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

[Godscreated]

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.

Read the English Standard Version it translates "so that her childern come out" not a mention of the word miscarriage,an accurate translation of the Hebrew. The passage is not about the mother it's about the baby. Verses 23 and 24 are not necessarily about a premature birth they are however about the result of the harm brought on by someone striking a pregnant woman.
The NIV translates this as a "premature birth" not a miscarriage these are two very popular translations that do not use the word miscarriage. My favorite translation does use the word miscarriage, it does give in a footnote the literal meaning of the Hebrew so I'm not sure why this group of translators used the word miscarriage. They did make a mistake and they knew how the Hebrew translated, I'm going to try and find out because it does have my curiosity up.
Modern translators have not gotten it wrong and the translations I use indicate this, even my favorite gave the literal translation. The reason that the original Hebrew states the verse this way is to show us that God considers the unborn as a living being (life). I got my degree in Hebrew from the UOHK that would translate university of hard knocks. Also my pastor is a very well educated man and when we have a difference in opinion we will go to the Hebrew or Greek to find the original intention.
Now as for the blood, my reference to it was to show that God was saying that the life of the flesh is in the blood and that a fetus developes it's own blood type before a woman is certain she is pregnant.
I never started with a conclusion, the truth of the matter is clearly stated in scripture and all one has to do is read. Now I will say, if a question arises about a subject and I want to find the answer to the question I will search through the scriptures and try to find the truth, not what I want scripture to say but what scripture tells us about the subject. The question (subject) was of your making not mine, I gave you what I've known for many years and this knowledge is not to prove abortion is wrong (even though it does), it's to show what God has to say about the life He gives.

---

Why should I imagine that there's no Bible, I think it's unreasonable, just because many people have not seen a Bible or many christians have not read the Bible what does that have to do with me? I do not find the Bible to be a burden, as a matter of fact I find it very rewarding I've learned a considerable amount about God, life, ect. I recieve a great peace from reading scriptures, I can not see any reason to give up something that helps make my life so much better.

He's asking you to think.

Try it.

Don't be afraid.

I do think and I do not need someone to try and manipulate my beliefs I've searched over scripture studied evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang, long earth ages , short earth ages and on and on and have come to a belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He died for me and was raised from the dead. I believe in the entire Bible as God's trusted word, I really do not care whether people think I'm afraid to search out the truth, I know what I've found to be true and valuable for my life and I know the searching I've put into this matter. I've stated this before and I will again, so people want forget, I've come to this forum to learn. The questions posed in this forum aides me in my search for truth, I've not come here to convert anyone that is God's job, but if something I write helps someone then that is a good thing and it goes to the glory of God.