Thinking

Hopefully I'm not outside acceptable boundaries by citing the source I'm about to cite. If I am, please just let me know.
Today I was shown a recent article published by Rolf Furuli. His article addresses the biblical account of Noah and the great flood. Specifically he cites Genesis 6:21 and then he says, "Neither Noah nor the animals ate meat, so only plants were taken into the Ark as food."
- So we have this: No meat.
- More stringently, we have this: Only plants.
So, what about milk? What about water? What about natural earth elements such as mineral deposits (e.g., salt licks).
Because the Genesis account said humans could use plants as food, is that supposed to mean that was the only thing humans could consume as food?

Do you think of "witness" and "pearl doxsey"? When someone makes a deliberate effort to sound intelligent, it often results in nothing more than mere noise lacking scholarly backing. Particularly when this person spreads absurdities, such as the notion that the "Mosaic Law has never required anyone to treat blood as a sacred substance" since God does hold people and animals accountable for the spelling of blood that is included in the Noahide code and the Mosaic Law.
The fact and the law given to Moses about killing remain unchanged, regardless of the wordplay with selected words and phrases. Leviticus 17:14, Deuteronomy 12:23, Ezekiel 3:18, Genesis 9:6, Exodus 12:13. Yet, whose blood ended up being the most sacred?
 

I disagree. 
The harder life is, the more important are “military protocols”.
Even Spock realized that.

The packed red blood cells do provide a protein to help 
OXYGYEN…the oxygen is what it’s all about…go anywhere on line away from the societies writings and you will read that.
i think miles as you may have some interesting stories to tell I think your a stirer  who  at times just want to sound of hearing your own voice and over the dumbest subjects..I’d like to know your other alias names you use on line.
there is something familiar out you…and sadly I don’t think it’s good 
 

