ComfortMyPeople

George88; You OBVIOUSLY did not recognize that Stephen Lett gave as the reason  for the  change is that THE WORLD APPROVED.
Watch the Video.
Three times.

I remember having to tell a young woman that her dreadlocks weren't in keeping with the field ministry, that it was associated with Rastafarians and all that related to the same. She wanted to get baptized and the body left it up to me to explain to her the whole thing. I was annoyed at having to deal with being the congregation fashion coordinator on two counts: 1st that people couldn't read the room and conform to somewhere in the middle and 2nd that I had to enforce something that was a personal choice people were making. I did it thinking to myself that these kinds of people would likely have argued with Moses about circumcision, when there is zero explanation in scripture as to the reasons for it being a requirement other than Jehovah saying "because I told you to". I see both sides of these things. On the one hand, it's nice to have an external sign of people who could be troublemakers, on the other hand "Really? I have to deal with beards, and other fashion concerns? Don't we have bigger fish to fry?" Then I see it all as some kind of useful social exercise. It forces me to think about the benefits and hazards of conformity, and what standards to use, and balancing the differences. When we choose to look different from those we have social bonds with, we are sending messages. There's a whole social science dealing with these "semiotics". Are we Jehovah's Christian Witnesses? Then what does that look like? How does it act? Does it look like seeking it's own personal advantage? Does it look like lording it over the brothers and sisters in telling them what to do with regard to personal matters? Nature identifies juveniles by the way that they look when they are young, vs when they become mature. What do mature people look like? Do they wear themselves out over fashion? 
I remember one elder before my appointment asking me whether I wondered why I wasn't appointed as an elder yet seeing as how I'd been a regular pioneer and servant for almost ten years then and was regularly giving talks outside the congregation. My response was "I imagined it was because Jehovah decided it wasn't the right time". I never asked, because I cared, but I didn't care either if you know what I mean, it's not like I didn't have things to do. The only things I didn't have to do looked more like the annoying things like judicial committees with people who can't take hints from the Bible about how to behave themselves. His reaction was a bit surprised, but then I could see that he needed to give me some counsel so I relented and he went on. It turned out my answers in the meeting suggested I relied on "Worldly Wisdom", my shoes weren't shiny enough and I walked funny when I went up to the podium.  So I thought to myself that I want this elder to feel good about this counseling session so I asked him to watch me at the meetings and let me know if I was slipping in these areas. I told him that when conversing w/the friends I would mention where in the Societies pubs I read whatever it was I was commenting on, so they wouldn't get the idea I was pushing some novel idea unique to me as well. He seemed pleased with my responses. My thoughts were that as an elder you can do some damage, so if I make this elder happy about giving counsel he'll do a better job with the next publisher.
 
Anyway, I'm rambling now....

Read carefully the following. Print it out if you have to .
What it is being admitting to is that the GB had been terribly WRONG since the time of Judge Rutherford, and persecuted the Brotherhood and exiled them and chastised them publicly and privately since then.
How many thousands, or tens of thousands of Brothers have been chased away AND had their lives ruined because they could not tolerate this irrational tyranny?

He stared them down.
Seriously. I think that’s what happened. Stared down the local elders, that is, not the GB who apparently didn’t have a problem with it, willing to completely defer to the local BoE, though it may have been a Branch thing. 
It was not in the Bible. It never appeared in Watchtower print. (other than many examples of ‘shaving one’s beard’ listed in the changes made on the road to baptism) The reasons for it, association with beatniks and hippies, disappeared decades ago. We’ve had articles to the effect that we don’t do rules, but primarily principles. And yet, no rule was a firmly enforced as the unwritten no-beard rule.
But—with no documentation behind it—you could stare them down. That’s what I imagine this Kelly beard brother did. I did sort of the same thing with blogging, which may be why I see it this way. He stared them down, not defiantly, but by being such a good example that, even while holding his ground on this matter, they couldn’t tell him no.
If an entire Update dedicated to beards being now okay seems like overkill (it did to me), one might recall that they tried underkill and it didn’t work. From the Sept 2016 Wt: “Does Your Style of Dress Glorify God?”
What about the propriety of brothers wearing a beard? The Mosaic Law required men to wear a beard. However, Christians are not under the Mosaic Law, nor are they obliged to observe it. (Lev. 19:27; 21:5; Gal. 3:24, 25) In some cultures, a neatly trimmed beard may be acceptable and respectable, and it may not detract at all from the Kingdom message. In fact, some appointed brothers have beards. Even so, some brothers might decide not to wear a beard. (1 Cor. 8:9, 13; 10:32) In other cultures or localities, beards are not the custom and are not considered acceptable for Christian ministers. In fact, having one may hinder a brother from bringing glory to God by his dress and grooming and his being irreprehensible.—Rom. 15:1-3; 1 Tim. 3:2, 7.
This paragraph was a big deal at the time, at least in my area. I never look at articles until just before we are to cover then at meetings (unlike when the magazines came in the mail and I read them through promptly), but this paragraph I knew about up front because brothers were talking about it seemingly the day after it was written. When that Watchtower Study finally came, that paragraph was like the elephant in the room that everyone was awaiting, and then Yessss! paragraph 17 finally arrived and you could talk about it. Some congregations spent extra time to ‘explain’ it.
I thought that would be the end of it. I thought at long last the issue had been laid to rest. I thought beards would soon be showing up—at first in publishers and then in MS and elders. Instead, it seemed like congregations doubled-down, as if with the attitude: ‘Well, okay, they can wear beards if they insist, but no way will they ever be appointed.’ A few publishers grew them, but nothing more.
’Look, we don’t have an issue with it,’ is what the GB finally said in this latest Update. It’s not new. It’s what they said 7 years ago only it didn’t take. This time, to make sure it wasn’t another misfire that didn’t take, they made it a big production, brought in bells and whistles, the chariot, and disclaimers for guys like those here who say, ‘It’s about time!’ and for the more rigid guys who drew a line in the sand and are now aghast to see it erased.
Old habits die hard. It may be that circumcism was once biblical whereas no-beards was not. The two customs don’t parallel in that regard. But in the regard of ‘old habits die hard,’ they parallel exactly. 
For me, it is like when the man who invented AI died. ‘Restaurant in peace’ the obits read, though there were a few harsher ones that said, ‘May he rot in hello.’
 
