By the way, blood as a covenant ratifier is also not the sole way of covenant ratification in the Old Testament. RSV has the proper rendering, the NIV has it as a footnote. All in all, it would not be enough for me to hang a whole doctrine on and in the process deny the overwhelming scriptural evidence, spoken by God to His people, that states, in fact, they, by faith or faithlessness will play a role in their destiny All of this being said, once Israel's lack of faith in Jesus was fact, beginning in the last year of His ministry, the precious blood of Christ became the only means of atonement for man. How much more deep should our repentance be in the knowledge that had we only done our part, our beloved Lord would not have had to go the way of humiliation on Calvary. Therefore there are a few things where atonement is accomplished without blood, and where the requirement, under law, for blood does not apply.
Faith supersedes the requirement for blood.
The point is that atonement by blood in not the sole process of atonement. However, after the fact of Israel's faithlessness in Christ, from the last year of his ministry the shedding of His blood became the only way we could receive atonement. You use the scripture exactly opposite to the purpose for which it was written. Well, first try to understand what in fact we are saying. You are confusing two traditions here, the tradition of atonement and the tradition of confirming a covenant.