Why can't Christians say that parts of the Old Testament don't apply??..

[DeistPaladin]

I've underlined part of your statement above and I think you are confused about a miscarriage, a miscarriage never result in the baby living.

Not so much confused as familiar with the apology that the verse refers to a premature birth which might or might not produce a living baby. Besides the fact that no modern translation that I'm familiar with translates it as "premature birth" but rather as "miscarriage", there's the part about "foot for foot, burn for burn, stripe for stripe, eye for eye" etc. How many premature births feature babies with missing feet and yet they survive? Or whip marks (stripe)? Or missing eyes? Or burns?

The passage is about damage done to the woman, who might actually suffer burns, stripes or missing eyes and feet as a result of the assault upon her.

Incidentally, I would ask you where you got your degree in ancient Hebrew. Can you go into detail here on why the passage is about premature births and not a miscarriage and how modern translators seem to have gotten it wrong?

As for the last supper that wine was symbolic and there are many symbolic passages in the NT.

So you're not sinning, you're just acting out a sin and pretending to commit it? That hardly seems like sound theology, since Jesus spoke out against committing sins in the mind as well as in practice. Jesus on the mount said that those who lust after women in their hearts or commit hateful acts toward others in their mind have also sinned.

The nature of the OT condemnation of the consumption of sacrificial blood is strong and unambiguous. It should also preclude pretending to do so.

Again you are trying to satisfy your (own) disbelief.

Projection. Your attempts to rationalize both discussed passages and the ad hoc hypothesis you've used demonstrate that you started with the conclusion and then tried to make the scriptures fit that conclusion.