 
 
 

I think I missed the point at first when I heard Brother Lett say this: Others might feel disappointed, saying, in effect, ‘I supported the policy about grooming for all those years. Now I feel let down!’ But is either reaction appropriate?
My first thought was the brother(s) who had to dismiss a brother at Bethel in 1979. The young brother was a Bethel elder, loved by everyone because he always seemed humble and ready to help in any way. He was counted on for a lot of accounting tasks, and Bethelite vacation days, and he was also in charge of requisitions for the purchase of non-Society books that Bethelites would order for their own personal libraries. (I got Josephus and Matthew Henry and Barnes' Notes and a few other books through him.) He came to breakfast one day with well-groomed but obvious weekend-length whiskers, not just "5 o'clock shadow." I remember thinking that he better go back to his room after breakfast to shave before going to work. He didn't, and he must have been called to ask what he was doing, because he was dismissed from Bethel immediately.
I imagined the disappointment and pain of the elders or committees that had to dismiss such a well-loved brother. I think it was Dean Songer who dismissed him, and Songer was probably the cleanest cut man at Bethel with a short 1960's NASA/FBI crewcut. He might have dismissed him with pleasure, but I thought of him anyway as someone who might have been disappointed in losing such a great asset to the Society.
Of course, if you were a brother, usually black, who could show medical or visible evidence of skin bumps and bleeding after each shave, you already had a reprieve. They had "skin in the game," but they would more typically suffer the loss of it, and surreptitiously touch up their wounds with bloody tissues at breakfast so that the scabs would be dry throughout the day.    

It was clearly a call for loyalty, obedience, humility and unity. Those aren't bad things.
But the logic did seem a bit strained when they hitched it to the chariot.
What came across as odd to me was the logic that Jehovah's organization moves so fast that the earthly part of the organization can't keep up; it can only try. But we shouldn't try to keep up with Jehovah's organization because that would mean we will be "running ahead" of the earthly organization. In that case, keeping up with Jehovah's organization (the chariot) will cause division and show a bad attitude. It's always better to humbly stay behind Jehovah's organization, but keep up only with the earthly part of that organization. 
And that's the primary focus of the announcement letter, shown below:
[Note how, between points 5 and 6, the announcement letter blurs the line between the earthly and heavenly part of Jehovah's organization.)

Maybe. Maybe not. The Jews of the Hebrew Bible did not necessarily consider Jehovah to be an invisible Spirit the way we do. They considered Jehovah to have a body that could see and hear and EAT and SMELL. (FWIW, ancient Jewish rabbis had no trouble agreeing that Jehovah was circumcised!!!) The idea that smoke from "incinerated" meat created a kind of smoky incense that ascended upwards toward heaven was likely an indication of this consumption by God, leaving only a few ashes. And this idea was spelled out even more clearly in other nearby cultures.
When the Jews would be scattered, they would have to serve gods that were not real and therefore could NOT eat and smell.
(Deuteronomy 4:27, 28) 27 Jehovah will scatter you among the peoples, and just a few of you will survive among the nations to which Jehovah will have driven you. 28 There you will have to serve gods of wood and stone made by human hands, gods that cannot see or hear or eat or smell.
(Leviticus 26:31) . . .I will give your cities to the sword and make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell the pleasing aromas of your sacrifices.
 
I agree that the intent of Leviticus 3 and similar passages was probably to identify ALL the major fatty places for sacrificed animals. It can also be read as: "Don't eat any of the fat, sacrifice all of it, and this INCLUDES the fatty pieces of the inner organs and intestines." That's why I quoted the passage about animala that died naturally or were killed by another animal. In that case, it was NOT about a sacrifice or a priest's portion. 