Many Countries offer Social Benefits to their citizens to give them a helping hand. These Benefits were meant to be given for a limited time. Those precious benefits will come to an abrupt end as the Political Kings of the earth turn against the World of False Religion to confiscate and plunder her Wealth.
Look! I am about to throw her into a sickbed, and those committing adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds. (Rev 2:22) And I heard another voice out of heaven say: “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues. (Rev 18:4) “And the kings of the earth who committed sexual immorality with her and lived with her in shameless luxury will weep and beat themselves in grief over her when they see the smoke from her burning. (Rev 18:19) The Wealth and goods obtained will be used to fund their armies and enforcers to do a house to house check to see if you and your family are bending your knees to the Wild Beast in worship. (Rev 13:4) By the time of the Enforcement comes, your assets will have already been confiscated to weaken your resistance and your family members could be used as bargaining chips for your cooperation whether you are willing or unwilling. “Whoever seeks to keep his life safe will lose it, but whoever loses it will preserve it alive.” (Luke 17:33)
The Bible points to who makes up the members of Gog of Magog, and if you are uninformed, what is coming your way will make you shutter. The shock that will overcome you will be such a traumatic experience you will look for death but not able to find it. (Rev 9:6) If you have faith, it will severely be tested and if you have no faith, you will be swept away not knowing which way to turn like a caged wild animal.
Your Social Benefits will cease and be used to fund the Enforcement. Maybe your Health Benefit expires, then all of a sudden your food benefit. Your complex in not knowing what is going on and then your shelter benefit is removed. Maybe you are forcibly removed from your house for not paying your taxes. You can’t buy or sell anything, your funds no longer exist that were in your bank account, all access is closed and you’re locked out. The Bank will not respond or answer any questions. The government issues a notice if you have any cash to exchange it with the Wild Beast for pennies on the dollar. Those who have cash but refuse to exchange their cash will lose it because there will be a certain date of expiration on all currency in any form, including precious metals such as gold and silver. (Daniel 11:43) No matter how much you have saved or stored up for yourself, you will lose it. If you worship any god other than the Wild Beast, you and your family will be thrown into the lion’s pit sort to speak.
All the royal officials, prefects, satraps, high royal officers, and governors have consulted together to establish a royal decree and to enforce a ban, that for 30 days whoever makes a petition to any god or man except to you, O king, should be thrown into the lions’ pit. (Daniel 6:7) It won’t matter what religion you are or even if you’re an Athiest. Worship the Wild Beast or start losing your family and friends one by one while you stand there motionless in shock as the life drains away from your loved ones. AS the members of Gog and Magog are gathered by the demonic forces to get ready for the Enforcement, there will be one people left. Those who are holding onto their integrity to the One True God which enrages Satan to Act:
You will say: “I will invade the land of unprotected settlements. I will come against those living in security, without disturbance, all of them living in settlements unprotected by walls, bars, or gates.” (Ezekiel 38:11) According to Bible Prophecy, it is Jehovah’s Anointed One that will Destroy Gog of Magog for coming after his Named People. The scriptures give us insight and a warning regarding to listening to instruction from the two spies whom gave specific directions to Rahab. “You should gather your father, your mother, your brothers, and all your father’s household with you into the house. Then if anyone goes out the doors of your house into the open, his blood will be on his own head, and we will be free from guilt. But if harm comes to anyone who remains with you in the house, his blood will be on our heads.” (Joshua 2:18-19)
  Let the scripture interpret scripture. Compare the Spies instruction to Rahab to the following:
Go, my people, enter your inner rooms, And shut your doors behind you. Hide yourself for a brief moment Until the wrath has passed by. (Isaiah 6:20) Rahab and her family were saved while those on the outside were destroyed. And sanctuary is promised to those who enter our congregations of inner rooms meaning they have a good standing with Jehovah. But notice the scripture that we often use for the great tribulation.
