to correct scripture. We would also be wise to determine if that interpretation is partial or complete.
I would suggest looking at ‘life is in the blood’ as a true or false statement.
I’ll go with true because God had it put there in the scriptures.
Any nit picking and hair splitting on my part will lean towards the ‘true’ selection, not making the statement false.
And yes, I’m very aware of the significance of blood in the Bible from representing life to its part in convenents.
Although I’ve been accused of it, I’ve never said that abortion is anything but wrong.
But I don’t believe that the Bible supports it always as murder.
I’m pretty sure that it can be wrong and not be murder although some have specifically told me that if it isn’t murder then it isn’t wrong.
While the life is in the blood is true, it does not necessarily mean that without blood there is no life or that with blood there is always life.
There is plenty of life that exists that has no blood but is living and growing.
Likewise there are bodies of those who have died, which still have blood in them.
By the reasoning of the argument that the life is in the blood therefore a fetus cannot be considered alive because it has no blood, any thing that doesn't have blood in it is not alive, it only has the appearance of life, and then any body which appears to be dead that still has blood in it, can't be declared dead after all, it must be alive.
The *logic* fails miserably.