I think that MM's questions here to Thinking were pertinent. Did the elders in Jerusalem mean it in Moses' terms, Noah's terms, or some new terms that was different from both of those?
And, per Paul's explanation for at least 2 of the terms of that decree, was it possibly only a necessary but temporary injunction to allow the congregation to accommodate coexistence with gentiles for the time when Jewish Christians were still "condemning" themselves to live by the Law. 
(Acts 21:20, 21) . . .After hearing this, they began to glorify God, but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21  But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to . . . follow the customary practices. 
(Galatians 2:11-14) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he stood condemned.*  12  For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself,. . . 14  But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, I said to Ceʹphas before them all: “If you, though you are a Jew, live as the nations do and not as Jews do, how can you compel people of the nations to live according to Jewish practice?”
 
*The 2013 NWT decided not to translate the Greek of Galatians 2:11 (as was done previously) with "Peter ... stood condemned." They decided to water it down a bit and say that only that "Peter . . . was clearly in the wrong."

True. It says something more like "flesh with its nephesh,blood" where "nephesh" can often mean breath/life/self/being).
I tried to overstate the point as part of the odd "kill-it-first" interpretation that says they could not eat living, moving, breathing animals that still had breath,blood flowing in them. So when verse 4 mentions "flesh with its soul,blood," that's the reason that if you go here, for example, https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/9/1/t_bibles_9004 you only see the word life [that is] blood and life-blood as a translation of nephesh,blood. (Except one of the Spanish translations has "alma [o vida])."
You had said: "Animals" are like "man". Each is "soul".  That is not the meaning in the context of Genesis 9. Verse 4 is not using "soul" [nephesh] in the same way that Genesis 2:7 and the most of the Hebrew Bible uses the term. (Even the NWT stopped using the term "soul" as a consistent translation for "nephesh" in the 2013 NWT.) 
We are always taught that the living animal or human does not HAVE a soul but it IS a soul. It is different here. Here the animal is not a soul, but it HAS a soul.
(Leviticus 20:25) You must make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean and between the unclean bird and the clean; you must not make your souls loathsome by means of an animal or a bird or anything that creeps on the ground that I set apart for you to regard as unclean.
Or "psyche" (soul) in Greek:
(Acts 15:24) Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said, trying to subvert your souls . . . [NWT leaves out the term souls, here and just says "trying to subvert you."]
(1 Thessalonians 5:23) . . .And may the spirit and soul and body of you brothers, sound in every respect, be preserved blameless at the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
It's similar to the term "spirit" here in Ecclesiastes:
(Ecclesiastes 3:21) Who really knows whether the spirit of humans ascends upward, and whether the spirit of animals descends down to the earth?
 
So, I'm arguing, as most translators also do, that this is a special case of "nephesh" just as the NWT often treats special cases of nephesh and psyche without translating it as "soul."

Sometimes, when you read something, or somebody tells you something, it makes perfect sense. Other times you get the uneasy feeling it’s somewhere somehow you were being observed through binoculars by a duck.
…. there is an actual Latin word for this, but it escapes me at the moment.
You probably remember the scripture that says, paraphrased, “… you must not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk .…”.  The instant I read this scripture, many years ago, I understood why God would command such a thing, and I wholeheartedly agreed with it at the same level of seriousness that I instantly understood that it was intended.
Occasionally over the past 50 years, in discussing other subjects, I would mention that commandment, and was genuinely stunned that others did not also instantly “get it”. It made no sense to them. If you are going to KILL an animal for food … what’s the big deal how you cook it?
The younger animal is food. The mother’s milk is food. What’s the big deal? Neither one knows or is capable of comprehending WHAT is done with their being a resource.
Just as soldiers become soldiers for dozens of different reasons, even among soldiers, sometimes what is a moral necessity for one is incomprehensible for another.
The SYMBOLIC (  … if you will, the SPIRITUAL …) value of blood is unique, because by example and by edict from God, it is a common theme that runs throughout the whole Bible. It’s clear that we have permission to use as food anything that walks, crawls, swims or flies, including (if you can overcome the strong CULTURAL taboos, like when Jerusalem was under siege) people … presumably bled out from war wounds. Some people would rather starve to death …. and have.
The prohibition against blood is consistent in principle throughout the entire Bible, but what convinced me was the example of King David, a soldier who slaughtered men and animals by the thousands … himself … personally … in hand to hand and eyeball to eyeball combat. When he in laying siege to a city remarked he was thirsty, and the only close by water was in a well near the city walls, two of his men risked their lives in a hail of arrows, spears, and rocks to bring him back a bucket of water. 
David did NOT drink the water. He poured it out on the ground, not because it was blood, or even blood fractions, but because it REPRESENTED the lives of his two soldiers, the EXACT same way that blood represents all air-breathing (pneuma=air) souls. 
In 1960, when I first read that, I instantly “got it”, the same way I instantly understood about the “boiling a kid in it’s mothers milk”.
That’s why, for me, it is just as much respect for the IDEA, or SYMBOLISM of respecting that which Jehovah God has clearly stated is his jealously guarded personal property, as well as actual blood.
Some people “get it”.
Some people don’t.