Jehovah said to him: “Go through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who are sighing and groaning over all the detestable things that are being done in the city.” And to the others he said in my hearing: “Go through the city after him and strike. Do not let your eye feel sorry, and do not feel any compassion.” (Ezekiel 9:4-5) The marking on the foreheads is the mark for survival. These ones keep on living through the great tribulation and enter into the new world as survivors known as the great crowd. But notice it happens at a time of ‘sighing and groaning over all the detestable things that are being done’. Also, notice where the slaughter of the wicked starts from? Old man, young man, virgin, little child, and women you should kill off completely. But do not go near to any man on whom there is the mark. You should start from my sanctuary. So they started with the elders who were in front of the house. (Ezekiel 9:6) Our current understanding of this scripture is that it occurs after the great tribulation begins which we believe is in the near future. So the term ‘My Sanctuary‘ may need some refining as to the meaning. It certainly has to do with ‘Pure Worship’ and if that is the case then the Congregation of God would be ‘My Sanctuary’. The Temple of God would be Jesus Christ and the 144,000. Also, the action of removing or the cutting off ‘started with the elders who were in front of the house’, those who willingly forsook the offering of worship services, and praise which began in 1919. (Matthew 13:37-42) Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. (Matthew 24:29) Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the conclusion of the system of things. (Matthew 13:40) Allow the scripture to guide you. There are two meanings, one, is in the literal sense after the period of the Last Days has ended which is coming to a conclusion now or second, it is Spiritual and happening at the Beginning of the Last Days in 1914. After all, an Arabic rendering applies to a Ruler being removed from their office of Rulership is that ‘his heaven has fallen‘ which happened to Satan being hurled out of the Heavens in 1914 which the World rejects today. Not to mention that Charles Taze Russell gave us divine warning that Daniel 12:1 would undergo fulfillment in 1914 as the End of the Gentile times.
  Indication and scripture points to 1914 and the Beginning as to ‘My Sanctuary’ started with the elders who were in front of the house in 1919! The elders in this sense were Unfaithful Brothers who rejected the Presence of Christ and became apostates to turn others away from the organization of the Faithful and Discreet Slave. The Book of Matthew continues, “Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24:30)
Again two meanings, if literal it would occur after the Last Days have concluded. But if Spiritual, the prophecy began unfolding in 1919. Why? Aren’t all the tribes of the earth beating themselves in grief today? Don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses grieve today because of the three horsemen? Not only does the World grieve the three horsemen, but do they not shun the Rider of the fourth horse whose Name is the Word of God? (Rev 3:20)
Wake Up O Sleeper! It’s very interesting when scripture reveals itself how people become so stubborn. “The sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood Before the coming of the great and awe-inspiring day of Jehovah.” (Joel 2:31) Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. (Matthew 24:29) And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book. (Daniel 12:1) 1914 or a future date? To claim we have not entered into a time of distress such as has not occurred since is to deny Prophecy. The Last Days of Satan’s System of things do not go on forever, they do and will come to their End!
“Go subduing in the midst of your enemies.” (Psalm 110:1- 2) Those enemies are not instantly destroyed but are bundled up to die a permanent death like that of Adam and Eve. The fiery furnace is symbolic speech for everlasting death. For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the PRESENCE of the Son of man will Be. (Matthew 24:38-39) It’s Spiritual…. otherwise you would have no need to prove yourself ready.
On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it. (Matthew 24:44) Three Phases of Christ’ Presence “As for me and my household, we shall serve Jehovah.” (Joshua 24:14-15) If you like Bible Based Videos please watch some @ Bible Teachings