I would say a lot has changed since then, you are talking about one select group of people ( Christ’s followers )who came out of the Jews who were up until Christ Gods chosen people. That’s it..two groups..
We now have a world of a huge amount of faiths that never existed back then…and what of the Indian faiths who seem to worship all gods..and what of the faiths who see no problem in kissing the cross as they go to war killing their own spiritual brothers…all of them love Jesus…you simplify or try to simplify something that is not at all simple….
Amongst ex Jews on line many of them had been very hurt…and there was this starting of what I now call the Jesus movement …amongst us…off course I understand the pain..I was there…but it’s simply not as easy as you paint it.
And yes we know it is only Jesus who will judge who is acceptable to his worship.
Seeee we JWs think the same as you…and I understand your scars..some have had to stop attending meetings for the sake of their mental health…and I’ve seen that with my own eyes…..personally I don’t think these things can be fixed until that New World Order can be hushered in….i don’t see any great relief in this old system…it shouldn’t be that way…but that just shows we need Jesus to rule totally..so we have to wait….and limp along the best we can.
As to the blood issue personally I can see how Jehovah views blood, so I understand why we abstain from it…let’s put aside the medical view of it but the satanic practices seem to all require the sacrifice and offering up of blood, ether that just be a killing or a killing a drinking of blood…take the era of vampire movies….satan has done all he can to encourage mankind to disrespect blood.

Apostasy? Well that's a loud word! Let's say it again. Apostasy! Everyone feel better now?
Jesus was accused and put to death for blasphemy. Blasphemy was held on par with apostasy by the same murderers. So what? If our Master is the Christ, should any of us expect better treatment? The main thing is making sure of all things and holding fast to what is fine.
What is true is what matters. Those who prefer what is false over what is true will attempt to characterize (brand) persons all manner of ways to distract from their showing a preference for what is false over what is true. If we suffer, let it be over saying things that are true.
Don't let distractions interfere with focusing on truth.

I think that some brothers feel they can do a lot more good for both the organization and the congregations overall by not declaring themselves apostates, even if they hold beliefs different from the accepted doctrinal party line. For example, I recall very clearly when I did research for Brother Bert Schroeder (1977-1982) that he often hinted at different beliefs and sometimes even got in trouble for promoting them as "trial balloons" when giving talks during his travels. In those days, the accepted doctrinal party line, even among members of the Governing Body, was that it had to be whatever was already approved (or would be approved) by Brother Fred Franz. This kept other GB members from even attempting to propose alternatives to prophetic interpretations. 
In 1974 there were only 9 active members of the GB, and that number suddenly doubled almost exactly at the time when there was talk about changing the nature of the GB from a "non-governing" governing body into a GOVERNING  Body. Along with the already declined health of Groh and Sullivan, it became known that Knorr might soon die and leave the non-governing GB with only 8. So 8 additional GB members were added in late 1974 to double that active number to 17 (although Brother Fekel wasn't very active).
Until then, many of these same GB members, and even a lot of long-time Bethel "heavies" as they were called, were willing to talk about a pet doctrine that differed in some way from the party line. In fact, they appeared to take some pride in the fact that they could think independently of Fred Franz on a certain topic. When I started in 1976, there was still talk among various table heads (Bethel elders and "heavies") that up until 1974, it was easy to get Brother "so-and-so" to tell you his alternative explanation of this or that doctrine (or policy) [the mediator, the tribulation, parable of leaven, mustard tree, dragnet, etc]-- "but now he's on the Governing Body." As one example, I had questions about 1918 and 1919 and was told that Brother Sydlik had an alternative explanation. It took some doing, but I finally got Brother Sydlik to share what I was told he had shared freely before his appointment to the GB in late 1974. Also, when I worked for Brother Schroeder, he had alternative explanations to the "generation," to the various "type" and "anti-type" classes, to the meaning of "house-to-house," to the physicality rather than just the symbolism of the "heart," and several other ideas. He even asked me to research supposed health differences among people who were left-handed, right-handed and those who were forced to change from left to right at a young age. [He wanted me to "prove" that people who were forced to change had more blood sugar problems. It was the only research assignment that seemed to have nothing to do with the Bible.]
Should Schroeder and Sydlik and all those Bethel "heavies" and other Bethel Elders have declared themselves apostate? They were among at least 5 GB members who, at least around 1978-81 didn't even fully accept our 1914 doctrine. 
Now I don't agree with most of the novel ideas that Schroeder had, but I think it there was some good in the freedom of thought and expression that allowed some to stand up against the "old guard" thinking of Fred Franz on some issues. Fred Franz fought back right in front of the Bethel family sometimes. I was there the morning he railed loudly against those who thought Jesus was "the mediator of every Tom, Dick, and Harry." My own table head at the time was one of those persons, as were probably many others. Fred Franz thought it was apostasy to even harbor a doubt in your mind about 1914, 1918 and 1919. 
But when Brother Splane gave the first major announcement about finally dropping the unsupported "type" & "antitype" classes, who did he credit with promoting this very idea from decades earlier? Listen to his talk and note that he specifically credited Brother Bert Schroeder, who had died about a decade before this change was finally implemented. 
So I would agree that "apostate" ideas are not good to promote as a certainty. But Schroeder was apparently more careful promoting them under Fred Franz tenure, but then more openly when Fred Franz died. And what was apostasy has now become something he is credited for promoting.

@Juan Rivera I finally read through this whole topic, previously only noticing some side topics of interest to me at the time.  And I see that you have often addressed me here and hoped I would offer "on-topic" comments much earlier. As I read through it, I think @Many Miles is offering exactly the kinds of responses I would have offered had I been a little more thoughtful and focused on the original topic.
I agree that Galatians contains themes about doctrinal purity and, per Miles, the limit of obedience to human authority. We get valuable perspectives on these topics as Paul writes about many different things, including his own authority, the good news, being justified by faith and not works, and the difficulties Jewish Christians had fully appreciating that last concept (coming from a background of 1500 years of "salvation by works," i.e., law). 
But it seems that you also intend to find in Galatians some evidence for an ecclesiastical, God-appointed, human authority, such as a governing body that provides a basis for the proper type of Christian unity. I know you are aware from past comments that I believe Paul goes in a different direction on that question. I do think such an authority would be extremely valuable and convenient. But I see too many scriptures that fly in the face of expecting exactly that type of authority today. That doesn't mean that a type of human governing body doesn't serve a good purpose, of course. And this doesn't mean that the congregations are without human teachers and authorities. It just means that we, if we are truly Christian, must share the responsibility with them for what we accept and believe.
Of course, just saying all that is easier than providing the scriptures and details behind it, but many of those points have already been made in this current discussion.
And I like that you are looking for a more methodical approach. I appreciated this about "Rotherham" when I often went on for many pages in discussions with him (over a decade ago). He remained in a private "theology" email discussion group that I lightly participated in for years but I now only read comments from others now and then. Is he still around? Haven't heard from "Rotherham" for years now. Do you know about his health? 
And thanks for locating that blog from Apologetic Front on the web.archive. I found many pages there with some good ideas to review:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150201214409/http://apologeticfront.com/category/faithful-slave/
https://web.archive.org/web/20150201220435/http://apologeticfront.com/category/governing-body/
 

Yes. I still believe that the implied food diet in Genesis for Adam and Eve was intentionally written without a reference to what they would drink. Obviously, what they drank would include water and milk, but the important part of the dietary food decree is what they were allowed to eat, with no concern for what they would drink. 
Your question was not about whether Eve had mammary glands (or a womb) as this would be too obvious to mention, although I had already mentioned it anyway. Whether she had a belly-button is not so obvious. Your question was whether I believe the account was intentionally written without a reference to what they would drink. Since the account was about a dietary food command to the pair placed in the garden of Eden, I answered the question with that in mind. And since we don't absolutely know whether Adam and Eve had milk while within the garden (or out, for that matter) I answered the question with that in mind.
Personally, I am inclined more to believe that the first humans did not live by fruit or bread alone. I believe the first humans had millions of microbes in their intestines. I believe they likely needed protein sources from more than just beans and nuts and milk, but that's just me. I believe the reference to Abel killing livestock speaks to the fact that domestic animals were very early considered a meat food source in addition to a milk/cheese source. I believe that the idea of the Garden of Eden in Genesis was to show that Jehovah was ready to provide everything humans wanted and desired and it was easy picking. It was purposefully written to highlight this and left out what they would drink, and would leave us to believe that Jehovah would also provide sustenance for their protein needs without resorting to either killing or finding dead animals. 