I wonder if B.W. Schulz mentions this. He is a big Russell historian. I will have to check it out...

i have had that in my files for a very long time. the difference is, my copies are readable.
Unreadable “proofs” are by definition utter nonsense, only bluster .

@Many Miles Hey Miles, I understand that when we are dealing with a person who has such a different position from our own, it is easy to despair, and resort to confrontation. It takes a great deal of commitment and patience and determination to work backward, together, to discover our common ground, so that we can then work forward from that common ground to adjudicate rationally our fundamental points of disagreement. Otherwise, we’re many miles apart, and don’t have the necessary common ground (and common point of view) to address directly the question in a way that allows us to reach the same conclusion through a process of rational dialogue.
I think you have misunderstood what I was saying on the first point, perhaps I wasn't clear as I should of been. So let me try again with the help of what a friend wrote:
 
"Imagine that you are transported back to first century Palestine, and are standing before Jesus of Nazareth who has been performing miracles and teaching as if he speaks with the authority of God. He confronts you with a question “who do you say that I am?” What are the dynamics here? You have before you three factors:
1.) An apparently flesh and blood man claiming to speak with the authority of God
2.) Some amazing verifiable historical activities which are said to support this claim
3.) Yourself – a fallible human being who is being asked to answer the question
1.) Notice that without 1, there is no pressing decision that you need to make, because there would be no one claiming to speak with divine authority. If Jesus were to claim only to speak with common, human, fallible authority; you would have no reason to pay more attention to his interpretation of the Law and the Prophets than your own since he sports no claim to formal temple academic training. Even if he had such training, without his explicit (and shocking) claim to divine authority, he would only present another educated opinion, and surely there will be equally educated opinions which disagree with his exposition. The long and short of it is that, without 1, there is simply no DIVINE (as opposed to fallible) access to the content of revelation worth paying much attention to. There is only fallible theological opinion. If you are going – even in theory – to have non fallible access to a divine revelation; at the very minimum, you at least need something or someone making a claim to speak with divine (that is non fallible) authority. Hence, the surprise of the people (and the anger of his religious opponents) who recognize that; “he teaches as one with authority”, and NOT as the Scribes and Pharisees.
2.) If you have 1, but not 2, then you have nothing but a raw, unsubstantiated authority claim. Anyone can make such a claim, Jim Jones to David Koresh. Sure, one could go ahead and embrace such an authority claim (and unfortunately many have throughout history); but it is unreasonable to do so. On the other hand, notice – and this is crucial – that the miracles that Jesus of Nazareth performs, even if you encounter him risen from the dead; do not PROVE that he speaks with divine authority. That a lame man walks, or a blind man sees, or a man known to be dead rises from the grave, are surely extraordinary events; but they do not necessitate the conclusion that the one who effects such events speaks for God. What such events do is lend credence to the antecedent or consequent authority claim of Jesus of Nazareth. So, you have an authority claim from Jesus of Nazareth (“I speak for God) and a set of events which Jesus (or his followers) put forward as evidence that his claim is true. YOU are invited to connect the two in an act of faith – a reasonable act of faith – because it is clearly reasonable (but not necessary) to believe that the events do, in fact, verify the authority claim being made. Still, you must BELIEVE or make an “assent of faith” – you do not get the luxury of a proof. Besides, if you think real hard about it; what would it really take to constitute an absolute “proof” of a supernatural authority claim?.
3.) Now in light of the above, consider 3. You are NOT being asked in this scenario to go figure out theology or the de fide content of revelation. You are being asked to accept the authority claim of Jesus of Nazareth who claims to speak the divine truth. You are being given the two things necessary to put you in a position to make this life altering decision; namely the divine authority claim itself, and a set of evidence given in support of that claim. Still, you are not being given incontrovertible evidence, only probable evidence. If it were otherwise your salvation would not be based on any faith or trust at all. If his claim were supported by undeniable proofs, you would be forced – intellectually – to accept those claims. What does Jesus ask of you? He asks for your faith. He does not ask for an irrational, fideistic faith; since he provides evidences for his claim. Still, all the evidence in front of you might admit of an alternate interpretation. Many of Jesus contemporaries, who have experienced everything as you have, WILL reject the evidence as supportive of the claim. Nothing forces your intellect to make the connection between the events and the claim. Still, he asks if you will be a believer or an unbeliever. If you make an act of faith (in reality you will do so with the assistance of divine grace); then you embrace WHATSOEVER Jesus tells you. He will hand on to you the de fide content of divine revelation – you will not need to construct it whole-cloth. If you refuse to believe, you turn your back on the only possible, non fallible, access to the content of divine revelation on the market since most do not make an divine authority claim (the temple academics) and those that do (such as an occasional Jewish zealot), offer no evidence which might lend any credence to their claim. You must either go away empty handed so far as any hope of “getting at” divine revelation is concerned, or else embrace Jesus because he “has the words of eternal life”.
The entire dynamic tension of the gospel accounts could be summed up as a conflict between Jesus of Nazareth and the Jewish religious authorities ABOUT the proper interpretation of the Law and the Prophets. Introducing novel meanings is exactly what the religious authorities of Jesus’ day accused him of; and it is not hard to see why. Consider the following (paraphrased comments of Jesus): “you know neither the scriptures nor . . .”; “if you knew the scriptures you would know me – for they speak of me”; “you have heard it said – BUT I SAY to you”; “I tell you today that this prophecy is fulfilled in your midst”; “before Abraham was, I am”; “have you been so long the teacher of Israel and yet you do not know these things?”. Then we could talk about the removal, by the apostles, of the requirement of circumcision; the admission of gentiles into the faith, etc. We see all this as natural and “obvious” because we live 2000 years removed from the heat of the events. But imagine yourself as a first century Jew who has studiously poured over the writings of the Law and the Prophets. Who is this carpenter from Nazareth, without any formal theological training; introducing, strange novel meanings against the “clear” teachings of the Law and the Prophets. What an arrogant, authoritarian bluster. As if, the meaning of the text could be twisted to encompass such odd notions. Does he actually think that the truth laid down by Moses and the prophets in out holy books somehow “develops” or admits “alternate” meanings? Does he really expect us to believe the HE has the proper, perfect, infallible interpretation of the text? Really? We are to accept the teaching of this carpenter over against all the exegetical skill and training of the scribes? So he does some miracles. It seems entirely more likely that his power derives from an evil source, rather than from God, ESPECIALLY given the novel and even blasphemous nature of his scriptural twists and malignancies."
 