Yes, but it's just an unfounded opinion of mine. It's clear that a lot of details we might be interested in were left out of Genesis, and the entire Bible, for that matter. For example: did either Adam or Eve have a belly-button? We can assume that if something was left out, even if we are interested, then it was not considered important enough to include, nor does it mean that every detail included is of absolute importance either. How important, for example, is it for us to know that it was A'dah who gave birth to Ja'bal?
Quite probably the ideal (or even the idealized) diet for Adam and Eve did not include milk, but not because milk was forbidden. It is probably because the important diet for them was all provided within the Garden of Eden where there was no mention of livestock being cared for. And the primary point of the garden was that Jehovah was providing them with a diet that did not even require them to break a sweat. And this was best represented by focusing on low-hanging fruit, as it were. Also, it would probably be considered so commonplace for children of all humans and mammals, that mother's milk need not be mentioned for the diet of Cain, Abel, Seth, daughter(s), etc.  A major purpose of livestock was for milk as we see from later scriptures, and although Abel evidently had access to some livestock, it's not pointed out as a "thing" until Gen 4:20 quoted above. 
Not at all. But we don't know if Adam and Eve ever tried it, or if they were supposed to try it. As I said before, we don't even know for sure if meat was supposed to be forbidden to early humans prior to Noah. But I still think it was purposeful that meat and even milk were not specifically included in the ideal "garden-variety" diet provided to Adam and Eve.
Yes. Although technically Psalm 19 says nothing about the earth's animal life or ecosystem. It's about the heavens and the firmament (under which God measured out a place to place the earth). "Heaven" by this time in Hebrew cosmology had evidently moved above the dome of the firmament where Jehovah kept the earth's waters separated from heaven's waters. The usual way in which earth's wildlife testified to God's will is something you already alluded to in 2 Peter (and therefore also Jude). They provided a good testimony about God's will that man aspire to something much higher than unreasoning beasts born naturally to be caught and destroyed. Man was ideally much higher than the beasts and would therefore have them in subjection, subdued.
(2 Peter 2:12) . . .like unreasoning animals that act on instinct and are born to be caught and destroyed. . .
(Jude 10) . . .And in all the things that they do understand by instinct like unreasoning animals, they go on corrupting themselves.
(Ecclesiastes 3:18-21) . . .I also said in my heart about the sons of men that the true God will test them and show them that they are like animals, 19  for there is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. 20  All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust. 21  Who really knows whether the spirit of humans ascends upward, and whether the spirit of animals descends down to the earth? 
(Psalm 73:22) . . .And I was unreasoning and I could not know; I became as mere beasts from your standpoint.
Yes. A very important point that I agree with and have also expressed.
Mostly true. At least up to the point where we find a set of statements to Noah very similar to the original statements given to Adam and Eve about their purpose and their diet that changed in only one important way. Because this time it includes an express permission for meat that we didn't see before, along with the idea that there is something new in this version of the statements ("now" I give you meat), and something that would be recognized as having already been given in the earlier statements about diet (just as I [previously] permitted vegetation). The way it was expressed should therefore give us food for thought.
Of course, I'm still not saying that any specific position regarding meat is "proven" but the very fact that it is not proven one way or another is the reason I don't see any reason to try to build a further step of logic onto such a weak, unproven foundation.
And that is the same point I am making about not being able to make mush use of any unproven reasoning about the actual diet of early humans or the ideal diet expressly spelled out for the first pair in the garden.
Same point again. No mention. Therefore no specific position (with respect to this discussion) is provable from a purely Biblical standpoint.   

Another simple example is this: Did God tell the earliest humans before Noah that they could eat meat? Yes or No
if one answers that it doesn't say, therefore he might have, then one could just as easily say that we must also not know what else God might have forbidden --because it also doesn't say.
Or this example: Did God ever give the first man and woman a directive about what they could eat? Yes or No.
Or this: Did there come a time when God did bring up the subject of diet again with Noah? Yes or No. And did God mention that there would be something in addition to vegetation this time? Yes or No.
When God first mentioned a diet that included both vegetation and something additional, did God use use the word "NOW" as if it was now something he had not added previously? Yes or No.
(Genesis 9:2-20) . . .every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that moves on the ground and upon all the fish of the sea. They are now given into your hand. 3  Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. 
If this were a reading test, given to elementary school students, which of the following two paraphrases would reflect the most likely meaning of the verses quoted above?
A. You have always been able to eat animals, birds and fish, but I am now giving them to you again, and just as you have always eaten green vegetation before, I am now giving you a reminder that you can still eat the meat of animals.
B. I am now giving you permission to eat animals, birds and fish, just as I had previously given you green vegetation to eat.  
I think the straightforward way to read it is fairly obvious to most of us, even though it doesn't seem to match a very probable view of what would happen more naturally. But there could be a different reason that the Bible wants to emphasize Jehovah's view of what should have been the original ideal purpose of a world where killing and slaughtering would have been unnecessary, yet sin and the fall of man resulted in concessions to our fallen, sinful nature. As @Thinking implied much earlier, this could have been a somewhat symbolic reason for the "animal skins" that Jehovah provided for Adam and Eve after sin entered the world. It could be the reason that two major accounts of bloodshed were highlighted (Cain/Lamech) and animal sacrifice became closely associated early on with bloodshed and then atonement and appeasement (Abel/Noah/Abraham/Moses).  

We can see what happens now in nature and we can also see quite a lot of fossil evidence that lets us surmise what must have happened in the past. But the Bible often presents a picture that makes very little sense to our knowledge of nature. We can't quite see how plants and all vegetation could come about on day 3 before God made the sun on day 4. And how could many of the plants have lived without interaction with animals like insects and birds on day 5. And when we look at any spoonful of dirt there are currently more species of microbes. And how does enough water to flood the earth stay afloat in the expanse above the heavens, or stay below the surface of the ground until some future day when it's time to flood the earth. We have animals coming to Adam, we have animals easily collected by Noah (and maybe Samson?). And we must also conjecture that Noah took only a few of each "kind" of animal instead of the millions of species, so that we must make up our own mind about what constitutes a "kind" and also believe that intermediate kinds quickly derived new species, in a burst of new evolutionary development. (Even though today many species cannot mate with others, or they create hybrids if they do.) 
I think the Bible intends to explain an ideal beginning that is NOT SUPPOSED to conform to any present understanding of how things, or how they were seen to work in Moses's day, or Ezra's day or whenever some of the Bible books were first penned for us. I said before that there may be a reason that certain things were said and certain things were not said. It was not for us to just assume that anything not specifically forbidden was permitted, just as we could not say that anything specifically permitted meant that all other things were forbidden.
I believe the implied ideal diet in Genesis for Adam and Eve was intentionally written without a reference to meat. God made them a garden. Was it a vegetable garden? Did they have to work at cultivating seeds for tomatoes, potatoes, beets, carrots? The first creation account Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 implies Yes. The second creation account that includes Adam and Eve implies No. In that second account, all we have is a reference to fruit trees:
(Genesis 2:8, 9) . . .Further, Jehovah God planted a garden in Eʹden, toward the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9  Thus Jehovah God made to grow out of the ground every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food and also the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.
(Genesis 2:15-17) . . .Jehovah God took the man and settled him in the garden of Eʹden to cultivate it and to take care of it. 16  Jehovah God also gave this command to the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. 17  But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it,. . .
 
But the first account appears to be a more general account for all mankind even beyond the Garden of Eden and it technically allows for more than just fruit trees:
(Genesis 1:29, 30) 29 Then God said: “Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you. 30  And to every wild animal of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving on the earth in which there is life, I have given all green vegetation for food.” And it was so.
So all moving, living creatures could eat green vegetation. 
And when outside the garden, Adam and Eve were gven some new information about ther food supply, which is now expanded beyond fruit trees to cultivated vegetation of the field, including grains (bread):
(Genesis 3:17-19) . . .cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. 18  It will grow thorns and thistles for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. 19  In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.”
 
At this point, any astute reader would wonder about meat. Why only mention fruit trees, green vegetation, and vegetation of the field including grain? Is there a command about meat? Is it allowed? Is it forbidden? Why don't we see anything about it? We see God using animal skins to clothe Adam and Eve after they tried to clothe themselves with green vegetation. Then we see Cain cultivating the ground just as Jehovah said would now be more difficult outside the garden. Then we see Abel slaughtering an animal with it's fat. But still no mention of eating meat. 
Even when Cain is punished, one of the punishments is that the ground will not produce for him. Does he then become a mighty hunter [in opposition to Jehovah like Nimrod]? No, it just means he will now live the life of a fugitive:
(Genesis 4:12) . . .When you cultivate the ground, it will not give you back its produce. You will become a wanderer and a fugitive in the earth.” 
 
And then we have another mention of livestock:
(Genesis 4:19, 20) Aʹdah gave birth to Jaʹbal. He was the founder of those who dwell in tents and have livestock.
 
And a second mention of bloodshed (after Cain/Abel):
(Genesis 4:23) . . .Laʹmech composed these words... A man I have killed for wounding me, Yes, a young man for striking me.
 
And then we finally see it. After the Flood. We see something about meat!
First, we see Noah slaughtering some clean animals and ALL the clean flying creatures, and he makes burnt offerings, and Jehovah apparently loves the smell.
(Genesis 8:19-21) . . .Every living creature, every creeping animal and every flying creature, everything that moves on the earth, went out of the ark by families. 20  Then Noah built an altar to Jehovah and took some of all the clean animals and of all the clean flying creatures and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21  And Jehovah began to smell a pleasing aroma. So Jehovah said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground on man’s account. . .
And for the first time, Jehovah is shown to say something about man eating meat:
(Genesis 9:2-20) . . .A fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that moves on the ground and upon all the fish of the sea. They are now given into your hand. 3  Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. 4  Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat. 5  Besides that, I will demand an accounting for your lifeblood. I will demand an accounting from every living creature; and from each man I will demand an accounting for the life of his brother. ... 20  Now Noah started off as a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.
 
@George88 already mentioned the almost inexplicable idea that Jehovah will demand an accounting from every animal, too, not just man. So I included the verse above for that point in case anyone wants to comment about it. Gen 9:5. Perhaps this is related to the later Mosaic laws about keeping your dangerous bull locked up, etc., or else pay the penalty for what it may kill or maim. But as it stands, it appears that Jehovah will demand an accounting of every butterfly, spider, mosquito, dog, cat, bull, dove, elephant, koala, raven, grub, grasshopper, gorilla, giraffe, gerbil, etc. I think it must be more closely related to the later Mosaic principles. We believe that Moses was involved in putting these accounts together and this might also explain why the mention of clean vs unclean animals appears anachronistic. 
It's not part of the original question, but still quite interesting.

I guess most of us would think we are doing just that, but what might seem reasonable to one person might not seem reasonable to another person. It's my opinion that just because "carrion" is one of of at least ONE MILLION PLUS "kinds" of all food, I don't think it's reasonable to think that Noah took ONE MILLION-PLUS "kinds" of food, and we especially can't arbitrarily pick any ONE of those million-plus foods and decide that it MUST have been one of the MILLION-PLUS that Noah must have included.
Reasonableness and context drive me to think that Noah took LESS than one million types of food and therefore left some of them off the list, nutritious or not. And if we are giving preference to what the Bible actually says, then we should consider that there may be a very good reason that the Bible NEVER says that Noah took carrion onto the Ark. 
I believe there is plenty of good evidence that animals were eating other animals for epochs of time prior to the Bible's timeline for Noah and Adam. And worms and insects and bacteria and microbes appear naturally designed for breaking down dead animal and vegetable matter and that could include remains from animals killed or those that died by other natural causes. So it's not a stretch to believe that many animals were designed from the start to eat other animals no matter how they died.
I agree that 2 Pet 2:12 may easily include carrion but carrion it is not explicitly mentioned here either.