 

Contrary to popular belief, a sincere witness would not struggle to respond to well-founded questions, provided that these questions are rooted in scripture rather than mere personal opinion or misinterpretation.

…
 

@George88 George, I can understand your perspective. I’m actually coming to the table with a stronger view than probably everyone here. I have said before that I do not trust the Governing Body because I think that the elders and overseers have better knowledge of doctrine and theology than other Brothers I respect in person and here on the forum. My experience has led me to believe that some Jehovah’s Witnesses have more in-depth knowledge of some topics and specifics than many elders, and perhaps even than some overseers and Governing Body members. But that is irrelevant. I trust the Governing Body because I believe its authority is God-given, not attained by human study or genius. Thus its authority is charismatic, not academic. And I believe that because it’s the only basis I’m aware of for distinguishing, in a principled way, between an authentic authoritative interpretation and human theological opinions. So I have chosen in good conscience to accept the Governing Body’s claim for itself. That means that, when a theological opinion of mine turns out to conflict with their teaching, I conclude that I’m the one who’s wrong, not the Governing Body. So they enjoy the presumption truth and my sincere efforts to assimilate their teaching
In light of your other comment:
The easy way to dismiss those who come to disagree with us is to chalk it up to something less than noble in them. The more appropriate, and charitable response is to address the reasons, evidence, arguments, etc., the other person give for *why* they think their position is true, and our position false. That's the essence of rational dialogue. But deconstruction is a kind of ad hominem (i.e. "you only believe that because you ..."), and hence it can be used both directions, with no progress forward toward mutual agreement. That's why it is better not to make use of deconstruction at all, and always assume (unless given good reason to believe otherwise) that the other person is motivated primarily by a desire for the truth.
But I understand your concern.  If I have a submissive attitude to a problematic teaching I will be willing to engage in further study of the issue with others here. Perhaps my questions are the consequence of poor education as a witness, and that is my fault not of others. If the teaching in question is in regards to matters of morality, than I should examine my conscience. This means asking myself some difficult questions regarding the nature of the difficulties I am having with a given teaching. Am I struggling with this teaching because I cannot discover in it the will of Jehovah,  or is it because this teaching, if true, would demand some real change?  Believe me that I constantly consider whether my difficulties lie not with a particular teaching but with the very idea of a teaching office.

Well done……now I have a migraine 

Well I’m preety sure Eve had mammary glands as she had a womb…but I like the rest of your post.

I’ll say it….he would come under the mosaic Law and when Christ died faithful…..he would then become under Christs Law….and as Christ instructed Peter to put away his sword thus he would say to Cornelius….thus he would be just like you and me…completely neutral..and looking for another job.
 I find it so frustrating when something is so simple…seems so complex to such seemingly highly intelligent people…I’m coming to the conclusion that I must be more of the mind of Einstein that I ever realized.

I’ll say it….he would come under the mosaic Law and when Christ died faithful…..he would then become under Christs Law….and as Christ instructed Peter to put away his sword thus he would say to Cornelius….thus he would be just like you and me…completely neutral..and looking for another job.
 I find it so frustrating when something is so simple…seems so complex to such seemingly highly intelligent people…I’m coming to the conclusion that I must be more of the mind of Einstein that I ever realized.

I’ll say it….he would come under the mosaic Law and when Christ died faithful…..he would then become under Christs Law….and as Christ instructed Peter to put away his sword thus he would say to Cornelius….thus he would be just like you and me…completely neutral..and looking for another job.
 I find it so frustrating when something is so simple…seems so complex to such seemingly highly intelligent people…I’m coming to the conclusion that I must be more of the mind of Einstein that I ever realized.