Yes, it would, if it were meant to be taken literally AND if we had evidence that animals were eating carcasses that died of natural causes. But it would also mean an unending list of all the foods eaten. Noah, in his 600 years of life, may have personally eaten hundreds of foods in his 219,000 days of life. And he could have asked Methuselah, who apparently died in the same year as the Flood, about all the foods that he had eaten for the past 969 years. And maybe those jollly good fellers, the Nephilim, had specialized food favorites that Noah needed to bring on board because that, too, would be included in ALL the foods eaten. I am only being ridiculous because it really is ridiculous to think this literally meant that Noah brought ALL foods eaten. 
The likely meaning in context would be that he needed all the foods to fit the diets of all the different animals and whatever the fateful eight ate. And that might mean "dust" for the snakes (Gen 3:14, just kidding) and a year's supply of honey for the two ants, a years supply of leaves for two of the caterpillars/butterflies, dung for the two dung beetles, some blood for the two mosquitoes, eucalyptus for the two koalas, and a Diet of Worms for the two large-mouth bass, and for the two robins, etc., plus two more worms (or 7 of them if worms were considered clean). 
And then again, if we take it literally, "all the foods eaten" could be of a verb tense to mean all the foods that were ultimately eaten while on the ark. Otherwise, not to beat a dead horse, but we're back to an unending variety of foods eaten that might even mean Noah fought off a couple of sword-bearing cherubs guarding some trees in the Garden of Eden, from every sort of tree.

So many topics in this thread (and so many threads in this topic). 
I'd like to tackle just this one piece of your otherwise logical argument. I think you are giving way too much attention to an English translation of this verse rather than the more probable intent of it. But I also think people often give way too much attention to the original meanings of Greek and Hebrew words because it's usually done to support an interpretation based on the least likely possible meanings of the word from its context.
Anyway, I said all that to say that the Bible NEVER says EVERY SORT of food eaten. And even if it had, it need not be interpreted to include food that died accidentally or "of itself." If we needed to focus on the words "every sort" we'd probably have to include, every kind, every species, every cooking method, every uncooked method, salted, unsalted, washed, unwashed, deboned, un-deboned, descaled, scaled, bloody, un-bled. The list would be endless. 
But we don't need that because the Hebrew just says [of] EVERY FOOD not "all KINDS of food" or "all SORTS of food."
And I don't think we should make too much of the word "ALL" here. The Hebrew word is "kol," pronounced "coal" and just means ALL or EVERYTHING. 
-------This next part is interesting to me, but TLDR; -----------
I took several semesters of Hebrew in school, but that doesn't make me an expert. What it did do is help me appreciate that Biblical Hebrew is not usually written in the way people naturally speak. At times, it's too simple --resulting in either understatements or exaggerations-- and we therefore MUST read into it what is only implied.  And at other times, especially Genesis, for example, it's more repetitive than it needs to be, and translations usually ignore this because, for example, our English-hearing ears are not trained to listen like that. The Hebrew is often (unnecessarily) alliterative and poetic even in historical accounts. 
There is a Hebrew professor/archaeologist named Dr. James Tabor who actually has tried to make an English translation that imitates the alliterative and poetic "sound" and "rhythm" of Hebrew through some of these parts.
If you look up Genesis 6:21 with the above in mind, you might even get the impression that the word ALL is actually not really literal but just a poetic way to make a statement with repetition, rhythm, and alliteration. Notice here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/6/21/t_conc_6021
 וְאַתָּה קַח־לְךָ מִכָּל־מַֽאֲכָל אֲשֶׁר יֵֽאָכֵל
v-atah kaht-l-khah m-kol maakhal asher y-ah-khel
There are other ways to say the same thing wthout all the variations of kaht, khah, kol, khal, khel in the same short phrase. So I don't think ALL foods is necessarily literal.
 
 

Ok, i thought about a diode, but I assumed the circuit was completely identified, with no hidden components. Was the diode in the AC taped connection on the primary side of the transformer?
WERE there two conductors in the white wire to the light?

Yeah. Seen it. Experienced it. Reminds me of another source that would go “crickets” when asked tough questions. Once, when suggesting an in-person audience on a narrow subject, the response was “We don’t have an arrangement for that.” Too many people don’t want to answer for themselves on the spot, which they should be willing to do, if they’re convinced they’re right and do not worry about being wrong. But I don’t want to whine. I’m as imperfect as the next man. But, if I’m wrong I want to know it. 

I wouldn't hold my breath. Not saying anything about George specificially, of course, but you will find certain people on forums, including ones who love or need a few 'sock puppets' and, over time, literally 40+ different "handles" are often of the type who will never admit a mistake. I've been on this forum for about 8 years now, and someone ilke George, throughout 40 of his different names never admitted to one mistake during that entire time, and probably made hundreds of them. Someone couldn't even point out a simple typo without seeing his supposed justification for it. I suppose you could get: "I was testing you to see if you were still ignoring me." But more likely you will get ignored, and then soon notice a new name carrying on the same style of 'dialogue' and 'discussion.'