Not necessary to rethink it. We don't have any reason to think that Eve or Adam drank from Eve's breasts. Only that her children would have, and that was outside the Garden, as I stated previously. So we still have no reason to think that milk was an important part of the diet of Adam and Eve at the time of dietary decree in the garden. Not important enough to mention. They may have drunk milk too, maybe inside the garden, and maybe when they were outside. It should have been common knowledge that humans and other mammals drank milk and water, and they may have inadvertently breathed in a bug or two while sleeping. But the part the Bible included as if the most important points about their diet was about how the fruit of [almost] every tree would serve as food for them. When they were outside the garden we have additional vegetation mentioned as food, e.g. grains/bread. And then the only outstanding difference in the dietary decree to Noah is that it was the first mention of a diet containing meat.  We can make of that whatever we will, and I agree that no position on this is definitive.
 
Not exactly. Having permission to gather the food the animals ate is not necessarily the same as permission for Noah himself to eat those same foods. The Bible's silence on what is forbidden or permitted only means silence on the matter: not necessarily permitted, and not necessarily forbidden.
If you were implying that Cornelius must have been following Noahide requirements only known to readers of the Jewish Bible, then surely Noah might have understood the ideal human diet in a (at least currently) common way of understanding the dietary decree from Adam's time. And, per the Bible's timeline, Noah's had several living relatives who may have spoken to Adam personally, including Noah's own father. 

Well done……now I have a migraine 

Two can play THIS WORD SALAD, Annie.
In the perplexing realm of circular discourse, where words pirouette without purpose and sentences meander aimlessly, we find ourselves trapped in a linguistic labyrinth of unparalleled absurdity. Picture a discourse so circuitous that it makes a dizzying carousel seem like a straight line. As we embark on this linguistic rollercoaster, we must prepare to navigate the convoluted contours of verbosity.
In the grand tapestry of talking in circles, the artistry lies in crafting sentences that orbit meaning without ever daring to land. Words, like mischievous acrobats, perform feats of linguistic gymnastics, contorting themselves into shapes unfamiliar to logic. It's a parade of paradoxes, where coherence is the elusive unicorn and clarity the rarest of gems.
As we delve into the heart of this linguistic carnival, one may be tempted to believe that profundity resides in the obscurity of expression. Alas, it's a masquerade where the emperor wears robes woven from the threads of ambiguity, and the courtiers nod sagely, pretending to decipher the indecipherable. Verbose vortices suck meaning into their whirlpools, leaving behind a vacuum of understanding.
Each sentence, a maze with no exit, beckons the listener to wander in perpetual confusion. It's a dance of diction where the music is composed of vague allusions and the choreography an intricate ballet of equivocation. Attempting to grasp the central theme is akin to chasing shadows, for just when you think you've caught hold of meaning, it slips through your fingers like ethereal mist.
In this topsy-turvy world of circular dialogue, the destination remains elusive, and the journey becomes an endless loop of linguistic acrobatics. It's as if words have donned roller skates, careening wildly through the terrain of syntax, leaving punctuation in disarray and grammar in a state of disrepair. A sentence may start with the promise of lucidity, only to spiral into the abyss of convolution.
To converse in circles is to revel in the absurdity of language, to embrace a carnival of confusion where coherence is sacrilege and simplicity a heretical notion. So, let us celebrate the linguistic mayhem, where words frolic in a field of lexical anarchy, and meaning is but a distant echo in the cacophony of circumlocution.
Wah de do DAH!

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.

While you are “away” for a few days, Many Miles, be on the lookout for viable carrion to scrape up, and cook up, and actually eat.
Try to choose something that is not covered and infested with flies, parasites, bacteria and ants.
Even if you cook it the toxins will still be there … you know … the pee and poop from bacteria and  viruses. Toxins.
Or … you could play Russian Roulette, which will give you about the same odds of survival, and only hurts for a microsecond.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit….but that’s okay..I know it must be hard to know I licked ya!!

Looking forward to your next post on this and I’m Terribly sorry about your dad. also feel awfully sorry for your mum..so many losses on all fronts …too sad too sad….

Hadn’t thought of that. Even if Aaron had caught Moses’ flash of temper, he might have thought, ‘I owe him one.’